Debates

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350159010' post='1169605']
The point I have been making, is that these guys are interpreting as they see fit, enforcing how they see it. How can you not see the flaw in that? Interpreting laws is the job of the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

Can you cite an example or two of any "czar" in any administration, past or present, that has flouted the letter of the law? Of course the President's Cabinet serves at his disposal. What you don't want is a bunch of yes men surrounding you. I have a book suggestion for you: "Team Of Rivals: The Political Genius Of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Goodwin. Its a fascinating account of Lincoln's Presidency and his appointees, many of them his political adversaries, and how he managed to make them all work together.

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1350160614' post='1169608']
[b]Can you cite an example or two of any "czar" in any administration, past or present, that has flouted the letter of the law?[/b] Of course the President's Cabinet serves at his disposal. What you don't want is a bunch of yes men surrounding you. I have a book suggestion for you: "Team Of Rivals: The Political Genius Of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Goodwin. Its a fascinating account of Lincoln's Presidency and his appointees, many of them his political adversaries, and how he managed to make them all work together.
[/quote]

I just asked him that, and the reply was that it would all be covered up anyway so "how would you know?"..

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350159010' post='1169605']
Right, the Executive branch executes the laws, but they aren't supposed to have free reign to interpret or change anything. It's not a matter of giving an example of an instance, because for one, if something happened more than likely most of the United States doesn't know it happened. Secondly, this policy of having Lone Rangers that have no supervision except Obama, is flawed. Like I said earlier, some of the Czars report to other people, some don't.

So basically if you have these guys running around with a duty to cover certain aspects and problems in society, with no one to report to but Obama. Do you think with everything that is Obama's plate as President that these people REALLY report to him everything they plan on doing? If you do, your eyes are closed. The point I have been making, is that these guys are interpreting as they see fit, enforcing how they see it. How can you not see the flaw in that? Interpreting laws is the job of the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

Of course it's possible for the President to break the law.. There is no way to stop that. Nixon didn't need to appoint a "Czar" to bug The Watergate Hotel. That's why congress has the ability to impeach a president who has overstepped his authority or broken laws. A Czar is just a cabinet member with a special title meant to inspire a feeling of "not fucking around".. It's generally just a point of policy focus of the administration.. Like appointing a "Youth Fitness Czar" to try an implement programs to increase youth fitness. The Czar doesn't have any special power. I guess he could send out black vans to abduct children and take then to "fitness camps" which were really slave labor camps in Idaho.

I think you are getting stuck on the name, and I question your understanding of checks and balances, the separation of powers and the function of each branch of government.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1350161255' post='1169610']
Of course it's possible for the President to break the law.. There is no way to stop that. Nixon didn't need to appoint a "Czar" to bug The Watergate Hotel. That's why congress has the ability to impeach a president who has overstepped his authority or broken laws. A Czar is just a cabinet member with a special title meant to inspire a feeling of "not fucking around".. It's generally just a point of policy focus of the administration.. Like appointing a "Youth Fitness Czar" to try an implement programs to increase youth fitness. The Czar doesn't have any special power. I guess he could send out black vans to abduct children and take then to "fitness camps" which were really slave labor camps in Idaho.

I think you are getting stuck on the name, and I question your understanding of checks and balances, the separation of powers and the function of each branch of government.
[/quote]

Have you looked at the titles of Obama's Czars/Poker buddies?

[b]Mideast Peace Czar – George Mitchell. [/b]I doubt he'll be building any playgrounds or creating physical fitness test for schools.

[b]Terrorism Czar – John Brennan[/b]. I think that one is self explanatory.

Look I know some of the Czars have some pretty simplistic titles, and seem to be nothing but a gopher boy/girl between the President and some other department. Regardless of how much power these individuals really have, some of their duties sound redundant. What is their REAL purpose? If they really don't do much, why is there 32 of them making $200,000 a year each?

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1350160614' post='1169608']
Can you cite an example or two of any "czar" in any administration, past or present, that has flouted the letter of the law? Of course the President's Cabinet serves at his disposal. What you don't want is a bunch of yes men surrounding you. I have a book suggestion for you: "Team Of Rivals: The Political Genius Of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Goodwin. Its a fascinating account of Lincoln's Presidency and his appointees, many of them his political adversaries, and how he managed to make them all work together.
[/quote]

You guys are stuck on the title of the position and not the liberties that come with it. By having these Czars over certain categories, isn't that was a Congressional committee is often responsible for? In all honest do we really know "everything" that happens behind the scenes in politics? They are exactly going to send out pressers of on of these guys does something wrong.

