EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hogwash, Mr. President
What is the state of the union? You certainly couldn't tell from that platitudinous hogwash that the president dished out Tuesday evening. I had expected Barack Obama to be his eloquent self, appealing to our better nature, but instead he was mealy-mouthed in avoiding the tough choices that a leader should delineate in a time of trouble. He embraced clean air and a faster Internet while ignoring the depth of our economic pain and the Wall Street scoundrels who were responsible-understandably so, since they so prominently populate the highest reaches of his administration. He had the effrontery to condemn "a parade of lobbyists" for rigging government after he appointed the top Washington representative of JPMorgan Chase to be his new chief of staff.
The speech was a distraction from what seriously ails us: an unabated mortgage crisis, stubbornly high unemployment and a debt that spiraled out of control while the government wasted trillions making the bankers whole. Instead the president conveyed the insular optimism of his fat-cat associates: "We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again." How convenient to ignore the fact that this bubble of prosperity, which has failed the tens of millions losing their homes and jobs, was floated by enormous government indebtedness now forcing deep cuts in social services including state financial aid for those better-educated students the president claims to be so concerned about.
His references to education provided a convenient scapegoat for the failure of the economy, rather than to blame the actions of the Wall Street hustlers to whom Obama is now sucking up. Yes, it is an obvious good to have better-educated students to compete with other economies, but that is hardly the issue of the moment when all of the world's economies are suffering grievous harm resulting from the irresponsible behavior of the best and the brightest here at home. It wasn't the students struggling at community colleges who came up with the financial gimmicks that produced the Great Recession, but rather the super-whiz-kid graduates of the top business and law schools.
What nonsense to insist that low public school test scores hobbled our economy when it was the highest-achieving graduates of our elite colleges who designed and sold the financial gimmicks that created this crisis. Indeed, some of the folks who once designed the phony mathematical formulas underwriting subprime mortgage-based derivatives won Nobel prizes for their effort. A pioneer in the securitization of mortgage debt, as well as exporting jobs abroad, was one Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE, whom Obama recently appointed to head his new job creation panel.
That the financial meltdown at the heart of our economic crisis was "avoidable" and not the result of long-run economic problems related to education and foreign competition is detailed in a sweeping report by the Democratic majority on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to be released as a 576-page book on Thursday. In a preview reported in The New York Times, the commission concluded: "The greatest tragedy would be to accept the refrain that no one could have seen this coming and thus nothing could have been done. If we accept this notion, it will happen again."
Just the warning that Obama has ignored by continually appointing the very people who engineered this crisis, mostly Clinton alums, to reverse its ongoing dire consequences. As the Times reports: "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called ‘a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.' "
Obama appointed as his top economic adviser Lawrence Summers, who as Clinton's treasury secretary was the key architect of that "turning point," and Summers protégé Timothy Geithner as his own treasury secretary. The unanimous finding of the 10 Democrats on the commission is that Geithner, who had been president of the New York Fed before Obama appointed him, "could have clamped down" on excesses by Citigroup, the subprime mortgage leader that Geithner and the Fed bailed out along with other unworthy banking supplicants.
Profligate behavior that has hobbled the economy while running up an enormous debt that Obama now uses as an excuse for a five-year freeze on discretionary domestic spending cuts that small part of the budget that might actually help ordinary people. Speaking of our legacy of deficit spending, Obama stated, "... in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people's pockets. But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in."
Why now? It is an absurd demarcation to freeze spending when so many remain unemployed just because corporate profits, and therefore stock market valuations, seem firm. Ours is a union divided between those who agree with Obama that "the worst of the recession is over" and the far larger number in deep pain that this president is bent on ignoring.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

248 Comments so far
Show AllWall streets road to success is to ignore reality, and continue with the plan. Then when it fails, like a spoiled child, hand the bill to someone else.
After all it is working for them. It doesn't matter that it is bringing down the house.
China and the rest of the emerging markets are watching very closely and trying very hard not to make the same mistakes.
With this president, I am reminded of his predecessor, who addressed an audience of wealthy benefactors, footage in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11: "It's a pleasure to be here in the company of the haves and have-mores!"
