Sensible Erection | FOR THOSE WHO ARE STILL ON THE FENCE...,

Saturday, 1 September 2012

FOR THOSE WHO ARE STILL ON THE FENCE...,

quote [ HBO’s Bill Maher has proposed a new rule for Republicans: They party doesn’t have to accept evolution, economics, climatology or human sexuality… but it does have to “admit the historical existence of... ]

Jon Stewart and company
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/jon-stewart-eastwood-chair.php
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/daily-show-government-business.php

Stephen Corlbet interviews Clint Eastwood's chair
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01/colbert-interviews-clint-eastwoods-chair_n_1848795.html?utm_hp_ref=tv&ir=TV

[by 0000000000@10:28pmGMT] [+7 Good]

Comments

bbqkink said @ 10:37pm GMT on 1st Sep [Score:3 Hot Pr0n]
Ale to the chief: White House releases beer recipe

WASHINGTON (AP) — Beer lovers, the secret is out

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiRlTGQf8rl4e6pjCgBu31zJhhxg?docId=d5739ffa7a3245c8bfe01c86315c2715

blacksun said @ 4:09am GMT on 2nd Sep
With something like 12 microbreweries in my town, I wouldn't be surprised to be drinking this soon.

bruceski said @ 9:50am GMT on 2nd Sep
I live in Portland; I think everyone in the city will be giving this a taste in short order.

assbastard said @ 2:33pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:2]
This is one Draft that I'm 100% okay with!

bbqkink said @ 10:39pm GMT on 1st Sep [Score:2]
Here is another Jon Stewart

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Supreme_Coconut said @ 1:21am GMT on 2nd Sep
The 3:12 mark is the greatest thing that show can ever accomplish. It is.. so good.

incpenners said @ 3:32am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:-2]

damnit said @ 3:45am GMT on 2nd Sep
They get lots of ass?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 3:52am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:2 Funny]
So you were saying that we are the ones obsessed with this chair thing?

incpenners said @ 4:06am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:-3]

foobar said @ 4:18am GMT on 2nd Sep

incpenners said @ 5:21am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:-3 Troll]

damnit said @ 6:48am GMT on 2nd Sep

President Bush spent 32% of his presidency on vacation.

incpenners said @ 1:51pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:-4 Troll]
President Bush spent 32% of his presidency on vacation.

I work from home too.

Naruki said @ 2:02pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:2]
It's easy when your work is the destruction of America.

tiemy said @ 7:18pm GMT on 3rd Sep
At last, a Democrat who isn't ashamed to admit that Obama is further to the right of Bush, Bush II, Reagan and Clinton.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 7:40pm GMT on 3rd Sep [Score:1 Funny]
Further to the right? The bar graph clearly places him further to the left. Look at it!

chold_numa said @ 12:20am GMT on 4th Sep
I don't think cutting spending by no longer prosecuting an expensive war overseas can be considered right wing.

The thing is, the lesser of two evils is LESS EVIL. Eventually, after years of continuously moving to lesser and lesser evil, you might reach a point where the level of evil is acceptable to you. This is what the Right has done (from their perspective), and this is where we are after 30 years. Now imagine if it had gone the other way.

If the Republicans get in, you'll be looking at a conservative Supreme Court for 2 decades. If you don't think that'll move the country to the Right, you've got to get your head checked. It won't end up with violent revolution (where lots of innocent people will die), people will live with it, and live horrible lives as they've done in Asia, South America, the Middle East, and Africa.

tiemy said @ 3:55am GMT on 4th Sep
But cutting spending via repeated austerity budgets, taking an axe to nearly every facet of the federal government that serves the public in some way, certainly is. Obama's stated aim is to cut the federal government until it's at its smallest since the 1950s, and the expensive wars do in fact continue, with an Obama-escalated Afghan war ($110b in 2012, $122b in 2011) making up for Iraq.

Democratic partisans' complaints about the GOP fighting a fantasy Obama are 100% accurate here. Even with the elections coming up (when Democrats suddenly discover that Americans are actually heavily left-leaning), it's not uncommon to see them boast about how Obama is the True Fiscal Conservative - unlike Bush and co., conservatives in name but big spenders in deed.

And a more conservative SCOTUS is a foregone conclusion irrespective of who wins, as is the case with pretty much everything else in the US. Every new justice in the last few decades has been further to the right than the one they replace, and that includes the two appointments Obama has made so far.

The system is breaking down, the course it has charted unalterable. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasy universe.

chold_numa said @ 11:23am GMT on 4th Sep
Well, spending needs to be funded by taxation (income) or debt. With the economy shrinking, tax receipts will be less. So, you have a few choices. Raise taxes, possibly making life worse for employees and/or driving small businesses (the major employer of people collectively) to the wall. The alternative is to issue more debt, which devalues the currency, making imports more expensive and eventually driving up interest rates in order for buyers to keep buying it.

Neither of these options, when taken to extremes is particularly attractive. So, any government will do what is politically less painful, that is, cut taxes and cut spending from places where there will be the least political outcry. In any case, the power to raise taxes/cut spending lies with Congress and not with the executive. If you want to vote in more taxes and spending, you need to look at your Congressman and Senators.

chold_numa said @ 11:37am GMT on 4th Sep
Oh yes, and what do you think would have happened by now if McCain and Palin had gotten in? You'd have a 7-2 conservative majority on the SCOTUS now, and more than a 50% chance the US would be in a hot war in Iran and possibly Pakistan.

If you think things can't get worse, guess again.

tiemy said @ 7:37am GMT on 5th Sep
Bollocks. We would've seen roughly the same thing we've seen over the last four years. You seem to be forgetting that the much-vaunted 'change' from Bush to Obama never materialized; it was in fact a near-total continuation of the former's policies and agenda all down the line. Foreign policy is by far the best illustration of that point, where Obama if anything has been more violent and aggressive than McCain would have been - which he can get away with because he's a half-black Democrat named Barack Obama.

The SCOTUS refrain is approaching a self-parody at this point. The fact that the Democrats can only cite influencing the least accountable, least popular, least representative institution in the US setup as a reason to vote just shows how little they actually have to offer.

And things certainly can get worse, and they will - irrespective of the party in power. 2009-2012 is a case in point.

chold_numa said @ 10:06am GMT on 6th Sep
OK, whatever. The thing is, you either work with the system or you break it. Generally, as history has shown on numerous occasions, breaking the system generally means killing a lot of people. I'm pretty much against that.

So if that doesn't appeal, that leaves you with working within the system. Which means making sure things don't get to a point where things cannot be fixed. Which means the lesser of too evils until you a) build a national media organisation that funds itself, b) build a voting bloc with enough influence to push social policy, c) reform the electoral system with instant run-off and weekend voting, d) build a business empire so you can fund and promote the candidates you like.

Crying about it and taking your vote away from what is definitely the lesser of two evils is ridiculous. Ideological purity might make you feel righteous, but does squat for the child who doesn't get educated, the woman who can't get an abortion, the old lady who can't afford her medication, and a host of other wonderful things that get defunded when a Paul Ryan style budget gets through. The proletariat, historically generally get their arses handed to the every time there's a revolution, or when there is the inevitable counter revolution. Amazingly, a government can be turned around with it's own mechanisms. It's happened a number of times in the past, and if you xan stop the US from becoming a mess, it'll happen again.

tiemy said @ 12:09am GMT on 7th Sep
Not whatever. If your entire argument - that some substantial change or reform can be realized within the existing political and economic order - flies in the face of everything we know and have experienced, that's a major problem. You seem to be more interested in clinging to fantasy because the alternative (acknowledging reality) is a bit too unpleasant, with some plainly radical implications.

And as is typical, you don't even bother to square the scary lesser evil rhetoric with the actual policies and agendas involved here. Do you really mean to suggest we should be supporting a party of charter schools and privatization 'for the kids'? That we should endorse a party that's carried out an unprecedented attack on Medicare - and intends to go much further - to 'help out the seniors'? It's just ludicrous.

chold_numa said @ 9:51am GMT on 7th Sep
Well, I don't live in the US. Ergo, my whatever.

I do however, understand voting systems. With FPtP, you can't always vote for your preferred candidate and expect to get anywhere near the outcome you would like. If you had a preferential system, by all means, vote with your conscience. Put your preferred candidate first.

But, you don't live in a country with anything resembling preferential or instant runoff voting. So, you're going to vote for no bread over half a loaf. And you're going to advocate for others to also vote for no bread. Kudos. In your best case scenario, where your candidate wins the Presidency, he'll face a hostile Congress where he'll be unable to move his agenda forward. Brilliant. I applaud your position to fight a pointless cause while blaming your failure to get anything like your agenda passed on those who have some sympathy for your position. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

tiemy said @ 10:12pm GMT on 7th Sep
I've answered all of these points, to no response. You just keep rehashing the same lazy mythology - that there's some substantive difference between the two parties on any major question, let alone one being close to 'the left' - as if it's self-evident. A racial minority on the stage (instead of the dreaded Rich Old White Males of the GOP), spouting pull-on-those-bootstraps mythology, US military violence-worship and American Exceptionalist platitudes, does not equal 'left' or 'progressive.'

Voting can and will change nothing, as is established fact at this point. What I'd advocate is that people take those steps necessary to get their loaf of bread (socialism), even if it means working to overturn the system that denies it to them. What you seem to be advocating is voting for no bread every few years, on the grounds that you've bought into some rather transparent election-time propaganda about how the millionaire no-bread people actually want to give you half a loaf - even if that's not supported by any of their policies or record while in power.

tiemy said @ 7:38am GMT on 5th Sep
What you've left out entirely is any alternative to austerity, namely making the super-rich pay for a crisis of their own making.

That's never even considered in the official debate for the same reason slashing funding for public services is considered the least painful option: the political system and its two parties are representative of and accountable to only great wealth.

sanepride said @ 8:56pm GMT on 2nd Sep
You go on and have your fun penners.
In the meantime, please accept my sincere condolences on ending up with a nominee that no one can get even mildly enthusiastic about.

bbqkink said @ 11:21pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Eastwood didn't do anything new. The GOP has been trying to create an imaginary Obama for a long time. Here is one of many examples.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mr. Langosta said @ 4:57am GMT on 2nd Sep
Jason Jones riffing on Baldwin's performance is Glengarry Glen Ross was priceless.

bbqkink said @ 11:00pm GMT on 1st Sep
Ahh those poor Republicans...I almost felt sorry for them until I remembered how freakin rich they are.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

incpenners said @ 3:35am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:-2]

incpenners said @ 5:18am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:-4 Troll]
This is being built by his supporters.

At the convention.

incpenners said @ 1:52pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:-5 Troll]

They call it Mount Obama. Not a joke.

thikarai said @ 2:26am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:4 Underrated]

Kind of old, but still eerily relevant.

dreamingzephyr said @ 4:43am GMT on 2nd Sep
Old? This is from the season finale of a new show.

bbqkink said @ 11:53pm GMT on 2nd Sep
http://www.sensibleerection.com/entry.php/86949

sanepride said @ 2:41pm GMT on 3rd Sep
Yep, both this clip and the one where the guy talks about how America isn't the greatest country in the world (and then waxes nostalgic for the good ol' days) are pretty stale at this point.

epease said @ 3:48am GMT on 2nd Sep
I didn't watch much of the republican convention. It does smack of bullshit if they didn't do an invite to the guy who had eight, count them and your place during that time and at the end, years in office. I am not certain, but I have to point out the obvious fact the republicans voting for Romney do not understand nor use the euphemism WTF. My prediction is Romney will not get elected as President of the US. The republican party will then change their base to include as many people and groups as the the democratic party has persuaded. But it will not matter because a large Sun Spot or an Asteroid will plunge us back into serfdom whereby the blacksmith who creates the most curvaceous iron wroughting will be named the next messiah.

damnit said @ 3:50am GMT on 2nd Sep
... or a world black out

Barnabas_Truman said @ 4:06am GMT on 2nd Sep
Interesting idea. Reminds me heavily of S.M. Stirling's "Emberverse" setting. Might work better as a movie than a TV series.

Of course the first thing I'm wondering is: how exactly did the blackout work? Are we pretending it's some sort of advanced technology, or is it just magic?

I don't think planes would go into a straight-down spin if the power was cut. I'm damn certain cars wouldn't just come to a clean stop in the middle of the road if the power was cut.

I don't see why guns would work at all.

All the characters--and especially their clothes!--look awfully clean and tidy for being in a world that's been without advanced tech for 15 years.

damnit said @ 4:27am GMT on 2nd Sep
Well, the premise is just they lost power. I'm sure you don't need a washer/dryer to get clean clothes. I'm sure they'll explain how it happened. I'm betting it's some form of permanent electromagnetic pulse.

That aside, I'm watching this for Giancarlo Esposito.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:55am GMT on 2nd Sep
I'm really not seeing why cars would stop working. Modern cars would stop working well, sure, but it's really straining credibility to imply that some sort of effect would invisibly kill both electronics and internal combustion engines.

damnit said @ 6:52am GMT on 2nd Sep
That, I'm trying to know... hopefully the show would care to elaborate. I know a detonated nuclear bomb or EM pulse would kill anything with a microchip, but it shouldn't stop people from going back to the industrial revolution.

happiest_sadist said @ 9:46am GMT on 2nd Sep
Any EMP strong enough to seriously fuck up the electical distribution system would also induce deadly currents in almost any living being with a spinal chord. It would also very likely cause lots of mini-lightning strikes which would set many fires with no one more sophisticated than a planarian to fight.

eIfish said @ 4:31pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Are you serious?

Electronics tends not to gracefully degrade: it either works or it doesn't. Without functioning ICs, of which a car has far more than a Nintendo DS, iPad, or set-top box, a modern car will not be able to decide to switch on, unlock its doors, start its engine, work out if it's stolen or not, disengage its steering lock, inject and ignite fuel at appropriate times to make the crankshaft rotate, select gears in an auto-box, or operate the AB system.

Simply wiping the car's or key's EEPROMs would render it utterly non-functional, save for as a storage locker.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 7:49pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Perhaps vintage cars would make a comeback.

Of course, if all roads are cluttered with the remains of irreparably broken cars, even cars that work perfectly aren't going to be much use.

mrcucumber said @ 2:26pm GMT on 3rd Sep
I would suspect most all would be pilfered for parts, etc. Steel hoarded/melted down (you don't need electricity for a forge) and anything else that's unusable would be burned for heat.

Supreme_Coconut said @ 5:07am GMT on 2nd Sep
Aside from the plane falling in a flat spin, which gives me a rage boner, how clean their clothes AND THEIR TEETH are infuriates me. Fifteen years in to the future I'm thinking they've run out of toothpaste. And guns should work provided you have bullets and care for your firearms. So, y'know, gun nuts who think Obama was going to take all their guns will probably still have ammunition. My main problem with the show, aside from all the horrible science, has to be the cleanliness of everything. That and all the vines creeping up buildings. Bitch please, it's fifteen years, not fifty.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:53am GMT on 2nd Sep
Obviously the magic that killed all the high tech also gave a huge power boost to all the vines, because as everyone knows plants are the opposite of technology.

eIfish said @ 4:34pm GMT on 2nd Sep
OOI, what would an Airbus do if all its computers stopped working? It's not aerodynamically unstable like the Eurofighter or B2, but it's still completely fly-by-wire, and its engines are computer-controlled.