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350162765' post='1169613']
You guys are stuck on the title of the position and not the liberties that come with it. By having these Czars over certain categories, isn't that was a Congressional committee is often responsible for? In all honest do we really know "everything" that happens behind the scenes in politics? They are exactly going to send out pressers of on of these guys does something wrong.
[/quote]

You're the one stuck on the title, as you have failed to cite any liberties that come with these positions.. There is no denying that there is a good argument that there are too many cabinet appointments, and that it is wasteful government bloat. But you are making claims you can;t back up.. Could you please explain how the president appointing cabinet is unconstitutional? Could you please explain any special powers these "Czars" have that somehow bypasses checks and balances? Could you illustrate in any way how anything any Czar has done is illegal, or usurping the role or power of another branch of government?

Right now you are basically just stamping your feet, pointing and shouting "But, black helicopters!"

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1350163286' post='1169614']
You're the one stuck on the title, as you have failed to cite any liberties that come with these positions.. There is no denying that there is a good argument that there are too many cabinet appointments, and that it is wasteful government bloat. But you are making claims you can;t back up.. Could you please explain how the president appointing cabinet is unconstitutional? Could you please explain any special powers these "Czars" have that somehow bypasses checks and balances? Could you illustrate in any way how anything any Czar has done is illegal, or usurping the role or power of another branch of government?

Right now you are basically just stamping your feet, pointing and shouting "But, black helicopters!"
[/quote]

Obviously you haven't read this whole thread, and I really don't like repeating myself every time a new person decides to jump in the conversation.

The title Czar must have significance if it was brought into legislation right?
[quote]

House Republicans introduced a bill today to eliminate Obama’s 39 czars.
[url="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136487-republicans-introduce-bill-to-eliminate-presidential-czars"]The Hill[/url] reported:[indent]
A group of House Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday to rein in the various “czars” in the Obama administration.
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans introduced legislation to do away with the informal, paid advisers President Obama has employed over the past two years.
The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the [b]39 czars[/b] Obama has employed during his administration.
The bill defines a czar as “a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President” who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.[/indent]
[/quote]

This is from January 2011.

Here is an article none of you will recognize or agree with because it isn't kissing Obama's ass or liberal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/21/house-republicans-eliminate-obama-czars/

Just a few excerpts for the lazy:

[quote]"Hardworking American families should not be forced to pay millions of dollars to fund these czars, who are implementing radical policies under the [b]cloak of darkness[/b]," Scalise said in a written statement. [/quote]

[quote]
-- No more [b]"secret" meetings[/b] on the health care law. In addition to the "special master" post, the Scalise amendment would target the [url="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/white-house.htm#r_src=ramp"]White House[/url] Office of Health Reform. The longtime director of that office, Nancy-Ann DeParle, was just promoted to White House deputy chief of staff.
DeParle's responsibilities were numerous. She was primarily tasked with coordinating the development of the law's policies across the Executive Branch. But on the House floor, Scalise suggested the "ObamaCare czar" helped facilitate too many [b]backroom deals[/b] in the process.
[/quote]


Are you getting it yet? These positions gives these people the ability to do unconstitutional things, like creating and interpreting law. That's not part of the Executive Branches responsibilities. I also highlights where it is being pointed out that things are being done behind the scenes. Just like I said.

I don't know why I am arguing politics on here. It's usually a subject I tend to avoid because it is inherent and and inbred into a person personality.

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350164164' post='1169615']
Obviously you haven't read this whole thread, and I really don't like repeating myself every time a new person decides to jump in the conversation.

The title Czar must have significance if it was brought into legislation right?


This is from January 2011.

Here is an article none of you will recognize or agree with because it isn't kissing Obama's ass or liberal.

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/21/house-republicans-eliminate-obama-czars/"]http://www.foxnews.c...te-obama-czars/[/url]

Just a few excerpts for the lazy:






Are you getting it yet? These positions gives these people the ability to do unconstitutional things, like creating and interpreting law. That's not part of the Executive Branches responsibilities. I also highlights where it is being pointed out that things are being done behind the scenes. Just like I said.

