Spokane7
43°Quick links: NCAA tournament • Gonzaga hoops • Easter photo contest • Washington Legislature • Idaho Legislature
I’ll be back around 8 o’clock tonight to post the running boxscore for Gonzaga’s showdown with tougher-than-nails St. Mary’s in Moraga, Calif. The Zags had a tough time at Portland’s Chiles Arena Thursday. This one will be ever bit as tough as that. ESPN2 will carry the game. Keep your fingers crossed. Now, to continue to play the Wild Card …
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2010, The Spokesman-Review
hmoffsuite on January 14 at 9:38 a.m.
This one absolutely takes the cake. I really have to hand it to Obama in one respect. He can create smoke and mirrors better than any I have ever seen. As some of you may know, he is proposing a tax now on the banks. The same banks he forced to take the TARP funds, whether they wanted them or not and whether they have repayed the funds or not. This new tax? It is being called the “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee”. This guy is simply amazing in his ability to figure out how to create taxes.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/…
Flag as inappropriate
Bent on January 14 at 9:39 a.m.
Sad that partisanship will get in the way of democracy when it suits the majority party: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?…
Flag as inappropriate
Sisyphus on January 14 at 9:45 a.m.
You go hmoff. Defend the banksters. Defend the ten figure bonuses awarded to executives who caused their companies to fail. Defend their obscene profits after getting government bailouts.
Oh Bent, breitbart is absolutely the best source if you want partisanship. And so glad you wanna capitalize on the death of a Kennedy.
Flag as inappropriate
hmoffsuite on January 14 at 9:49 a.m.
Sis. >> “And so glad you wanna capitalize on the death of a Kennedy.”
Its not Kennedy's seat. Its the peoples seat just like Brown said in his debate. You spin this stuff to an extreme. Bending the rules of our Country to satisfy your democrat agenda is just plain wrong, anyway you spin it. Democrats are shameful in how they are governing our Country. This is one very good example.
Flag as inappropriate
hmoffsuite on January 14 at 9:54 a.m.
Sis. Wait til Obama hits you with a 'financial crisis responsibility fee'. I wouldn't rule it out as he scrambles to pay for all the money he has wasted in a failed attempt improve our economy.
Flag as inappropriate
Bent on January 14 at 10:12 a.m.
Right Sis, it's the source of news that's the problem, and how exactly am I capitalizing on anyone's death by posting the obvious partisan politics that are playing out in Massachusetts?
This administration and the democrat controlled congress are imploding over this healthcare issue. They are forcing political suscide to gain very little progress. I am not surprised. I called it months ago on this blog, but I have to admit I never thought it would be this facinating …
BTW, here is another source if it makes you feel better… if you need five or six more before it sinks in, just let me know…I'll try and find the time:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/poli…
Flag as inappropriate
Bent on January 14 at 10:21 a.m.
oops this was the link I meant to post (but the one above is interesting as well):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news…
Flag as inappropriate
poolman on January 14 at 10:27 a.m.
Uh Oh - looks like HMO woke up on the <Obama….. We're in big trouble> side of the bed again. What, did you fall asleep watching Beck last night?
Aren’t these the same banks that were teetering on the brink on financial collapse, mostly from their own greed, at the time the bailout was initiated? Now they are raking in cash on extremely low interest rates being offered by the Fed. I know it’s the GOP’s mission right now to associate the word “tax” with evil or anti-American. That’s really just more of the same Boo!/ Beck style scare tactics. They are, YAWWWN, getting old quite frankly. At some point we should try to come up with something more original. I'll keep my eyes open.
Flag as inappropriate
Arpie on January 14 at 10:33 a.m.
DFO
Here's an idea. Give HMO a front page daily,”Obama Rant of the Day.” That way the wild card doesn't get so polluted with this stuff.
Flag as inappropriate
Sisyphus on January 14 at 10:40 a.m.
I was just being pejorative. But I do think you overestimate the implosion which looms much larger on the media you choose to watch. Read the internals on the recent CBS poll and you'll see that more people feel the bills don't go far enough. At the end of the day, people will be happy its finally passed and we can get on to decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, transitioning away from greenhouse gasses and creating a sustainable green economy.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/hea…
Flag as inappropriate
Bent on January 14 at 10:52 a.m.