maryyugo said @ 5:17pm GMT on 2nd Sep
It's Iron Man's heart all over again!

gunthar said @ 8:32am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:3 Funny]

Seneki69 said @ 10:40am GMT on 2nd Sep
S-s-sweet can!

bbqkink said @ 4:19pm GMT on 2nd Sep
As long as the GOP has us talking about the national debt instead of this

Income inequality

The real problem is a shrinking middle class. The middle class not only buys the widgets from the rich the also employ the poor to cut their grass, paint their house, and fix their cars.

happiest_sadist said @ 3:45am GMT on 3rd Sep [Score:1 Insightful]
A "shrinking middle class" isn't the problem so much as an increase in the number of poor people. Neither party likes to admit it, but poverty is a problem in itself. If the "middle class" were disappearing into wealth it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Naruki said @ 2:48pm GMT on 3rd Sep
Actually it would, since it would mean the devaluation of money such that the other rich were now very significantly poorer as a result.

It is not possible for the middle class to join the upper without either creating wealth out of a vacuum or devaluing the wealth we already have.

Only by shifting existing wealth can somebody benefit without violating fundamental laws of economics. And that still means someone loses. It's getting harder and harder to squeeze that money out of the poor, so they tap another source.

bbqkink said @ 6:26pm GMT on 3rd Sep
Yea the middle class has to go somewhere and it isn't UP to the 1%. My point if you grow the middle the bottom get smaller and gives poor a greater piece of the pie.
There are things you can do directly for the poor but the best thing you can do for the poor is grow the middle class. the middle class is who hires the poor.

bbqkink said @ 5:23pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Just in case anybody needed some more proof that cutting taxes creates jobs.

Canada Proves Conservatives Wrong by Cutting Corporate Taxes By 30% and Still No Jobs

Tax cuts create jobs. Paul Ryan and the Republican nominee Mitt Romney told a group that Canada just cut their corporate taxes to 15%.

Paul Ryan was obviously insinuating that these tax cuts put America at a disadvantage, and that the Canadian economy is going to explode and take all of our jobs. Corporate taxes in 2006 were already just 21%. In January 2011, Canada cut the corporate tax rate to 16.5%, then cut them again to 15% January 2012.

Overall, Canada has cut corporate taxes by almost 30% in 6 years.

The only problem is, the Canadian economy isn’t blasting off at all. It is still stuck in an anemic recovery. just like the United States. The Canadian economy only grew 1.8% in the second quarter of 2012. The United States on the other hand has a much higher statutory corporate tax and the economy grew at 1.7% in the same quarter. How can this be? Higher taxes hurt job creation, right? Yet both countries are stuck in the same slow recovery.

lilmookieesquire said @ 10:17pm GMT on 2nd Sep
That's a bad example unless you are trying to dispel the idea that it's a magic bullet.

Taxes are necessary for education, transportation and services. Business leaders in the US are too short sighted because their compensation has little to no motivation for the long term health and profitability of their business.

I'd argue one of the reasons countries like Japan and Germany can do so well is that business is a major part of their national security structure.

Imagine what would happen in the US if the military budget was used on job creation, business, and education. Granted, we would all probably be killed by north korea etc in a week, but we'd be hella smart.

lilmookieesquire said @ 10:24pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I'm not sure I agree with this chart, but:

bbqkink said @ 10:49pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Point is unless taxes are extremely high to start with cutting them is little stimulus to business. To paraphrase Warren Buffet

" I never met a businessman who would turn down a profit because he would have to pay taxes on the profit"

You become involved in any venture if you can make a profit, paying a tax is just part of doing business.

Cutting business taxes makes more money for business who are already there but doesn't incentive any new business, and new business is who hires people.

And if you do tax existing business you intensify new business by building infrastructure and employ the people to build it.

Bottom line cutting corporate taxes only helps corporations. Or should I call them job creators to further that lie as well.

bbqkink said @ 12:36am GMT on 3rd Sep [Score:-1 Flamebait]
In 2010: GE made $14.2billion in profits, got a check from the IRS for $3.2billion AND still laid off 21,000 workers. Please, tell me again how lower corporate taxes create jobs.

lilmookieesquire said @ 6:31am GMT on 3rd Sep
"Please, tell me again how lower corporate taxes create jobs."

Why don't you tell me since I never said that.

I just said Canada is a bad example.

Anyone who doesn't have their head stuck all the way up their ass will simply explain away a Canadian example with "The Canadian economy is doing poorly because they depend on the US and Obama ruined the economy blah blah blah". My point was that Canada is a poor example because their economy is closely tied to the US and is a fraction of the size (they did well after the crash because their banks have more conservative rules about speculation). You can find plenty of economic data and examples in the US that cutting taxes doesn't stimulate the economy.

For fuck's sake. I wrote "Taxes are necessary for education, transportation and services. Business leaders in the US are too short sighted because their compensation has little to no motivation for the long term health and profitability of their business."

Do I sound like I'm pro-tax cuts?!

tiemy said @ 7:16pm GMT on 3rd Sep
Who are you talking to? That tax cuts create jobs is accepted as gospel truth among both parties. Obama and the Democrats have been pushing for a corporate tax rate cut (in addition to the bonanza of pro-business tax cuts and subsidies that was the first 'stimulus package') for years. Same thing to business deregulation, which Obama has been a consistent champion of.

And the multi-millionaire Republican CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, has been head of Obama's 'Job Council' since 2011. Pure hypocrisy.

chold_numa said @ 12:28am GMT on 4th Sep
Cutting tax can create stimulus for business, as can reducing the overnight cash rate. There's no guarantee though, and fiddling with the levers doesn't increase business confidence. Ultimately, if there's more money in the pool (household discretionary income), the economy will grow by itself. That's not the case now, as everyone is overextended servicing debt. Tax cuts don't address this and other factors.

lilmookieesquire said @ 6:24am GMT on 3rd Sep
I don't disagree with the concept at all.
I think America is the best place to look for proof of what you are saying.

chold_numa said @ 11:59pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:2]
It is a tragedy of the commons, where the commons is the spending power of the majority of the population. Once this is exhausted (banks unable to extend any more credit as there is no income (jobs), or assets to back it, a company will go overseas to new markets to maintain profitability and the consumers will be left holding the bag.

The ability of a government to tax and subsequently spend on infrastructure and maintain a body of consumers (public servants and people with government contracts) allows a redistribution from a place of low velocity (shares, bonds, bank accounts, real estate) to places of higher velocity (food, petrol, consumer goods). The difference is that in allocating $1 million, it's better to give 1000 people $1000 than to give it to a single individual. There's much more economic activity generated out of the former.

Ankylosaur said @ 10:56pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:1 Funny]
Sacha Baron Cohen accuses the GOP of treason

sanepride said @ 3:54am GMT on 3rd Sep
Hah. So Monckton's a birther.
That certainly lends credence to his views on climate change.

Omegaphobic said @ 9:21am GMT on 3rd Sep
WHY MUST I ALWAYS READ THE COMMENTS

WHY BRAIN WHY

thikarai said @ 7:23am GMT on 4th Sep [Score:1 Funny]
Can someone confirm that? Is Monckton actually a Sacha Baron Cohen character? I've been getting really mixed info.

KingPellinore said @ 6:54pm GMT on 4th Sep
No, he isn't.

bbqkink said @ 11:12pm GMT on 2nd Sep
While we are talking GOP and Taxes.....

Ezra Klein: Romney’s tax promises simply don’t add up

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities produced its own analysis of Romney’s plan, based on an assumption that Romney pays for half of his tax cuts through spending cuts. The conclusion: By 2022, Romney would need to cut all non-defense, non-Social Security programs by 49 percent. That is not plausible, to say the least.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-romneys-tax-promises-simply-dont-add-up/2012/08/03/66a2b1c8-dda7-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html