Monday, March 17, 2008

Juan Williams on Laura's show nailing Wright

by Pauli

Presently, Juan Williams from NPR is on Laura Ingraham's show discussing Jeremiah Wright, Obama's old preacher, and saying that Obama must respond better than he has to the hate and racism. Good for him.


Bookmark and Share

Posted by Pauli at 3/17/2008 10:42:00 AM

Labels: ,

35 comments:

  1. Andy NowickiMarch 17, 2008 at 11:13 AM

    This is old news, and irrelevant. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama, but who gives a **** what his preacher says about anything? I suspect the Clinton's are behind this story's rehashing. I'm not sure why talk radio wants to do the bidding of the Clintons. Won't be talk radio's first strategic blunder.

    ReplyDelete
  2. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM

    the big story of the day is not obama's preacher but the fact that we now have socialism for rich bankers, see the Bear Stearns bailout. Privatize the Gain, Socialize the Losses baby! seriously, we should be calling our congressmen. wall street and now the Fed are nothing but an organized crime syndicate.

    and when you hear Secretary Paulson say "we need" to "stabilize the markets", that means "we need to keep rich people rich and maintain the status quo."

    please buy some gold now if you haven't already. it's not too late.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PauliMarch 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM

    Obama could try saying "Who gives a **** what my preacher says" and I dare him.

    Kathleen is 100% right about gold -- I bought some several months back and I'm up 9%. As Paris Hilton would say, "That's HOT."

    ReplyDelete
  4. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 12:40 PM

    write your congressperson, here is what i wrote:

    Dear [insert congressperson], Congress needs to stop allowing taxpayer bailouts of rich bankers on Wall Street. An incompetent bank like Bear STearns should NOT be bailed out by taxpayers. In every other industry in this country, incompetent businesses are allowed to fail.
    Why is Wall Street different?

    When I hear Treasury Secretary Paulson says "we need to stabilize the markets", what he is really saying is "we need to make sure today's rich people stay rich". That is UnAmerican, and prevents potentially brilliant new bankers from rescuing the system from the inside. Since when did the motto of Wall Street become "Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Losses"?

    Congress needs to stop this now. If our economy needs to be shaken up, then let it happen. That is how capitalism works best. We need new blood on Wall Street, not taxpayer financed oligarchs.

    Thank you, Kathleen R

    ReplyDelete
  5. PatrickMarch 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM

    Actually it is not a taxpayer bailout. The Fed just creates cash out of thin air. This is harmful as well, but is not as obvious.

    Also, they don't answer to Congress so writing letters will accomplish nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 3:10 PM

    patrick, your comment is not only snippy and useless but demonstrates your cluelessness. try to grasp the big picture. where do you think those dollars are going to come from? money created out of thin air debases the currency, which is absolutely a tax on americans.

    without going into my resume, let's just say I am intimately familiar with how washington works. if you have a problem with any branch of the federal government you write a letter to your congressperson. or don't, and let them rob you blind.

    ReplyDelete
  7. PauliMarch 17, 2008 at 3:18 PM

    Kathleen, kudos to you for taking action and writing to congress. It's a lot easier to cry in your beer and be hopeless.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PatrickMarch 17, 2008 at 3:53 PM

    Fine. Please let me know what your congressperson says, and more important what he/she DOES, to stop you from being robbed blind by either direct taxation or currency debasement. Unless you happen to live in Ron Paul's district, the answer will be "nothing." Even he gets outvoted every time, but at least he gets the truth on the record.

    I don't like it either but those are the facts. You can write a million letters and the Fed will continue debasing the currency.

    Put not your trust in princes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. PauliMarch 17, 2008 at 4:00 PM

    I guess Ron Paul is not a prince.

    Anyway, Kathleen has *RARELY* missed an opportunity to praise Ron Paul's fiscal stances over here so maybe you should relax and/or pay attention.

    ReplyDelete
  10. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 4:19 PM

    writing a letter to Congress is better than rolling over and making it easy for the government to take advantage. slightly more manly even.

    anyway, thanks for the advice Patrick, you're a real prince.

    ReplyDelete
  11. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 4:32 PM

    by the way patrick, there was just a story on CNBC on how "Congress regulates the Fed" (um, that was a quote) and congress is taking a close look at all of this.

    I'm still wondering where you get off lecturing people about stuff you clearly know nothing about.

    ReplyDelete
  12. PatrickMarch 17, 2008 at 4:39 PM

    Well, I was coming back here to apologize in case my comments sounded snippy. Apparently so because you are responding in kind.

    For the record, I did not call anybody ugly names. I did not question anyone's manhood. I simply said I don't share your faith in politicians, and I think the historical evidence is on my side.