News Alert
12:49 AM EDT Thursday, January 14, 2010
White House reaches deal with labor on 'Cadillac tax'
The White House has reached a tentative agreement with labor leaders to tax high-cost health insurance policies, sources said Thursday. The agreement clears one of the last major obstacles on the path to final passage of comprehensive health care legislation. The so-called Cadillac tax is a key source of financing for the legislation, and President Obama has insisted that it be included in the package.
…Wonder what the Senate is going to have to swallow to get this provision in the house, and I wonder at what value the tax kicks in, or if they just gave the unions a buy like they did to get Nelson's vote in the Senate… Yesterday, the White House was purposing to exempt any plan that was negotiated under a collective bargining agreement regardless of value… if that is what they agreed to, that'll tick off the right-to-work states.
Again, if that is what they settled on, it would mean that anyone in Idaho who can afford (or even struggle) to purchase a comprehensive healthcare plan (within a certain price range) for their families will pay income taxes on the cost of that plan inorder to subsidize labor union contracts in non right-to-work states so Obama has at least one thing to talk about during his state of the union address next month.
Is this the change we voted for =
1) buy the votes when you can't secure them on political merits alone…
2) bypass tradtional congressional process when it doesn't appear that democracy is going to work…
3) when there isn't an alternative process make one up…
4) hide the meat of the proposed laws (even from your own party) until they are passed…
5) when congressional leadership implodes, allow the administration to step in (behind closed doors) and legislate the congressional agenda…
6) transparency only when it it benefits the party…
3) give the special interests what they want (at any and all costs to the taxpayers) so the majority can claim a marginal and/or slim victory at the state of the union…
I don't know if that is change I can believe in… but, dang, it is interesting!!!
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on January 14 at 10:57 a.m.
HMO doesn't seem to understand the PREVIOUS Congress and the PREVIOUS mal-administration of the Shrub enacted and administered TARP and whatever heinous activities that occurred during that period were directed by the GOP administration, not Obama.
Have some trouble with the calendar, HMO? Or just generally clueless?
Flag as inappropriate
Bent on January 14 at 10:58 a.m.
Oh, we are citing polls now. How about a handful instead of just one:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol…
Flag as inappropriate
Cabbage Boy on January 14 at 10:59 a.m.
Bent, I call it “Change, on the non-essential stuff.” Or it should be “Change! the diaper, they are full of it.”
Flag as inappropriate
hmoffsuite on January 14 at 11:07 a.m.
Here is a recent poll for you. After a year of this Obama style politics, most Americans would NOT vote for Obama. Dirty, back room politics don't seem to be favored by many.
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal….
Flag as inappropriate
Sisyphus on January 14 at 11:11 a.m.
LOL, Bent, are you talking about Cheney's energy policy task force? Yeah the generic polls find dissatisfaction and the internals on those same polls tell you why. Many don't think the legislation goes far enough. And many are damn sick of it taking so long. Whose fault would that be? 42% of the senate last I checked. In the end the people griping loudest are those who refused to participate and obstruct at every turn.
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on January 14 at 11:15 a.m.
Right over there heads, Sis. Par usual.
The left wing of the Democratic Party, and the lefty independents do NOT support health care reform as currently mangled and gutted by Loserman, Nelson, and the other DINOS.
My prediction, at best a 50-50 chance that any health care reform bill will pass, and a worse chance if Brown wins the Senate election (a good bet) in MA, no matter when he's seated.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on January 14 at 11:17 a.m.
Uh, the dirty backroom politics as long as it is Dem and not GOP? Hmoffsuite, LOL!
Yeah, actually, TARP was initiated in the last few months of GW's time in office, as I recall, McCain rode in on his White Horse and CHALLENGED Obama to leave the campaign trail and VOTE for a bailout of those banks and financial institutions. If anyone was ready to force the banks to take TARP, McCain was the guy. Wrong target, Hmoffsuite. Neither do you pay much attention to history.
Flag as inappropriate
Bent on January 14 at 11:21 a.m.
Yeah sure, Spoke, right over my ignorant head…hahahahaha. You crack me up more than Kage_Mann lately!
“…42% of the senate…” — Sis
Sis, and how many House members was it??? Hmmm.
I guess we will soon find out what the polls mean, huh?
Flag as inappropriate
hmoffsuite on January 14 at 11:23 a.m.
Arch. For clarification, I am speaking of the bribes, closet negotiations and that sort of thing. “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee: Give me a break.