Indeed, Mr. Scheer gets it and nails it. Obama has virtually plagiarized Bush's quote: "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base" ---GWB (October, 2000)
On finding the economic bus in the ditch with two flat tires, Obama slapped on a full set of Clinton-Bush retreads, veered all fours into the ravine and jammed down the Fed-QE-morphine pedal to the metal. So we are now careening toward Arizona's Grand Canyon, to join Thelma and Louise in 2012! Change we can believe in.
Moore played you for a fool too.
Don't look now, but your breathtaking ignorance is showing. You've been quaffing too much tea party Kool-aid.
Can you *demonstrate* that this is true? Anyone can "say" anything they want. The fact is that Moore included the clip without the context that it was at a charity event. Show that it is otherwise please.
Oh, leave Michael Moore alone! He may be a lefty propagandist who takes a lot of poetic license with his footage, but at least he's not an Obama apologist...
Let's stipulate for the record: you are entirely corrrect; it was a charity event, arranged within two weeks of the presidential selection.
One last time: the event is irrelevant, jake. The point you are missing is that the quote itself reveals the elitist mindset. You really should quit while you're behind, jake. Your ego and your loathing of Michael Moore are not serving you well here at all.
Doug T.
Bingo! You nailed it.
Cheerleader. Rah!
"Let's stipulate for the record: you are entirely corrrect; it was a charity event,"
I *am* correct.
"arranged within two weeks of the presidential selection."
It has been "arranged" every single year since 1960.
"the event is irrelevant, jake."
If that were the case, Moore should have said so, since he is supposed to be a respected "documentary" film maker. Had he supplied the proper context, he would not have gotten the effect he wanted because people would have understood he was joking for the sake of charity.
"the quote itself reveals the elitist mindset."
That is your *opinion*. This statement has no objective truth, if it does you can demonstrate that it does. I'll wait.
"You really should quit while you're behind,"
See above, it's your turn. Unless you are just vpoicing an opinion and admit that many people may very well disagree with it.
"your loathing of Michael Moore"
It's not *my* fault that Moore fails to provide context of a quote. A *real* documentary film maker would have.
God, this thread is boring.
Agree........... whaat was it about anyway?
>^^<
Show that Mike Moore intended to deceive his audience, please.
"Show that Mike Moore intended to deceive his audience, please."
I offer as evidence the post by wc652 who started this thing. Obviously had no idea what the context was.
He only repeated Bush's words and said that they were in Moore's film. That is obviously not evidence that Moore intended to deceive his audience. You're painted yourself into a corner. Find a new hobby.
Michael Moore is STILL my favorite lightning rod for drawing the rightwingers at this site! It's amusing to see someone defending W's fawning speech on behalf of "the haves and have mores."
Thanks, NC Tom and Doug T, for your additional comments. Doug, I think that you have the most accurate quote from the event.
Speaking of Michael Moore, now HE could provide a SOTU address!
Tea Party Kool-aid . . . or today's Democratic Party orthodoxy.
You can say anything you want, but you failed to "show your work" as the teacher used to say. *shrug*
You keep doing it for us.
You are the one who made the assertions, and the burden is upon you to support those assertions, the burden is not upon anyone else to prove a negative.
What difference does the "context" make? You have hinted, insinuated, and then when anyone challenged you unsupported (and absurdly trivial and irrelevant) assertion you turn the tables and demand that they prove you are wrong.
Talk about not showing your work.
"You are the one who made the assertions"
Anyone who saw the movie in question knows that Moore did not explain that Bush was speaking at a charity event.
Why did Moore not explain that Bush was speaking at a charity event? What is your theory?
Anyone want to help out TA?
Michael Moore may have written one too many articles apologizing for Obama even when he shouldn't have and wouldn't were Obama a Republican but that's not necessarily playing us for fools. Moore is not a politician so he can't possibly play us for fools. Let's at least give him some credit for making us think about the issues before us. Without him, how many of us would notice the attacks on Planned Parenthood, ACORN, Julian Assange and Wikileaks, and heroic figures like them? What would the Republicans be like today if it weren't for Moore? I don't expect the Republicans to be much good but still ... We can all critique Moore's writings where he gets it wrong without denigrating him personally.