    If your Social Security is messed up, or a park ranger is mean to you, or something like that, then by all means write to Congress. You will probably get action. My point was that your letters will not be as effective if the goal is something like, say, dismantling the Federal Reserve System. There are too many people with a vested interest in the status quo.

    Am I crying in my beer? Maybe so. I'd like to be convinced there is some hope that things will change through the normal democratic process. I just don't see it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 4:48 PM

    give me a break. no you didn't "call anyone names" only because you are more passive aggressive than i am. why call names when a snippy little lecture will do? you wanted to make me look like a fool but it didn't fly this time.

    take it as a life lesson. trying to make other people dumb isn't always going to make you look smarter. especially when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  14. PatrickMarch 17, 2008 at 4:56 PM

    From the Federal Reserve System FAQ:

    As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

    ReplyDelete
  15. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM

    wow, you just can't quit me, can you?

    i'm a lawyer. lawyers cite statutes, regs and case law. so don't quote me some FAQ from the federal reserve website to bolster your obviously lame argument. what's next, something you read on the wrapping of your Chips Ahoy?

    ReplyDelete
  16. PatrickMarch 17, 2008 at 5:19 PM

    OK, counselor. Then cite some statutes, regs or case law that prove your point, instead of just calling it "obviously lame."

    Take all the time you need. I'll be eating Chips Ahoy while I wait.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Andy NowickiMarch 17, 2008 at 5:19 PM

    Geez, Kathleen, is it that time of the month or something? Patrick didn't say anything mean or snippy-- he just said he didn't think politicans care about letters from their constituents on this issue. You're the one who immediately got nasty when contradicted. Patrick then assumed that he'd spoken wrongly since you were so agitated, and you ungraciously responded to his apology with more verbal abuse.

    Quit sounding so bitter and defensive all the time-- it's very unbecoming.

    ReplyDelete
  18. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 5:23 PM

    "cite some statutes"

    LOL! patrick, i don't have to prove a point to you. It's obvious you have far less experience than i do in the subject matter, so what do I care if you think i'm wrong or not. i'm simply pointing out that your snippy little comment was not only rude and annoying, but demonstrably stupid.

    and andy, thanks for *your* input too.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Andy NowickiMarch 17, 2008 at 5:32 PM

    "I obviously know more than you, so I don't have to respond to your challenges to my assertions." Always a compelling argument...

    ReplyDelete
  20. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 5:38 PM

    andy, my time is valuable. maybe that's the difference between you and me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. PatrickMarch 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM

    "Your honor, the opposing counsel obviously has far less experience than I do. I need not present any evidence. You must rule in My favor because I, the Mighty Kathleen, have spoken. All will tremble and bow before My infinite knowledge."

    ReplyDelete
  22. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 6:08 PM

    now we're in court? LOL!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Andy NowickiMarch 17, 2008 at 6:23 PM

    Yeah, clearly you have no free time, Kathleen. That's why you're never, ever at this site, writing angry posts and dishing out abuse to people you don't like. You've clearly got better things to do. I believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. kathleenMarch 17, 2008 at 6:51 PM

    hey andy, this country is going down because people like you and patrick, of above average intelligence, spend their time futzing around blogs and the internet looking for people to poke holes in, instead of educating yourselves about the real world and how the political and financial establishment are taking you, and the rest of us, to the cleaners. What do you do with your precious time? you try and make someone who actually cares about the issues and attempts to change things look feeble-minded in comparison to your glorious net-surfing selves. it's pathetic, and it's why i'm beginning to think this country deserves to go down. grow the hell up you blog-obsessed losers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cubeland MysticMarch 17, 2008 at 8:14 PM

    Kathleen

    I actually thought Patrick's point was complementary to yours. Most of us who have been "educated" have a little bit of information about a lot of subjects. This is what I know about the fed, a quasi-governmental organization with a murky relationship to the government. It has the power to raise the prime interest rate and the ability to control the money supply. That's all I know, and I am confident that my knowledge is reasonably consistent with reality.

    I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on anything I've said above, because it is not my area of expertise. I am a willing listener, and since you called the Gold boom and the credit crisis over a year ago, I would consider you an expert.

    But for the life of me, I don't understand why you would take a swipe at Patrick. It wasn't obvious, that he was disagreeing. In my experience people use the word "actually" to mean "in addition too". They're trying to say "actually there's more to it . . .". This is casual conversation, and we have to allow for some flexibility. I thought maybe this was a carryover, and that you tangled in some other post. Maybe you both have been bumping heads for a long time. I don't know.

    First, this is a partisan blog, and these guys are presumably on our team. Why start a fight within the ranks? It's a little unusual. Wouldn't a question like "What do you mean Patrick?" Be more appropriate?