Flag as inappropriate
hmoffsuite on January 14 at 11:35 a.m.
Arpie >> “Here's an idea. Give HMO a front page daily,”Obama Rant of the Day.””
It sounds like you passively, quietly accept every single thing the Obama administration does? You don't have a problem with a single thing they have done? You are ok with the bribes and all the taxes that are being invented for their pleasure? Good for you.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on January 14 at 11:35 a.m.
I know what you meant, Hmoffsuite. As though the GOP when they were the majority in charge were as pure as the driven snow when it came to legislation that they got passed that was highly questionable in the extreme. To include Medicare Part D and how much THAT cost the taxpayer.
Not likely.
Would we like to see political parties NOT resorting to the kind of thing your rightfully fuming about? That would be great but for one thing, remember that the special interests are the oligarchy in charge of where this legislation goes. The ones NOT elected and will always be around no matter WHICH party attains the majority.
That is why your argument lacks merit.
Flag as inappropriate
nic on January 14 at 11:40 a.m.
“It sounds like you passively, quietly accept every single thing the Obama administration does? You don't have a problem with a single thing they have done? ”
Way to put words in people's mouths hmo.
There's a big difference is saying I approve of some things/disapprove of other things AND a daily Obama is evil post.
Your posts are predictable. They begin with X happend, and end with Obama is bad. That's the point Arpie is making. That is the issue that many here have brought up time and time again. Just because we don't want to see your repetitive posts about the wrongs of Obama doesn't mean we agree with everything the president does. It just means we don't want to see your endless and banal rants against Obama.
Flag as inappropriate
hmoffsuite on January 14 at 11:46 a.m.
nic. But attacks on Palin, et al are ok? How was Bush treated on this blog? Btw, I am not ranting on against Obama. Just making certain that folks truly understand what is going on within our government. Thats all.
Flag as inappropriate
OrangeTV on January 14 at 11:49 a.m.
I'd really love it if there were a separate thread for all the mind-numbingly dull, super-annoying political blah-blah-blah and links to meaningless polls and maybe the Wild Card could be more for feel-good fluff and uplifting observations about life…
Won't happen, but it's a nice thought, isn't it?
Flag as inappropriate
Sisyphus on January 14 at 11:53 a.m.
nic, many on the right are stuck in the us v. them paradigm. This simplistic world view is parroted by their leaders with phrases like 'you're either with us or with the terrorists' or them belonging to the 'real America'. They're easily muddled if something doesn't fit into it and they will take great pains to shoehorn every issue into the paradigm. Ironically, they often lament the divisiveness of politics today without seeing their role in it.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on January 14 at 11:53 a.m.
Is Palin being attacked??? Hmoffsuite, you give her way too much credit. If she HAD something intelligent to say, it would be a different matter.
How about GW? Seems his administration was a scandal a minute and the news media as well as his hard-core supporters were all too willing to give the recovering alcoholic one big H of a pass. What are the Obama scandals?
Or more precisely, what is different about politics now with the Dems in charge that wasn't there when the GOP were? Or is that just a major case of projection, Hmoffsuite?
I'd have to say about Obama that in his case the scandals are more a matter of manufacture than anything of actual substance. Call it the sin of envy, Hmoffsuite.
Flag as inappropriate
hmoffsuite on January 14 at 11:55 a.m.
Otv. I can see where this political stuff gets old for those that aren't interested. You might notice, however, that when a good political topic gets going, it generates more posting and comments than much of the fluffy stuff. I would agree that a seperate daily 'political thread' might be nice. For the reasons you had mentioned.
Flag as inappropriate
OrangeTV on January 14 at 11:56 a.m.
Puh-leez, hmo, give it up already! Don't act all innocent like you don't have an hardcore agenda rolling. Why on earth would you think anyone gives any credence to your self-appointed role of “making certain that folks truly understand what is going on within our government”? How arrogant! You're not going to change anyone's mind and your OPINIONS (which you always seem to mistakenly regard as fact) are no more or less valid than anyone else here. Oy!
Flag as inappropriate
Sisyphus on January 14 at 12:03 p.m.
LOL Orange, I think we both get plenty of fodder out front from the blogmeister. I'm cool with a political wild card. There's plenty of things I don't boor people with here. I have a blog so I can post those things there if I have a mind to. I agree that folks who perpetually initiate the same topic should really get a blog rather than engaging in behavior on the wild card that could be considered trollish.