I don't know why I am arguing politics on here. It's usually a subject I tend to avoid because it is inherent and and inbred into a person personality.
[/quote]

So your "evidence" is propaganda containing unsubstantiated allegations of a vague nature and political grandstanding.

Got ya.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1350164404' post='1169616']
So your "evidence" is propaganda containing unsubstantiated allegations of a vague nature and political grandstanding.

Got ya.
[/quote]

Right, from a national news source and an amendment brought forth in Congress, followed by facts that are part of the amendment.

What do you want me to do? Go find the most liberal website out there and argue my point to you with that? Dude, that's asinine and ignorant. I just presented you with FACTS and you thumbed your nose at them as if you have some better position to provide pertinent, valuable facts to this argument that have more credibility than a member of Congress? Are you delusional?

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350164817' post='1169617']
Right, from a national news source and an amendment brought forth in Congress, followed by facts that are part of the amendment.

What do you want me to do? Go find the most liberal website out there and argue my point to you with that? Dude, that's asinine and ignorant. I just presented you with FACTS and you thumbed your nose at them as if you have some better position to provide pertinent, valuable facts to this argument that have more credibility than a member of Congress? Are you delusional?
[/quote]

You are forming your understanding of reality according to bills proposed to congress? Do you really need me to create a list of insane legislation that has been proposed to congress that flies in the face of any semblance of rational thought? Do we need to discuss the viability of an elevator to the moon?

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350164817' post='1169617']
What do you want me to do?
[/quote]

There's a whole ecosystem of discourse of which you are completely unaware. That's okay, because one of the exciting aspects of life is to be an explorer, whether it be geographical or intellectual. My suggestion to you is to look for pathways to understanding that you enjoy which [b]also[/b] provide a rational substratum for intelligent discussion. That means not stopping your investigations with the tin-foil hat crowd or with the proto-demagogues who actively seek to take advantage of the functional ignorance of the populace. The most important thing to the Beck and O'Reilly crowd is their wallets--and how much of your money they can put into them. That's why they have all these crappy pseudo-intellectual books on the market, many of which I suspect are ghost-written.

If you are interested in history, then do some real history study. If you are interested in the Constitution, then focus on any number of the hundreds of well-written, thoughtfully-conceived monographs on the topic. Etc... for other fields you are interested in.

I don't mean to be rude here (and that's a disclaimer I ought to use because sometimes I do mean to be rude) but you have walked through an entire minefield of historical and civic misconceptions in this thread with the naivete of someone who clearly doesn't know the terrain. Again, that's okay, the best journeys begin with those first steps.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1350165677' post='1169620']
You are forming your understanding of reality according to bills proposed to congress? Do you really need me to create a list of insane legislation that has been proposed to congress that flies in the face of any semblance of rational thought? Do we need to discuss the viability of an elevator to the moon?
[/quote]

Once again you fail. You have yet to prove anything I have said is false. You have yet to prove anything I have posted as false. All you can do is throw blanket objects on the basis that you don't agree with it...and of course your bias in the issue.

You have to have the worst logic I have seen a in a long time. I wish I could actually draw the logic out for you. So, because some Congressman in the past helped to draw up a bill that you thought was utterly ridiculous, from that point forward all amendments draw up in Congress are inherently ridiculous with absolutely no truths or value. Or only the ones you don't agree with or has information that you don't like, are wrong, the other ones are right.

I've been holding back from going into long drawn out sited rants and using the education I have gotten through the years, because I come here for the enjoyment of it. I guess that is why have avoided the politics forums so much. It's people like you that I have to draw a road map in crayons with bright pictures and treats along the way, to understand something as simple is this. I have my beliefs, that I have obtained from reading and watching material that caught my eye. You have gotten your beliefs from the newspaper page hanging up in front of the urinal you were using at the time. Hey whatever works for you, however wrong you might be, good luck with that. I will make one suggestion, each time you go to the men's room use a different urinal, so you can get some new material.

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350166589' post='1169622']
Once again you fail. You have yet to prove anything I have said is false. You have yet to prove anything I have posted as false. All you can do is throw blanket objects on the basis that you don't agree with it...and of course your bias in the issue.

You have to have the worst logic I have seen a in a long time. I wish I could actually draw the logic out for you. So, because some Congressman in the past helped to draw up a bill that you thought was utterly ridiculous, from that point forward all amendments draw up in Congress are inherently ridiculous with absolutely no truths or value. Or only the ones you don't agree with or has information that you don't like, are wrong, the other ones are right.