    Please consider saving your hostility for the commie, leftist, pro-death, oven-stuffers, and then only in self-defense. Slapping the homeboys around is bad politics.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Andy NowickiMarch 17, 2008 at 8:40 PM

    Kathleen, neither I nor Patrick were out to belittle your beliefs or to mock you for caring about the state of the country. Patrick opined that he didn't think the letter writing campaign would make a difference, and you went off on him personally. He apologized for offending you, and retuned the favor by abusing him some more, at which point I took you to task for being a b____ to Patrick. That was how it went down.

    It was certainly nothing to get grandiose over, and it wasn't any excuse to proclaim yourself a victim of nefarious drive-by blog futzers.

    ReplyDelete
  27. PatrickMarch 17, 2008 at 8:52 PM

    As others point out, my initial comment was indeed just an attempt to clarify what Kathleen said, and to disagree slightly about the best tactics for addressing the issue. I fell sure we agree on the underlying issues, ie whether or not the Fed should bail out failed companies like Bear Stearns.

    I am not quite sure how this escalated to the current debate. I apologize to everyone for my part in it, and suggest we all move on.

    Thanks also to Andy and Cubeland for your kind words.

    ReplyDelete
  28. PauliMarch 17, 2008 at 9:57 PM

    Patrick: "and to disagree slightly about the best tactics for addressing the issue."

    Patrick, what is your tactic other than to "not trust in princes"? I kind of like this tactic because it's so easy and I'm so lazy. I can effortlessly not trust in princes all day long. Believe it or not, I'm currently not trusting in any prince, nor in anyone formerly known as prince. It sure beats doing something like writing or letter, jousting a windmill, or making a youtube video about Ron Paul.

    As much as my congressman reminds me of the prince from the first Shrek movie, I wouldn't call someone whom you have a chance to boot out every 2 years a "prince".

    BTW, "is it that time of the month or something?" has got to be one of the most convincing pieces of rhetoric to ever grace this humble blog. I have it written down to use on my wife sometime -- I'll report on the results; for those of you who use NFP it might prove to be particularly useful.

    ReplyDelete
  29. PatrickMarch 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM

    Glad you asked. I've concluded that are not going to get lasting political change in the U.S. until we have spiritual revival. I explain more fully in this blog post, which is specifically about abortion but relates just as well to economic issues.

    We glorify greed just as we glorify lust. That's why we are where we are. Help people save their souls and everything else will fall into place. (Well, not everything, at least until the Second Coming. But we can sure make some big improvements.)

    By this I do not mean to abandon politics entirely. I'm just saying to be realistic about our expectations. We must vote, be active in campaigns for good candidates, etc. When I say not to trust in princes, I simply mean that I don't expect them to solve all our problems, or even most of them. Entirely too many of us look to Washington for help when we should be examining our own souls.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Cubeland MysticMarch 18, 2008 at 11:15 AM

    What is going on in the markets is wrong. It will breed resentment.

    I don't if I can say this in 3 minutes, but I will try.

    My former blog was a reaction to a recurring theme I noticed in the big corporate world. The theme is a gulf of ignorance between the technology managers are using to drive the economy, and the managers themselves. The reason I did not really drill down on it was because it was a full time job, and I typically work 50-60 hours a week. So the question I still have is do these people really understand what they are doing.

    I think that society has become so complex that no one really knows how to manage it, and because there is no certainty their is potential for huge mistakes. Also there is great potential for tyranny because when the rulers are scared they will project their fear through violence.

    I know this is vague everyone will say show me your evidence. I cannot. It is more an intuition, that I could substantiate if I could focus on it. But look at this current credit crisis and the devaluing of the dollar. They don't really know what to do, because they are trusting in technologies and data that managers don't really understand.

    ReplyDelete
  31. PauliMarch 18, 2008 at 11:42 AM

    I think your intuition is more-or-less right, Cube.

    project their fear through violence.

    Or, if not violence, at least onerous controls.

    I'm have Amity Shlaes book "The Forgotten Man" on order, the premise of which is that the federal government caused the great depression. And I do think it could happen again -- worse -- and if/when it does it will once again be the government's fault.

    ReplyDelete
  32. kathleenMarch 18, 2008 at 12:13 PM

    "for those of you who use NFP it might prove to be particularly useful."

    that was pretty good pauli

    ReplyDelete
  33. kathleenMarch 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. kathleenMarch 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM

    for those who are in doubt about the "writing to your congressman" tactic, nothing lit a fire under the agency i worked at more than a call from a Congressperson who got 2 or 3 letters from pissed off constituents. this is probably the case precisely because so many constituents prefer to bitch and moan rather than actually write Congress. but why should you take my word for it? after all i'm continually at the mercy of my reproductive cycle.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Andy NowickiMarch 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM

    I didn't say that you were "continually" at its mercy, Kathleen, just when you're unreasonably bitchy.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)