Flag as inappropriate
hmoffsuite on January 14 at 12:09 p.m.
Otv. >> “Puh-leez, hmo, give it up already!”
Fair enough, otv. The blog is all yours. Sorry to have appeared to be trollish, Sis. Have fun amongst yourselves.
Flag as inappropriate
nic on January 14 at 12:13 p.m.
/does happy dance.
hmo… in all seriousness - get your own blog. They're free, easy to use, and you can talk about whatever you want.
And DFO would probably add you to the blogroll.
Flag as inappropriate
Me on January 14 at 12:27 p.m.
Hey Bent -
…Wonder what the Senate is going to have to swallow to get this provision in the house
card check?
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on January 14 at 12:27 p.m.
Attacks on Palin? You mean the posts referencing CONSERVATIVE web sites dissing on Palin?
Flag as inappropriate
Sisyphus on January 14 at 12:58 p.m.
Spoker, Palin's stylized herself as a populist with evangelicals and other wedge issue partisans in the Republican constituency. She's cultured few relationships in the Republican hierarchy. What will be interesting as it gets closer to 2012, is when the long knives come out in her attempt to go for the nomination.
Flag as inappropriate
keithincda on January 14 at 1:07 p.m.
I think HMO has some great posts regarding the current administration. But then I'm a conservative and find it sad how the double standard of the left usually applies here.A year removed I could care less about what happened during the Bush years, time marches on and you can't unring bell but the new bell being rung is no better (but it was sure going to be). Obama ran a platform of change and it is business as usual not different. TOSS THEM ALL OUT. The current administration has been in office for almost a year now, THEY OWN everything that is happening now.
Suite's posts most usually lead the liberals here on this blog right down the path of proof that they have drank the Obama Kool Aid.
Any quite frankly it is no worse than the threads that get started regarding Dan Gookin or Mary Souza. Sure they are local topics but for me those drive me away as much as HMO”s drive OTV away.
A separate political thread might keep the whiners like OTV happy though with Arch it sounds like nails on a chalk board all of the time.
Flag as inappropriate
OrangeTV on January 14 at 1:18 p.m.
Hmo harps on and on multiple times daily about the same tired subject, usually appropriate of absolutely nothing, and I get accused of being a “whiner”? That's a riot.
Flag as inappropriate
Me on January 14 at 1:26 p.m.
OTV - I don't think you are a whiner. It is all about perspective. I agree that HMO pretty much says the same thing every post, just in a slightly different way but he isn't the only one.
I have counted 6 posts just from today whose main point is either bush did it, bush did it first, bush started it, you didn't say that about bush, you didn't care when bush was in, you seemed to like it when bush was in.
There are 3 or 4 posters that I skim now - don't really read them at all because I know exactly what they are going to say. Once in a while I check in, and sure enough there it is. And by the way I don't skim just left or just right I base it strictly on avatar/name combo. Really throws me off when people change avatars.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on January 14 at 1:26 p.m.
KeithinCDA, yeah actually, I am still posting. Let me remind you about these kinds of rants. You are as (fill in the blank here ________) as I am the pope.
Conservative means certain things: moderate and cautious according to specific dictionary definitions. Supports institutions. Supports the status quo. Has a specific ideology that at one time was deemed anti-Communist, resistant to change. Supports limited gvt. Holds the moralistic view of being personally accountable. Holds to certain doctrines regarding the marketplace…
However, for a “conservative” to be credible, his or her positions MUST be consistent. The reason, Keith that Bush remains a factor in these threads is that he ran off to the left in the VAST majority of his domestic AND foreign policy decisions. You don't like being reminded of that? Sorry, but facts are facts. There was plenty of room for big gvt in the GW administration. AND dirty politics and many a backroom deal. Cheney and his energy task force comes to mind.
So, many people claiming to be “conservative” today, ended up running off to the left along with GW. The key word here is “claim” Keith as opposed to actually PRACTICING a conservative point of view! Which is why I don't intend to shed any tears when it comes to whines coming from the likes of Hmoffsuite when GW can legitimately be “bashed” for being a RINO and Palin only palled up with a guy who agreed 90% of the time with a Republican socialist as President.
Sorry you can't recognize a conservative when you see one, Keith.
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on January 14 at 1:36 p.m.