I've been holding back from going into long drawn out sited rants and using the education I have gotten through the years, because I come here for the enjoyment of it. I guess that is why have avoided the politics forums so much. It's people like you that I have to draw a road map in crayons with bright pictures and treats along the way, to understand something as simple is this. I have my beliefs, that I have obtained from reading and watching material that caught my eye. You have gotten your beliefs from the newspaper page hanging up in front of the urinal you were using at the time. Hey whatever works for you, however wrong you might be, good luck with that. I will make one suggestion, each time you go to the men's room use a different urinal, so you can get some new material.
[/quote]

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350166434' post='1169621']
There's a whole ecosystem of discourse of which you are completely unaware. That's okay, because one of the exciting aspects of life is to be an explorer, whether it be geographical or intellectual. My suggestion to you is to look for pathways to understanding that you enjoy which [b]also[/b] provide a rational substratum for intelligent discussion. That means not stopping your investigations with the tin-foil hat crowd or with the proto-demagogues who actively seek to take advantage of the functional ignorance of the populace. The most important thing to the Beck and O'Reilly crowd is their wallets--and how much of your money they can put into them. That's why they have all these crappy pseudo-intellectual books on the market, many of which I suspect are ghost-written.

If you are interested in history, then do some real history study. If you are interested in the Constitution, then focus on any number of the hundreds of well-written, thoughtfully-conceived monographs on the topic. Etc... for other fields you are interested in.

I don't mean to be rude here (and that's a disclaimer I ought to use because sometimes I do mean to be rude) but you have walked through an entire minefield of historical and civic misconceptions in this thread with the naivete of someone who clearly doesn't know the terrain. Again, that's okay, the best journeys begin with those first steps.
[/quote]

If I was sitting here contemplating how to be the first man on the moon, I might agree. But since my thoughts and beliefs aren't mine, and mine alone I don't feel disrespected. History is just that, history, even though some would say it is somewhat fluid because events can be interpreted differently depending what side of the fence you are on.

I was asked at same point in the thread to do 2 things:

1. Show where the term "Czar" has been officially used and defined. Check! Both were done so in the Congressional Amendment I posted here.

2. Show how these "Czars" are unconstitutional. Check! They are appointed to an informal cabinet position without all of them getting outside confirmation from the President. They have also usurped the power of Congressional committees by attending summits and taking on lead chair. This isn't even mentioning the backdoor deals they are making including meetings with interest groups.

Obama runs on the idea of putting more money in the pocket of the people, but all along it seems like he's creating more useless bureaucratic jobs. What sense does that make?

[T-Dub]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1350160706' post='1169609']
I just asked him that, and the reply was that it would all be covered up anyway so "how would you know?"..
[/quote]

The world can be such an exciting place if you use that logic. Obama is a space alien that eats puppies. The Federal Reserve is run by gnomes from the center of the Earth. The moon is made of delicious smoked gouda.

Prove me wrong!

[Lewdog]

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1350169189' post='1169625']
The world can be such an exciting place if you use that logic. Obama is a space alien that eats puppies. The Federal Reserve is run by gnomes from the center of the Earth. The moon is made of delicious smoked gouda.

Prove me wrong!
[/quote]

I showed concrete evidence that things are going on behind the scenes without following government standards and rules. If you don't want to agree with it, fine. The fact that you responded to any posts in the first place means you have read some or all of it. I can't make you open your eyes, but I present the truth to you. I've done my part.

[T-Dub]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350169476' post='1169627']
I showed concrete evidence that things are going on behind the scenes without following government standards and rules.
[/quote]

Fascinating! In other news; water is wet!

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350169476' post='1169627']
I showed concrete evidence that things are going on behind the scenes without following government standards and rules. If you don't want to agree with it, fine. The fact that you responded to any posts in the first place means you have read some or all of it. I can't make you open your eyes, but I present the truth to you. I've done my part.
[/quote]

What concrete evidence? You listed a report from FOX news with vague accusations of general misconduct, and a bill proposed by house republicans which like MANY such things was done to make a political point. There are no concrete accusations let alone concrete evidence.

