Messages posted by: Tamalak

Why wouldn't the House just pass the Senate's version? There are more than enough votes. The reason the House was balking before is that liberal Democrats thought the Senate version had too many restrictions.. but it should be pretty clear now that it's this, or nothing.

I see this contract is very low (20%ish), but the news is full of optimism that a health care bill will pass. Is this discrepancy because:

1. A bill will probably pass but probably not until after Dec 31?
2. A bill will probably pass but it won't include the features that would fulfill the contract? Is a public option necessary to make the contract expire at 100?
3. A bill will probably not pass and the news is full of bs?

A double hearsay report from an anonymous source presented by FOX news?

It's got to be true!

Ctrl-V, how I love and hate you.

Her typically baffling reasoning:

Palin added in a statement that she was "determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is not the easiest path. ... Once I decided not to run for re-election, I also felt that to embrace the conventional lame duck status in this particular climate would just be another dose of politics as usual, something I campaigned against and will always oppose."

What is the real reason? My theories!

1) A genuine need to free up time for her family (particularly with the disabled newborn)
2) To stop the huge money drain that have come with the constant stream of ethics complains (totalling $300,000 in expenses for her so far).
3) To somehow get in a better position to run for president, although typically there's no better way to prepare than being a governer..

Yeah, Obama is about smack in the middle of presidential approval for this point in his term. New presidents generally have a nice pool of goodwill to start out with. This is why he's pushing his agenda so hard - unless the economy has a very good and fast recovery, he's likely to have more political capital now than any time in his future.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who liked that about him. He does seem like a breath of fresh air in the sense of candor. It's just that he also appears to be incompetent and unclear. Good intentions and honesty aren't the only virtues of a good leader unfortunately.

About time this showed up!

It's missed so much delicious action

I am thinking no. He's a Governer which is probably the ideal position to grow presidential "cred". His bad "coming out" speech gives him incentive to work on his pitch and to wait for the memories to fade. He's extremely young, only 3 years older than the minimum allowed for presidents, so he can afford to wait. And incumbent presidents have an advantage - all else equal, 2016 is likely to be a better shot than 2012.

Of course, all else isn't equal.. and really his chances of running depend on Obama's performance IMO. If Obama performs well, it's overwhelmingly obvious that Jindal is better off waiting. If Obama is vulnerable, he might run, not only because he is more likely to win himself, but because a Republican win that's NOT Jindal will mean he won't have another chance until 2020.

But my certainty is low.. you're better off asking andywend for revelations on the mindset of Republican candidates.

You forgot Jindal.. he was supposed to be the answer to Obama. He is on the surface very similar to him.. skinny, geeky, earnest, dark-skinned, calm, young (very young!) The big question is whether he has the charisma. He's supposed to be very charming and to be honest I haven't seen enough of him to know whether that's the case. The fail of Jindal's speech lowers his chance a bit but there is plenty of time for a comeback.

andywend wrote:

The plain and simple truth is that you're taking issue with my posts because you don't agree with my political views.
There are plenty of posters on this forum that are far more biased towards the democrats than I am with the republicans and you've never commented in a negative fashion regarding those.

Why do you always personalize these things?

Almost every time someone brings up a point contrary to your views, regardless of whether it's a good argument or not, you respond by pointing out their left-wing views (or your perception that they have left-wing views), as though that has anything to do with their point. I seriously think your rate of doing this is like 90%.

It's like if my kid were beaten up at school, and I went to the principal about it, and he said "well, you're only complaining because it was YOUR kid that got beaten up. I didn't see you coming in here when anyone else's kid was beaten up. You have a bias towards your kid!"

Uh, yes. Duh. Of course I'm going to more readily point out wrongs done towards my kid (party) than someone else's. That isn't a bad system, because every kid (party) is going to have their advocate. And it's pretty obvious that if my kid is beaten up, something should be done about it. What am I supposed to do, wait for someone else, who doesn't give a damn, to complain, so I don't appear biased?

Beyond that, attacking someone's motive is just pointless. You can never be sure of anyone's motives, or prove them one way or another, and the motive someone has for bringing up an argument has nothing to do with the validity or their argument. So bickering about motive is 1) hopeless and 2) moot.

What makes it even more strange is that you have a strong right-wing bias, and you don't try to hide it or act like it's a bad thing or that it should preclude you from making right-wing arguments. Which I agree with. But it doesn't make sense when coupled with your attitude about arguments from the left.

andywend wrote:

What happened to the 1st amendment?

Congress shall make no law...

Wikipedia isn't Congress.

Whaaat? What is that contract and how does it differ from the one on the front page with the Depression Woman that's at 20%?

I remember a topic discussing the once-named Depression contract, and that the consensus was that it was almost a sure thing. And this quarter's GDP got revised to -6.2, a really horrible number.

The quarter before that was -0.5, so there's not much to go is there? Is Intrade now seeing a quick recovery? What changed to make the price of this contract collapse so fast?

It will not just be a question of who can win but who wants to run. If Obama has even a mildly good 4 years, it will be very hard to unseat him. People like Palin and Jindal are young and have nothing to lose by keeping their powder dry for 2016. IMO Jindal will be smart and wait, Palin will ignore reality, charge right in, and be slaughtered. Romney is an intelligent guy and will probably make the politically right call.