Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This is supposed to be the *WAY* they do their (Score 1) 392

1. there is no fast and furious gun running blame on anything but lax gun laws. Were there laws that allowed one to jail suspected gun runners, they would have been enforced, but law enforcement don't waste their time when they know they can't get a conviction. The real fast and furious debacle is on the gun lobby that keeps those laws lax.

2. The notion that the President of the United States (and I mean any President) would appoint an ambassador to another nation and then intentionally bring harm upon them is insane. You would, at a minimum, need some sort of motive here to get me interested enough to research this.

3. I didn't see any indication that Obama or even the WH had anything to do with this, instructed this to happen, or that it wasn't a rogue employee / office. Plus, in the end here, you're talking about tax exempt status being on the line. How could that possibly raise to the level of Watergate?

As for watergate, you are correct, it was far from the worst thing Nixon did--but it is still 100 times worse than the worst Obama has done.

Don't get me wrong, Nixon did some great things (creating of the EPA among them). But he and Johnson really abused the power of the presidency and both continued a war purely for political gain at an enormous cost in lives. I mean, you're worried about a delayed tax exempt status while Johnson / Nixon had the NSA spying on MLK.

Comment: Re:This is supposed to be the *WAY* they do their (Score 1) 392

Setting aside that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government from 2001 - 2006, this narrative assumes that the federally backed loan buyers (Fannie and Freddie) were the drivers of the speculative bubble, but they weren't--the wall street firms were way out in the lead on this and Fannie and Freddie were just following along after the party was most of the way over.

Comment: Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (Score 2) 397

by gumbi west (#46797463) Attached to: Beer Price Crisis On the Horizon

You might want to add, "I am not an economist but..." before you write these things. "which may mean lower profits, leading to reduced employment" is as ridiculous as saying that adding a powered usb port will draw less power from your CPU and speed computation.

We have no idea what this will do for employment, there's simply too much going on. Increasing beer prices ever so slightly (I doubt this adds more than a cent or two per can, but whatever) would decrease beer consumption (also ever so slightly) and might increase productivity in other industries. Also, increasing food safety could decrease time off economy wide. It's impossible to know. But I doubt any effect would be large.

The first Rotarian was the first man to call John the Baptist "Jack." -- H.L. Mencken