[CincyInDC]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1350157897' post='1169601']
... Could you give me an example of a "Czar" usurping the constitution or "law of the land" in some way?
[/quote]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1350160614' post='1169608']
Can you cite an example or two of any "czar" in any administration, past or present, that has flouted the letter of the law? ...
[/quote]

Former attorney general Alberto Gonzales made it legal to torture, provided the basis for habeas corpus to be taken away, and made it ok to spy on Americans...but he didn't have the title Czar, so it mustn't have been a problem.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1350192860' post='1169653']
What concrete evidence? You listed a report from FOX news with vague accusations of general misconduct, and a bill proposed by house republicans which like MANY such things was done to make a political point. There are no concrete accusations let alone concrete evidence.
[/quote]

How is it just for a political point? You do realize the Amendment would affect not only the current administration that is Democrat, but ALL further administrations Democrat OR Republican. Can't someone see something wrong happening in politics and try to do something about it without being partisan?

[T-Dub]

[img]http://www.pitch.com/imager/wont-somebody-please-think-of-the-children-five-songs-that-have-kids-voi/b/original/2558267/ca1d/think_of_the_children.jpg[/img]

[Jamie_B]

[quote][size=5][color=#000000][font=georgia]The Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh[/font][/color][/size]

[color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
I've never thought much of Joe Biden. But man, did he get it right in [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3roG09O6T4"]last night's debate[/url], and not just because he walloped sniveling little Paul Ryan on the facts. What he got absolutely right, despite what you might read this morning (many outlets are [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/vice-presidential-debate-bidens-smirk-causes-mixed-reactions/2012/10/12/a1e0b1d6-1475-11e2-bf18-a8a596df4bee_story.html"]criticizing [/url]Biden's dramatic excesses), was his tone. Biden did absolutely roll his eyes, snort, laugh derisively and throw his hands up in the air whenever Ryan trotted out his little beady-eyed BS-isms.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
But he [i]should[/i] have! He was absolutely right to be doing it. We all should be doing it. That includes all of us in the media, and not just paid obnoxious-opinion-merchants like me, but so-called "objective" news reporters as well. We should all be rolling our eyes, and scoffing and saying, "Come back when you're serious."[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn't even a real platform, it's a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda – cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney's 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC's Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:[/size][/font][/color][indent]
MS. RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well – (chuckles) –
MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet again to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics, or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters?[/indent][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn't have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:[/size][/font][/color][indent]
REP. RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the –[/indent][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
"We want to have bipartisan agreements?" This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, "That'd be a first for a Republican congress." Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
I'm convinced Raddatz wouldn't have pounced on Ryan if he hadn't trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we've all been living, Mars? It's one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn't followed politics that much and doesn't know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line. Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:[/size][/font][/color][indent]
MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you're doing?[/indent][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
So now the ball is in Ryan's court. The answer he gives is astounding:[/size][/font][/color][indent]
REP. RYAN: Look – look at what Mitt – look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. What we're saying is here's our framework: Lower tax rates 20 percent – we raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion [dollars] in loopholes and deductions. And so what we're saying is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation –[/indent][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
Three things about this answer:[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz's yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework – "Lower taxes by 20 percent" – and then they'll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
So then, after that, there's this exchange.[/size][/font][/color][indent]
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can I translate?
REP. RYAN: – so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here's why I'm saying this. What we're saying is here's a framework –
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I hope I'm going to get time to respond to this.
REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress –
MS. RADDATZ: I – you'll get time.
REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful – look –
MS. RADDATZ: No specifics, yeah.[/indent][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
Raddatz did exactly the right thing. She asked a yes-or-no question, had a politician try to run the lamest kind of game on her – and when he was done, she called him on it, coming right back to the question and translating for viewers: "No specifics."[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
Think about what that means. Mitt Romney is running for president – for [i]president! [/i]– promising an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without offering any details about how that's going to be paid for. Forget being battered by the press, he and his little sidekick Ryan should both be tossed off the playing field for even trying something like that. This race for the White House, this isn't some frat prank. This is serious. This is for grownups, for God's sake.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
If you're going to offer an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without explaining how it's getting paid for, hell, why stop there? Why not just offer everyone over 18 a 1965 Mustang? Why not promise every child a [url="https://www.google.com/shopping/product/1766812430151690068?q=zagnut&hl=en&prmd=imvns&sqi=2&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7552bd4a238dcccb&bpcl=35243188&biw=2144&bih=1131&tch=1&ech=1&psi=8iJ4UJqKL4X20gGzlYCYCg.1350050548405.3&sa=X&ei=Ci94UOrmGbCC0QH0rYHACQ&ved=0CFYQ8wIwAA"]Zagnut [/url]and an Xbox, or compatible mates for every lonely single person?[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
Sometimes in journalism I think we take the objectivity thing too far. We think being fair means giving equal weight to both sides of every argument. But sometimes in the zeal to be objective, reporters get confused. You can't report the Obama tax plan and the Romney tax plan in the same way, because only one of them is really a plan, while the other is actually not a plan at all, but an electoral gambit.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
The Romney/Ryan ticket decided, with incredible cynicism, that that they were going to promise this massive tax break, not explain how to pay for it, and then just hang on until election day, knowing that mostof the political press would let it skate, or at least not take a dump all over it when explaining it to the public. Unchallenged, and treated in print and on the air as though it were the same thing as a real plan, a 20 percent tax cut sounds pretty good to most Americans. Hell, it sounds good to me.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
The proper way to report such a tactic is to bring to your coverage exactly the feeling that Biden brought to the debate last night: contempt and amazement. We in the press should be offended by what Romney and Ryan are doing – we should take professional offense that any politician would try to whisk such a gigantic lie past us to our audiences, and we should take patriotic offense that anyone is trying to seize the White House using such transparently childish and dishonest tactics.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
I've never been a Joe Biden fan. After four years, I'm not the biggest Barack Obama fan, either (and I'll get into why on that score later). But they're at least credible as big-league politicians. So much of the Romney/Ryan plan is so absurdly junior league, it's so far off-Broadway, it's practically in New Jersey.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
Paul Ryan, a leader in the most aggressively and mindlessly partisan Congress in history, preaching [i]bipartisanship[/i]? A private-equity parasite, Mitt Romney, who wants to enact a massive tax cut and pay for it without touching his own personal fortune-guaranteeing deduction, the [url="http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/01/24/mitt-romneys-sweetest-tax-break-the-dirty-little-secret-of-car/"]carried-interest tax break[/url] – which keeps his own taxes below 15 percent despite incomes above $20 million?[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]
The Romney/Ryan platform makes sense, and is not laughable, in only one context: if you're a multi-millionaire and you recognize that this is the only way to sell your agenda to mass audiences. But if you're not one of those rooting gazillionaires, you should laugh, you should roll your eyes, and it doesn't matter if you're the Vice President or an ABC reporter or a toll operator. You should laugh, because this stuff is a joke, and we shouldn't take it seriously.[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]




[color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]Read more: [url="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-vice-presidential-debate-joe-biden-was-right-to-laugh-20121012#ixzz29HbeRzjG"]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-vice-presidential-debate-joe-biden-was-right-to-laugh-20121012#ixzz29HbeRzjG[/url][/size][/font][/color]

[Lewdog]

Rollingstone? Really? I can't quote stats and fact from Glenn Beck but you can quote an article from a music magazine that is clearly liberal biased?

From the VP debate you can clearly see Biden is more comfortable in front of the camera. He probably should be. He is an elder statesman politician that is about to finish up his first term as the Vice President. Though he clearly seemed more prepared as well, he came across smug, and bullish. He often interrupted Ryan, which he should have known wasn't proper debate form, and often made sighs, postures, and gestures that screamed "look at me!" As the camera panned on Biden while Ryan was speaking at times, you couldn't tell if he was the smart kid in class waving his hand at the teach to give an answer, or if he was hailing a New York taxi cab.

It will be interesting to see how the rest of the election works itself out.

[Jamie_B]

uhm here is the difference, Tabbi stated he is bias, he even calls himself a "[color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]paid obnoxious-opinion-merchants" [/background][/size][/font][/color]


now with regard to the financial stuff he is absolutely worth paying attention to though, for me he and Dylan Rattigan have some of the most well thought out lucid explanations of things

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='CincyInDC' timestamp='1350196969' post='1169654']
Former attorney general Alberto Gonzales made it legal to torture, provided the basis for habeas corpus to be taken away, and made it ok to spy on Americans...but he didn't have the title Czar, so it mustn't have been a problem.
[/quote]

Don't let facts get in the way of ignorant ranting...