Biden made a "clean government" pledge in his first Senate campaign that he would never own stocks or bonds. This was in response to stories at the time about Nixon, among others, getting sweetheart stock deals from people trying to curry favor. He's stuck to the "never" part of that pledge since then.

How well do you really know the world -- indeed how experienced are you -- if you don't invest in anything but insured deposits? Supposedly Obama has owned little to no stock/mutual funds in his life as well.

He has never heard of a blind trust?

How well do you really know the world -- indeed how experienced are you -- if you don't invest in anything but insured deposits

Is it just God Damn America that gets people riled up? Does anybody listen to the context?

THere are a lot of very rich people who know nothing about the markets. It is all managed for them. This includes some very intelligent people who either don't care or are so busy with their work.

This is from personal experience.

and concludes by urging damnation on the country

Then WTF is the point of voting for Republicans?

(I assume that by now you've given up on a judicial reversal of the overly expansive reading of the commerce clause.)

But like I said, I don't buy that it was just "tweaking", particularly since DMN followed it up in this thread by saying "We should be shunning (racists)."

The Republican Party needs change a helluva lot more than the country does, and Sara Palin ain't the change they need. They have to actually start being conservatives again. They won't change until they lose. A McCain victory is a bad outcome for them.

The theme of the sermon is that God doesn't change, and countries/governments do, so we should trust in God, not countries and governments, and when America does wrong, (or any country does wrong--he mentions several atrocities around the world in another part of the sermon) we should damn it, not bless it.

Palin, in re the banks and the events of today: "Our regulatory system is outdated and in need of a complete overhaul."

Palin, in re the banks and the events of today: "Our regulatory system is outdated and in need of a complete overhaul."

My guess would be that our financial regulatory system is outdated and in need of a complete overhaul.

Which is why whenever anyone tries to pin me down on my politics with any degree of precision, I've always thought it's better to just say, "it depends." Either that, or just say that I don't know that much about politics, but I know what I don't like.

Any idea what she meant by that?

My guess would be that our financial regulatory system is outdated and in need of a complete overhaul.

My guess would be that our financial regulatory system is outdated and in need of a complete overhaul.

By the way, this is 100% true.

Cute tongue in cheek remark, but meaning what? More deregulation? More letting the foxes guard the chicken coop?

I was kidding about that, but Carly Fiorina was interviewed today by Andrea Mitchell and she called Tina Fey's impersonation of her "disrespectful" and "sexist".

I bet Arky has a link...

You simply can not have a huge subsidy of a particular economic activity and have the story end well.

Palin gives as good as she gets. Stop surrounding her with the "wailing wall"

Any idea what she meant by that?

Fannie and Freddie and its impotent regulator were the quintessential example of regulatory capture... Almost unbelievably, Fannie and Freddie were cooking their books until the day they went under, right under the nose of the regulator, whose job in life consisted solely of regulating them.

Including, I presume, the ones on standing up for GBA and the SSB at ballparks; defending the white construction workers who were fired at Nationals Park; attacking smoking bans; giving many Republicans, including Ronald Reagan, their props when they deserved it; lampooning leftist academics; etc.

But here's a chance for you to retaliate in kind and demonstrate your own maverickism, Mr. Dittohead: Name me four or five threads where you've differed with generic right wing talking points. And don't just say that "Limbaugh is an idiot," either. Name me some of his positions that you actually take serious issue with.

Wright is a despicable human being, and your attempt to offer a veiled excuse for him ("although very much part and parcel with the time and place in which Wright's worldview was formed"), or a minimal defense for him based on a nuanced interpretation of the sermon, is unfortunate and misguided. The "context" for Wright's inflammatory statements is that he's a racist, anti-American loon.

Wright always wakes Ray up. I knew where you stood on this, so this was kind of unneccsary (I was talking to bunyon, but of course your responding is fine) although this is the first time you actually showed some balls on it, which I respect, in a way.

The other side of "expertise" is "experience." And WRT foreign policy there is no job other than that of the presidency itself that really "qualifies" one to be president. Even the most capable presidents often have to learn by the seat of their pants. The best post-WWII ones (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan) grow on the job and learn to deal with reality. The worst ones (Bush) remain stuck in their pre-existing groove, forever plugging square pegs into round holes while shouting to the rooftops that their "best intelligence" tells them that those holes were square.

why does the Republican Party "have to actually start being conservatives again"?

From a political perspective: Because there comes a point when it's not just cognitive dissonance anymore, and the contradictions start costing you elections. For example, you can't spend decades in power, all the while increasing discretionary spending and piling up mountains of debt, and keep blaming the other party for the uncontrolled growth of the government and the deficit.

From a utilitarian point of view: if you really would like to see the federal government get smaller, or at least stop growing so rapidly, the you'd certainly want the party that claims to favor smaller government to get enough of a wake-up call to go back to actually acting like they favor smaller government, instead of just talking about it

As if they shouldn't have. As if they were simpletons who were missing the "learned" interpretation of his sermon that you offered.

I'll let others read the tone of your latest post and form their own conclusions.

No, far better to go after him for being a Yankee fan.

My interpretation of that part of the sermon was right on the money.

And, as I said in that post, Wright said a lot of stuff that was wackier than what he said during the six minutes leading up to "God Damn America."

And like I said, at least you are owning it now: you hate Wright, you think he is evil. Glad we got that out there; it has been obvious for months.

I'm not sure the word "wackier" quite succeeds in capturing the flavor of accusing the US government of inventing AIDS as a means of genocide against blacks.

