Krugtron the Invincible, Part 3

"In my previous two articles, I have shown that Paul Krugman - revered by his acolytes as the Invincible Krugtron - failed to anticipate the financial crisis and wrongly predicted that the single European currency would fall victim to it."



What you've shown in 3 articles is the depth of your spectacularly petty jealousy and a desperate pathological need to be considered better at things (economics and the application of logical thought with facts for starters) that you have demonstrated time and again over the years to be rather poor at.



I see a great future for you at faux news... a perfect match for anyone needing to publicly exercise their pointless, personal diatribes to an audience that will never fact check.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What Reid, Pelosi, and Obama Should Say Now

If you're going to go so far as to introduce a Constitutional Amendment on the matter of Congressional pay, you're leaving half the cake on the table.



One thing that something in the neighborhood of 70% (polls vary depending on the questions) of the voters believe is that DC has been taken over by greedy manipulators. People ranging from Tea Partyers to Communists may disagree on which of the parties or individuals in Congress are beholden to lobbyists (Dems are supposedly in the pockets of trial lawyers, Reps in the pockets of anyone with some money inside those pockets) - but there is uniform dislike to the Citizen's United decision and the amount of money spent on elections.



So if you want to make the Amendment even MORE popular, include a provision that gives the FEC and (!) the States the ability to regulate financing of federal elections and explicitly states that campaign contributions and campaign activities are NOT equivalent to Free Speech. For any given State, whichever laws are more stringent on candidates takes precedence.



Add the impossible task of defending unlimited campaign contributions to the republican's to-do list (a fight they will vigorously wage to their detriment) and ride the wind to House majority in 2014.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

M.I.A. Caught In Legal War With NFL Over Super Bowl Middle Finger

That's all fine and dandy. I never said I could change the capriciousness and hypocrisy of corporations.



However, that wasn't the point you tried to make in your original comment where you said that she violated her contract and is rightfully subjected to the lawsuit brought on by the NFL.



My point was that others violate the conduct clauses of their contracts vastly more egregiously and that these other violators are left alone. If the NFL truly cared about the image vs. getting a pound of flesh, they'd have been hauling dozens of players into court every year.



I'm no lawyer, but I can't believe that any court will accept an argument from the NFL that alleges this brat caused $1.5 million in damage to the league. AJ Hawk did the same thing while playing in a game (toward his bench) on live TV and was fined - hold onto your hat!!!! - $10,000. Based on that, the Riley Cooper pass, and plain common sense, any jurist would, or at least should, laugh this allegation out the door. It's obviously a petty, personal vendetta. And selective enforcement in every venue is not tolerated by courts.



Of course, if AJ Hawk was fined $1.5 million and Riley Cooper was fined something north of $1 million, then I'd have agreed with your initial statement - treat everyone the same. However, like most courts. I'm against cherry-picking your contract enforcement work because it's, plain and simple, unjust.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How <i>The Guardian</i> Is Quietly and Repeatedly Spying on You

Wow, what news! Corporations have congress in their pockets? Zowie! Next thing you're gonna tell me is the sun will come up again tomorrow - I can't take all this at once!



Somehow between your stunning revelation and name-calling, you missed the point. No one at Booz Hamilton has the authority or ability to put me away. Period. You may think they do, but they can't. No one at a federal prison or CIA-controlled facility is going to obey their orders.



Similarly, a Congressperson can't put me away. A lot of people need to be spun up, paperwork has to be done, authorizations have to be sought - and none of these critters has the courage to go that far for anyone.



It's infuriating that the patriot act allows a president to convict someone of terrorism and sentence them without a trial. But ultimately, it's only the president (and make no mistake, Obama WANTS this power) who has that authority to take an order from a rich person and put you away.



Any other path requires a ton of coordination and collusion and isn't gonna happen except like how cheney and bush railroaded some Dems in the south. I'm sure you remember those - but I suspect you forgot that Obama REFUSES to pardon those victims nor investigate those actions.



Given the above, I see you have good reason to fear Obama because he's as corrupt as the last few administrations. So disregard my previous statement - I should be
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Congressional Resolution on Chemical Weapons Is Completely Different From Iraq War Resolution

1. Clearly you're not sharp enough to understand that he can't say what's in and not in the classified reports. So you have to read between the lines. Of course, you don't need to read what he's got to say about the situation - you already know everything! All he's had in his hands is the sum of all evidence, but you have better insight than that, right?! Pathetic.



3. So some insipid bumper-sticker slogan from you somehow invalidates his analysis? There was a character on an old sitcom that would wave his arms and declare that he was invisible... and obviously remain in plain view. You've decided to model your logic after his and it's just as strong.



4. Sounds like your "I'm morally offended and someone will pay!" trumps all reason. Your outrage is so impressive!



5. Others are apparently less impressed with the evidence.



6. So for your tortured logic to work, you're saying that Ukraine (or one of the "certain foreign countries") has a right to bomb Houston in order to kill bush. Because that's the only way the comparison works. Taking someone into custody when on their soil and putting them on trial is whole lot less of an act of war than summarily executing acts of war. I'm surprised the concept is lost on you - but there it is.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Congressional Resolution on Chemical Weapons Is Completely Different From Iraq War Resolution

1. Yes, there is.

- Try again. Per Alan Grayson who has read the 4 page unclassified brief and the 12-page classified brief on "proof" - he's very disappointed. He compares it highly unfavorably to the mountain of data received from HRC on Bengazi.



2. Creamer never said there was something to win.

- You've obviously missed my point which is to counter the article's title. Was that too obvious?



3. This president is not trying to pick a winner in a civil war; John McCain is.

- The link to Soltz's piece is in my comment. Read it to get a up to speed on the sides in that war and how bombing impacts it - or stay in the dark, your choice.



4. That is not our problem because it is not our war.

- Every action has a reaction.



5. Saudi Arabia has stated publicly it supports us attacking Assad. In the ME, that's all that counts.

- Last count I saw is about 5 countries now that support. Out of what, 200? My point was that more countries supported the Iraq invasion.



6. It's called crimes against humanity.

- The United Nations is the internationally recognized entity charged with handling those crimes. Not Obama. "Rule of Law?" "Act of war?" Either of these matter to you?



Try answering the relevant questions and not the ones you feel like answering.

- You go first.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Congressional Resolution on Chemical Weapons Is Completely Different From Iraq War Resolution

In debates such as this, I defer to better authorities than "sources." Someone like Jon Soltz who was on the ground in Iraq. In his latest piece on this subject (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/the-military-case-against_b_3865965.html), he notes that both rebels AND Syrian government troops fought against us in Iraq.



That fact should give anyone riding their soapbox of righteous indignation a moment of pause and step down for a bit.



Here are the things that are EXACTLY like Iraq:

* There is no concrete evidence to support our government's position as judge, jury and executioner.

* There is nothing to "win" in any action at all. If assad DID use these weapons, he will clearly have no less compunction to do whatever he wants against innocents.

* Whatever side "wins" the civil war, most of the combatants will not be sending us a thank you note for our part (we will be welcomed in Iraq, remember?).

* There is no end game here.

* No one else in the world community, other than France (it's almost hilarious if it weren't so utterly strange), who will sign up for this. OK, so this may be an exception, there is LESS support in the world for this action....

* We continue to feel like we are some high authority ordained to mete out justice around the globe.



I probably missed a few others, too.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost