Thank God we bailed 'em out...

Love, love, love this! Scathing indictment of the utter failure that is the Chevy Volt. The UAW and their masters in the White House should be very fuckin' proud of this incredible accomplishment!

Makes me almost giddy to think of what they'll be able to accomplish when they start regulating the entire Healthcare economy - won't that be something? I'm sure that we won't be disappointed, same as I'm sure we won't see any rationing!!!

Way to go guys - nothing like the "invisible hand" of Government to keep things on the straight and narrow - with many apologies to Adam Smith.

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - The Volt - G.M.’s Electric Lemon - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Tick, tick, tick - NY Times moron alarm clock in 3, 2, 1...

Uh- go back and read the editorial on how royally the largest owner of GM (that's Government Motors thank you) has screwed the pooch on the visionary (not) Volt.

Now, think about how much fun you had going through that cavity search at the airport the last time you flew, even though you and I and everyone else there knew it wasn't making that flight one bit safer...

Now, re-read this article. You really want to give the Feds (I'm sorry, Nanny McPhee) something else to fu*k up, er, regulate?

in reference to: Editorial - The Beltway’s Lethal Ride - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

The Times is right on this one...

Obama is a raving disappointment on civil liberties. I'm hoping there's enough enmity for the White House in the hearts of Congressional Democrats - Obama has screwed them at every term, although they've certainly abetted it - that they offer a rebuke and deny this wholly unreasonable request for additional warrant-less searches.

Unbelievable the chutzpah of this guy - Obama is a mendacious piece of sh*t.

in reference to: Editorial - Breaking a Promise on Surveillance - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Nice to see Paul almost pleading at the end...

Elizabeth Warren is a bitch on wheels and represents the worst militant aspects of the Progressive movement. I believe the President, even one as disappointing as Obama, should have the right to nominate those individuals he chooses to head important agencies or to the bench.

That said, Warren is far too polarizing a figure to be entrusted with an agency that, by their own admission, most Congress-persons do not yet know how it will operate. There is much potential for mischief here, and a steady, reasonable choice is called for.

Republicans would be within their right to filibuster such a nominee, and I would absolutely support it. Obama should go deeper into his list for this one.

Back to the rest of the article. Couple of shockers - in the last paragraph, Krugman excoriates Progressives, suggesting that if they stay home because Obama has disappointed them, they're culpable for the (coming) Republican onslaught.

As one of the people who had hopes that, while Progressive, Obama could at least be counted on to repeal the worst assaults on individual rights of the Bush administration, I see know reason for Progressives to support someone who has abandoned them so totally.

Second, it amazed me to see the lead sentence of the penultimate paragraph - "O.K. I don't really know what's going on." Humility from Krugman - get outta town!!!

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Curbing Your Enthusiasm - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Blah, blah, blah...

Maybe rather than bitching about the exposure of "secret" materiel - and really, what isn't these days of BushObama - perhaps you'd be better off heeding the majority of your nation who realizes that this war is lost already. It's time to bring the troops home morons.

This felonious behavior you condemn has another name where I come from - Patriotism. Look it up, there ain't much floating around the White House these days.

in reference to: Statement of National Security Advisor General James Jones on Wikileaks | The White House (view on Google Sidewiki)

See Tom Friedman if you wanna get this done...

Let Obama try it before the midterms. Dems are already fu*ked - don't see how this helps 'em. And, if they really care about it, they should embrace Tom (Kermit) Friedman's prescription to ensure that all revenues from the carbon tax be:

- 1/3 Used to offset Corporate taxes
- 1/3 Used to rebate payroll taxes TO ALL WORKERS
- 1/3 Used to cut the deficit - along with matched spending cuts to balance out the new revenue of course

Offer this bill up and most of us fiscal conservatives will be all over it. No redistributive elements to the "poor" and absolutely no money flowing into the general fund for spending. The bill should be written such that a super-majority of the Senate is required to overturn or modify the revenue and usage provisions. 'Nuff said

in reference to: Editorial - Climate Bill Out With a Whimper - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Could we be saying adios to Charlie Rangel?

No cause for celebration my ass!!! This guy is a piece of garbage, and a race baiter. He has no business serving in any elected capacity. One wonders how he has the time to represent his constituents what with his full time job of evading taxes...

in reference to:

"It has been no cause for celebration to see Mr. Rangel in decline as allegations have surfaced on a series of serious misdeeds"
- Editorial - Congressman Rangel Faces Ethics Charges - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Friedman gets it partially correct...

Once you get past the whiny part, I actually agree with a lot of what Friedman says. Love that part at the end about rebating 100% of any revenues from a carbon tax in the form of tax cuts and deficit reduction.

Friedman's problem of course, is that sure you can probably find more than 7 Republicans who'd sign on if this was specified. But, there's no way in hell the Democrats would let that revenue flow out the door without trying to redistribute it to their constituents - the poor, the public (teachers/firefighters) unions, etc.

Instead of excoriating Republicans, why not turn the lens on the Dems? Demand that they make these revenue concessions if for no other reason than to paint the Republican opposition in a bad light? But that's not the way of the NY Times editorial staff.

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - What 7 Republicans Could Do for America - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Bob Herbert = Moron

I guess Herbert's ideal world would entail us all reading each night (probably Marx or Lenin) by candlelight.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - We’re Not Ready on Nuclear Power - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

States rights - or wrongs?

So, it's OK to recognize states' sovereignty when it represents a cause you approve of (Gay Marriage) - but when it's something you disagree with (Obamacare health mandates) - then, well states can't supersede the Fed!

Now, please folks, don't misinterpret me. I couldn't give two shits about whether or not gays marry - I'm a live and let live kinda guy. In fact, I'm a bit torn when I see states passing anti-gay legislation. On the one hand, I see Federalism at work and the majority's opinion being codified in state law. On the other, I see a group of people (gays) being told by a government that basically they don't enjoy the same rights as another group. As a Libertarian, it's hard to stomach that type of discrimination.

Point here, is that the Times gets all rah-rah when the court sets aside state laws it doesn't like (Gay marriage restrictions, AZ Immigration), and cries foul when the court might set aside laws it approves of (like gun control). You can't really have it both ways.

in reference to: Editorial - Redefining Marriage - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

So, it's cool to pass a law requiring me to eat 3 servings of fruits and vegetables a day - according to Kagan - sure!

Seriously, the scariest thing about Mike Myers - er - Elena Kagan joining SCOTUS is her seemingly unlimited view of the Commerce Clause. Liberals feel that it can be used to justify, well basically anything. If the Congress wants to pass a law that says you have to exercise every day - in Kagan's world that's perfectly reasonable as it could be argued that exercise provides a broad "economic good" by (potentially) lowering healthcare costs.

Welcome to communist era Russia! You can already see that she's absolutely gong to vote with the Liberal block to protect the Obamacare mandate - although it will be the first time the Commerce Clause has been used to justify forcing U.S. citizens to purchase something from private vendors.

And, I've heard the tired argument about how it's legal to require auto insurance. That's true, but you can also choose not to drive and voila - no requirement. The mandate is in no way linked to any exemption.

The liar Obama is now calling it a tax, hoping that by doing so he can squeak it in under the Congress's ability to levy taxes and fees. This after saying, vehemently on George Stephanopoulos' show (This Week - you can find the clip on You Tube) that it was absolutely not a tax!

in reference to: Kagan's Commerce Show-and-Tell - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)