The banksters themselves are admitting their role in feeding the housing bubble and passing off junk mortgages as AAA debt. Damn right they ought to pay back the taxpayers who saved their butts in the TARP bailout engineered by the PREVIOUS administration.
“WASHINGTON – Goldman Sachs’ chief acknowledged Wednesday that the investment bank engaged in “improper” behavior in 2006 and 2007 when it made huge bets on a housing downturn while peddling as safe more than $40 billion in securities backed by risky U.S. home loans.
…
Blankfein and senior officers of three other of the nation’s most prominent banks told the panel that serious flaws in their risk models and business practices contributed to Wall Street’s meltdown and the massive taxpayer bailouts that followed. … ”
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010…
Flag as inappropriate
keithincda on January 14 at 1:36 p.m.
OTV>>Hmo harps on and on multiple times daily about the same tired subject.
OTV harps on and on multiple times (maybe not daily, but sometimes) about the same subject–-usually HMO or Mary Souza or the Cda Press.
So what's the diff?
My point is this is a blog and a darn good one because of the variety.
Flag as inappropriate
keithincda on January 14 at 1:37 p.m.
Arch, call a waaaaaambulance.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on January 14 at 1:43 p.m.
Sorry, KeithinCDA, but turning infantile in the middle of a thread isn't going to get you anything but ridicule. Look in the mirror as you call for that waaaaaambulance.
And I stand by my statement, sorry you don't recognize a conservative when you see one.
Flag as inappropriate
OrangeTV on January 14 at 1:45 p.m.
Rude. No wonder Toadman and Stickman don't come around anymore.
Flag as inappropriate
nic on January 14 at 1:49 p.m.
“OTV harps on and on multiple times (maybe not daily, but sometimes) about the same subject–-usually HMO or Mary Souza or the Cda Press. So what's the diff?”
When OTV harps on the Press or MMQC he's staying on topic. When he harps on hmo, he's responding to hmo's unsurprising drivel.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on January 14 at 1:53 p.m.
No kidding, OrangeTV? Tell people certain facts in life and they go off the deep end.
For anyone really thinking, GW really was a Socialist president. So, his socialism only did MORE damage to the marketplace and only MADE it more possible for gvt to assume at least partial control of it. Problem for a lot of people complaining about Obama's “socialism” today? He wouldn't be in office NOW if GW had actually PRACTICED being a limited gvt conservative.
How about that.
The fact that GW didn't do what he promised in 2000 that he would, to actually carry out a limited gvt mandate, is exactly why Obama is now in office. So some people populating these threads need to get real.
Flag as inappropriate
TALKJOC on January 14 at 1:57 p.m.
I'm with you Keithcda. I'm tired of all of the blah, blah, blah about Bush's policies. His spending wasn't Conservative in its thinking…I was against it and I'm even more tired of the Obama “it's not my fault” line. He's been in office a year. The ship is his and boy is it taking in water. Just because you agree with certain Fox commentators, it makes you a blind, follow-the-lemmings-off-the-cliff type. Here's my idea made up entirely by myself….STOP SPENDING MONEY! People want change….yes, but not rammed down-your throat Health Care that will cost everyone big $. Seems like all of our ills are the blame of the rich. Some are, but I'm still waiting for that job from a poor person. Waiting…waiting.
Flag as inappropriate
Bent on January 14 at 1:57 p.m.
I mostly agree with Keith and Me, and I guess with OTV and nic by default… All these political discussion posts are typical.
If someone posts anything questioning the liberal approach to government on this blog, the typical response is: “Of course, that source would say that… what are you stupid?” It's a patern that you can count on… don't believe me? Follow along (just reread the thread above).
Then someone points out that liberal sources have essentially the same story and they claim that MSM can't get it right, and only the secret blogs they follow have the truth or something to that nature, but eventually they reveal their completely partisan sources in an effort to prove their point…LMFAO
And then… when someone calls them (mostly Spoke and Sis) on their BS and it becomes apparent they are obvioulsy losing ground in the discussion and beginning to look foolishly illinformed, (again mostly Spoke and Sis) start claiming that everyone else on the blog (except for them of course) is completely ignorant to the ways of the world, and they claim victory and disappear…
Flag as inappropriate
Phaedrus on January 14 at 1:59 p.m.
Comparing hmoffsuite and OTV is like comparing cow pies and oranges. Seriously./ If you have any interest in accuracy, pull up the last 20 posts of each and you'll see a whole range of diversity under OTV's moniker and hmoffsuite will be little johnny one note.
I don't really mind that suite is obsessed with President Obama, but he'd sure be a whole lot more interesting if he ever engaged in an intelligent argument (like spoke and bent on global warming), rather than just conducting his trollish drive-by rants; that merely points out the shallowness of his observations (sorta like Palin's foreign policy knowledge highlighted by her inability to understand the North-South Korea situation).
Flag as inappropriate
Cindy H on January 14 at 2:01 p.m.
Uh…Time for a group hug???
Flag as inappropriate
Bent on January 14 at 2:05 p.m.
I cut my last paragraph off, dang it.
It said something like this: But that is why I keep coming back to this place. If it were any different, it would be boring…. I love watching it play out I guess… and I for the most part I like the posters here… they'll keep you on your toes if nothing else…
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on January 14 at 2:05 p.m.
Unfortunately, whenever someone starts spouting “liberal” I have to ask in return, which left wing? LOL!
Anymore, they ALL are.
And yeah, they ALL want an activist gvt. They just don't want the party in power to BE an activist gvt.
Which makes politics to be a fine contact sport to get a good laugh over. What with the hypocrisy that shows throughout.
Flag as inappropriate
Phaedrus on January 14 at 2:07 p.m.
It's a patern that you can count on…
Just like the conservative* pattern is to say “It's my opinion, I don't have to have facts.” ;-)
*with the exception of Liz (and usually OfCoffee and sometimes Cabbage Boy))who is conservative and reality based whether I agree with him/her or not.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on January 14 at 2:12 p.m.
Yeah, Cindy H. I'm all for a group hug. :) Just that Hmoffsuite and KeithinCDA don't seem to understand that yeah, THIS conservative is fully aware that Obama is in office trying to push radical change. That there is a COST in real money as to his doing so. That it INCREASES the size of gvt because he does so. However, to continually harp on it is to simply tell me and everyone else that this is a little pity party just because the GOP aren't the ones now in office.
In which case, it is only proper to remind these guys why the GOP are not NOW in office. Now come up with a good intelligent reason for why the GOP should regain the majority? Can't think of one? Then quit whining.
Flag as inappropriate
Smacky on January 14 at 2:17 p.m.
Talkjoc, what did you mean that you are waiting for a job from a poor person? Are you implying that poor people do not contribute to our economy? How absolutely…dare I say it?…elitist!
I'm right there with you pal, right now I'm paying homage to a wealthy banker. It's high time we started blaming the poor for putting this country where it now is…
Flag as inappropriate
OrangeTV on January 14 at 2:23 p.m.
The political stuff really just isn't my cup of tea, but I suppose wouldn't actually want to begrudge others around here of a reasonably civil political debate. I can tolerate that kind of thing better when people make a clear distinction between presenting something as a fact or as an opinion. There are many gullible people out there and there are plenty other places for them to have their brains fed with false or misleading information regarding the what occurs in White House, past or present. I tend to get worked up when people try to force their opinions on people as if they were actual facts and then use the same tired arguments to defend their actions when you call them on it.
Like I've said many times, it's not the politics of hmo that gets to me as much as his relentlessness and trollish behavior regarding his pet subject (“I hate Obama”). I don't believe I've ever taken any subject to that level of obsessiveness.
Flag as inappropriate
nic on January 14 at 3:21 p.m.
My last two cents then I'm done with hmo…
In the last three months we have had 55 wild cards. hmo has posted his rants against Obama on 33 of those posts. Of the 33 anti-Obama posts, 22 of them were with in the first 5 to 10 comments in the wild card (7 of which were the very first comment). So, 60% of Dave's wild cards contain a typical hmo diatribe. the longest reprieve we've gotten from his blather was during the holidays while Cindy was in control and the week leading up to Dave's birthday. And he once mentioned hardballs which I hope never happens again.
In the month of January alone hmo has become more prolific with 9 out of 11 wild card containing hmo's drivel. 4 out of the 9 tirades were the very first comment on the thread.
Do I wish to silence his invectives? No. I've said this before and it bears repeating, I'm in favor of a politics wild card… a place where folks like hmo and Sis can go duke it out and those who don't give a flying fart can skip over and use the regular wild card for other matters. I also think that hmo would be a healthier happier individual if he started his own blog with which he could fill with his observations and beliefs of Obama's errors to his heart's content.