But it does mean that it's probably pretty privileged to be shocked that some folks of color make false accusations of racism toward the government.

But it does mean that it's probably pretty privileged to be shocked that some folks of color make false accusations of racism toward the government.

But E-X, accusing the U.S. government of inventing AIDS to kill off black people -- indeed, preaching it in a sermon -- isn't merely "false."

The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie. The government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. They wanted that resolution to get us in the Vietnam War. Governments lie. The government lied about Nelson Mandela and our CIA helped put him in prison and keep him there for 27 years. The South African government lied on Nelson Mandela. Governments lie.

The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia and Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, 'Let me make myself perfectly clear...' Governments lie. The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme orchestrated by Oliver North, and then the government pardoned all the perpetrators so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie.

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9.11.01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie.

The government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being a threat to the United States peace. And guess what else? If they don't find them some weapons of mass destruction, they gonna do just like the LAPD, and plant the some weapons of mass destruction. Governments lie.

It's completely bogus.

I used the words despicable, inflammatory, racist, anti-American, lunatic, and race-baiting. I never said I "hated" anyone, or thought anyone was "evil.

I'm not sure the word "wackier" quite succeeds in capturing the flavor of accusing the US government of inventing AIDS as a means of genocide against blacks.

Not. Your analogy of Clinton/Foster really sucks, too.

Fair enough. But that is cutting it pretty fine, given the synonyms for "despicable." "Evil" is not one, so you did do better on this than you did on "hyperbole."

At least you are being upfront now instead of the chickenshit stuff you were doing before. That is progress.

But E-X, accusing the U.S. government of inventing AIDS to kill off black people -- indeed, preaching it in a sermon -- isn't merely "false."

And, yet, you don't explain why.

No, evil is not one, is it? Wright didn't physically harm or kill anyone, so I don't consider him "evil" in the least.

You keep saying this, but I don't know why. I've never been shy about my view of Wright.

It is a bad argument if it attempts to frame a non-racial issue as if the legislature was motivated by race.

If you want to argue that laws biased against the poor are racially motivated, I'll have to disagree.

Black people or poor people?

Does the disparity in enforcement have anything to do with the potency/cost ratio?

Right now, the greatest efforts of the Drug War seem to be centered on methamphetamine. Isn't that a pretty whitebread drug?

People were debating if Wright's actions were excusable or despicable or somewhere in between. And you start asking whether his actions have had more of a deleterious effect than George Bush's policies. You are changing the terms of the debate because you're losing the argument.

What, exactly, do you think Wright was hoping to accomplish by saying the United States government invented an epidemic to commit genocide against the black population? (Honest question, not a rhetorical device)

Furthermore, which do you think is more likely: Wright is actually believes what he said and is merely wrong, or George Bush or Sarah Palin actually believe that Iraqis were connected to 9/11, and are merely wrong?

I object to the premise. (At least with respect to Bush; I haven't followed closely enough what Palin has said about this.) When did Bush say that Iraqis were connected to 9/11?

Here's where Ray gets all "lawyer" with us.

DiPerna, the opposite of saying that Iraq was connected to 9/11 is to say that Iraq was not connected to 9/11. Where in the 2003 SotU address does Bush say that? Please?

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

1018 is not surprising. Interesting though.

No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says
By Greg Miller *
Los Angeles Times
September 18, 2003

President Bush said Wednesday that there was no proof tying Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, amid mounting criticism that senior administration officials have helped lead Americans to believe that Iraq was behind the plot.

Bush's statement was the latest in a flurry of remarks this week by top administration officials after Vice President Dick Cheney resurrected a number of contentious allegations about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th," Bush said in an impromptu session with reporters. He contended, however, that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."

Bush's comments were his most direct on the issue to date. He drew a clear distinction between alleged Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda and the lack of evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. That is a distinction administration officials did not emphasize in the months before the war. The issue has come to a head amid recent polls showing that most Americans believe — despite the lack of evidence — that Hussein was somehow involved in the attacks.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan stressed Wednesday that Bush administration officials never claimed any Iraq-Sept. 11 link. McClellan's assertion appears to be factually correct, but many administration critics, including some in the intelligence community, said it was also somewhat misleading.

A reading of the record shows that while senior administration officials stopped short of accusing Hussein of complicity in the attacks, they frequently alluded to the possibility of such a connection, and consistently cast the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in stronger terms than many in the intelligence community seemed to endorse.

Even Bush's remarks Wednesday were challenged by lawmakers and other officials who have reviewed the White House's prewar claims and have access to the underlying U.S. intelligence. Responding to Bush's statement, Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said any alleged ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda "are tenuous at best and not compelling." And while he agreed that administration officials never made an explicit connection between Iraq and Sept. 11, Rockefeller said the White House "led the American public into believing there was a connection in order to build support for the war in Iraq."

The issue, which had been dormant for several months, has been revived in recent days by a number of factors, including a fresh effort by the White House to shore up support for the increasingly costly military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq by casting the operation as a part of the response to Sept. 11. In a speech last week, Bush described Iraq as the "central front" in the war on terrorism, even though few in the counter-terrorism community described it as such before the U.S. invasion.

In his appearance Sunday on "Meet the Press," Cheney vigorously defended every aspect of the war, saying the administration's prewar claims about banned weapons held by Iraq would be proved true. He argued that Iraq was the "heart of the base" of the terrorist threat that culminated on Sept. 11. "If we're successful in Iraq then we will have struck a major blow
right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Cheney said.

Isn't it depressing that it's not surprising?