But please - I beg you - no more talk about hardballs.
Flag as inappropriate
Cabbage Boy on January 14 at 3:43 p.m.
@Nic,
And you call HMO obsessed?
Flag as inappropriate
poolman on January 14 at 3:45 p.m.
nic - that was easily worth a dollar. I wasn't sure if it was my imagination or what - you have now provided the hard data. Like I've pointed out before - an HMO wild card post always has three legs.
1) Obama
2) A topic from last night’s “Factor” or Hannity
3) We're in BIG trouble.
Nothing against HMO - seems like a very likable person outside the daily (literally daily) spewing of acid toward our elected leader.
Flag as inappropriate
Herb Huseland on January 14 at 3:51 p.m.
Wow. I just got back on line and have learned two certainties. One, People without anything useful to say, (fill in conservative) should start their own blog and stop wasting our time.
The other, is that in the poll re: Pot, 85% either opted for legalization or decriminalization. Folks, if this is representative of the general population, I'd call it a mandate. That has to be a higher percentage than when prohibition was repealed. (another unpopular/unenforceable law)
Flag as inappropriate
Herb Huseland on January 14 at 4:00 p.m.
@Bent: Along the lines of what you said earlier about bought votes, My doctor recently told me after I expressed amazement over AARP's endorsement of a plan that will rob from medicare to help finance the new health plan, that AARP owns a health insurance company and for their backing received special treatment none of the other carriers will get. Can anyone out there expand on that?
Flag as inappropriate
Cindy H on January 14 at 5:14 p.m.
nic? Please PROMISE me you'll never, ever tally up how many times I've mentioned firefighters in a blog post.
Please.
Flag as inappropriate
Phaedrus on January 14 at 5:39 p.m.
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Top Fox News programs devote scant coverage to Haiti earthquake
On January 13, Fox News' three top-rated programs for 2009 — The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and Glenn Beck — devoted a combined total of less than 7 minutes of coverage to the earthquake in Haiti,… MSNBC's three top-rated shows underscored the significance of the Haiti disaster… devoted a total of more than two hours to the earthquake.
Flag as inappropriate
nic on January 14 at 5:48 p.m.
@ CB - I'm a data analyst, sorry… it's in my nature.
@ Cindy - I fear your firefighter references are too numerous to count. However, I googled “cindy fireman” and got 2,310,000 results. That's good news for you. (interestingly enough - the #1 result was HBO)
Flag as inappropriate
Cindy H on January 14 at 7:00 p.m.
Shoot! Better not be any photos. I was assured those were deleted!
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on January 14 at 8:55 p.m.
Please. HMO says the sky is falling, or in the extant case “This absolutely takes the cake” and Obama is a master at creating new taxes or some such drivel, and links to Politico which as everyone knows, right or left or middle, has exhibited a strong GOP bent in the last year or so. HMO rants about TARP on how it's all Obama's fault.
Obama's proposing an TINYTAX on the biggest of the fraudsters/banksters, (they that damn near put us into another Great Depression), a tax to pay back the taxpayers for having to bail out these “too big to fail” fraudsters/banksters.
No mention that the TARP program was initiated by the previous administration.
No stated ARGUMENT about WHY this is a “bad tax” except for the sophomoric bitching about the name of the program. Sis points out that defending the banksters is not particularly popular, because of their well known behavior of enriching themselves beyond all imagination, oh, by the way, they're enriching themselves WITH TAXPAYER funds, or were only able to survive because Uncle Sucker kept them afloat.
In all the back and forth braying, hardly a shred of commentary of why or why not the legislation should be enacted, and what impact that would have on the giant banksters.
I pointed out the article from TODAY'S S/R where the banksters admitted (some) culpability for the financial meltdown.
The rest is all pure bloviating.
Let's see what a REAL economic reporting organization says, not the hacks at Politico, from those commie pinko socialists at The Economist Magazine:
“American banks
Embarrassment of riches
Jan 14th 2010 | NEW YORK
Bankers face a backlash over pay and a levy to recover bail-out funds
America’s big banks are girding themselves for a storm of abuse when they unveil their annual results, starting on January 15th with JPMorgan Chase. Vilified for vast losses in 2007-08, the problem now, for the pacesetters, is voluminous profits. The rebound in capital markets has pushed revenues back towards pre-crisis levels, and with them compensation pools. Goldman is expected to fork out $18 billion for 2009, not much less than its record payout in 2007.
…
Hitting the giants addresses a genuine concern about banks whose size poses systemic dangers. True, the tax will reduce the funds available to bolster banks’ capital, and they may just pass the costs on to customers. But their bleating about unfairness—most have already repaid their TARP funds with interest—rings hollow. Like taxpayers, they are set to get a taste of what it is like to cover someone else’s losses.”
http://www.economist.com/businessfina…
HMO's take on Obama actions and policies are nothing but knee-jerk reactions, usually without a shred evidence to back up his assertions.
This is the FIRST tax increase proposed by the Obama administration, ignoring the SCHIP increase on coffin nails.
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on January 14 at 8:59 p.m.
“Top Fox News programs devote scant coverage to Haiti earthquake”
-Phadreus
Just a bunch of dead and dying brown people, wouldn't want anyone to bother their “beautiful minds” over such.
Flag as inappropriate
Nick_Adams on January 14 at 10:09 p.m.
@Herb: AARP does NOT own an insurance company. They do, however, partner with several of the nation's largest health insurance companies including Aetna and United Health. Please stop spreading the disinformation and just spend a few minutes with teh google.
You may want to check your doctor's credentials, or at least his partisan affiliation.
Flag as inappropriate
Nick_Adams on January 14 at 10:19 p.m.
We all understand that HMOFF disagrees with Obama's policies. What I don't understand is why he doesn't want the taxpayers (us) paid back for the money lent the banks.
Frankly, I'd have let them all fail. Hell, if the the teabaggers are willing to scrap 200+ years of constitutional law and democratic rule, maybe it's time for a completely new financial system while we're at it.
Flag as inappropriate
JIMMYMAC on January 15 at 12:03 a.m.
Most of the big boys have paid back TARP, with interest.
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on January 15 at 1:29 a.m.
A portion of the bill is designed to scale back the size and influence of the “big boys”. Good, we can no longer afford to bail out these “too big to fail” behemoths.
Flag as inappropriate
nic on January 15 at 7:56 a.m.
Niece of Gonzaga University priest among the dead in Haiti.
http://www.kxly.com/news/22245155/det…
Flag as inappropriate
Sisyphus on January 15 at 9:08 a.m.
Agreed poolman, nic and Phaedrus. Its not the fact of hmo, I genuinely like the guy and he makes a convenient foil. Its his MO that's tiresome. He declared the day after Obama's inauguration that he was going to relentlessly criticize Obama for the very reason that he perceived the same from lefties such as myself about Bush. I can't ascertain a sincere motive on his part other than vindictiveness cause he's not interested in dialogue, his mind's closed. Really I'd prefer more dialogue than just re-posting comments cause it tends to be propagandistic. But this divisiveness has permeated the media now even though I think most would rather avoid it. And frankly I believe it inhibits participation in government.
I'm probably not as left as I'm perceived here but because I there's very few liberal sources in Idaho I tend to vocalize that viewpoint because if I don't who will. But when this thread started I perceived it was a dispute between the pols and the culture heads like Orange. I certainly see their point of view for the very reason that I find their obsessions with Michael Jackson and Madonna equally disdainful. We all cross over when we have a mind to that's why I have no problem with a political wild card rather than polluting this one.
ZOMG Spoke, Bent's on to us. We better slink away.
Please Bent get a mirror. When we question a source, it does not necessarily discredit what they're saying, but is cause for skepticism of which we find so lacking in the person who posted it. When we posit information from a countervailing source the synthesis should balance unless of course it completely eviscerates your contention which will sometimes be the case. I do find it interesting the theme y'all have of trying to do the mass mind meld on forgetting why we're in this economic morass to begin with. But blaming Obama for our economic woes because of his persistent pursuit of a plan to address the rape of the middle class by insurance companies seems to have that cognitive dissonance I've come to expect. We all want to move on, but the delays are hardly his fault. I'd have a lot more respect for Republicans if they had a plan. For anything. But the status quo will shrink the middle class into a pile of impotent dust. And nobody really disagrees with that. So why they resist the change he promised is beyond me.
p.s. I wrote this last evening and its probably stale by now. Internet connection was down for awhile. I'm hitting send anyway.
Flag as inappropriate