"Moore is not a politician so he can't possibly play us for fools. "
I don't see how you can make this statement.
"Let's at least give him some credit for making us think about the issues before us. "
I'll give him loads of credit for trying to get us to think about issues in a manner that agrees with him, no problem there.
"denigrating him personally."
I think he knows exactly what he is doing when he puts his films together.
Name one political office that Michael Moore ran for let alone got elected to. As for his films, he is telling the truth even if it hurts. He may have run films against the Bush cabal and some of his articles may give one the impression that he's another Democratic Party hack but none of that makes him a politician. He happens to be a special film producer who's trying to use money for enlightening the average Joe and Jane masses out there. Critique his films and writings but don't shoot the messenger.
I don't understand your point. One need not be a politician. Moore can play his audience for fools by putting on airs of being a "documentary" film maker and then committing the lie of omission that I pointed out and that "wc652" apparently bought hook line and sinker.
"As for his films, he is telling the truth even if it hurts."
Whether he does that on the whole is a matter of opinion, but on the specific and disingenuous tactic of using the lie of omission that he did he is despicable, and as I said elsewhere he probably has enough legitimate material without stooping to that level.
Omitting things doesn't necessarily make him a liar. Maybe what he omitted wasn't relevant other than to cause more confusion. I'm sure he's answered on his omissions in countless articles when asked about any of them. You can find all his articles on www.michaelmoore.com if you're itching to know any omission of his for which he probably already gave an answer to.
I highly doubt that Moore has said anything public as to why he failed to explain the charity event context. He wants us to hear the words, and nothing more.
Is Jake secretly Glenn Beck? Shore does sound like it. Glenn said on his Radio show that he wonted to kill MM. Jake your done. I mean Glenn Beck your done.
I'll check back in case you wish to actually take me on for something I said.
'I think he knows exactly what he is doing when he puts his films together.'
So you can read his mind, and use this as a basis for an argument. Put down your Ayn Rand. Come on up out of your Mom's basement and get some light and air. Live Long and Prosper.
"So you can read his mind,"
No, it's obviously my *very good* opinion, given that he does this all the time.
'No, it's obviously my *very good* opinion, given that he does this all the time'
Yet you would not allow others to use their own opinions about the character of Bush _ pure hypocrisy _ classic Right.
Google "fifty-nine deceits", read the article, and get back to me. That's 59 in one film. *yawn*
Those 'deceits' are arbitrarily defined and poorly backed matters of opinion, as is every single argument you've made in your posts here. Classic Right-Wing shit.
Zell
Bingo! You nailed it.
Were you going to offer any analysis of the article? Just declaring it BS doesn't make it so. You have to say why.
You may not believe this but unless you have filed with some type of an Internet judge what is called an order to show cause then I do not "have" to say why. If you have filed that pleading then I will eagerly await being served by a process server so that I can file an answer explaining to your mythical court that I am under no obligation to reply to your incredibly inane comments.
Meanwhile, I have sat back and enjoyed seeing Zell easily swat away your feeble arguments which you persist in stating, over and over again, ad nauseum.
One has to admire your wife or your girlfriend/boyfriend as she/he would have to have the patience of a saint in order to put up with your obstreperous behavior as well as your extremely fragile ego.
" I do not "have" to say why."
I know that. But you can say anything without showing your work, what does it *prove*?
"Zell easily swat away your feeble arguments "
Not really Erroll. The current argument is all Dave Kopel's not mine. And Zell and you both ran away from it like the pus, er, 'fraidy cats you are. Fifty-nine individual arguments against Moore's film, untouched. That's pretty "feeble". Have a great weekend!
'is all Dave Kopel's not mine. And Zell and you both ran away from it'
False. I've posted the link to the website, and encouraged other readers to see it. If they do so, they'll know immediately what it is _ 'Area 59.' It's completely false to say anyone's avoided that argument. Classic Rabid Right technique.
"It's completely false to say anyone's avoided that argument."
You completely failed to counter it. You simply declared it to be something because "Zell says so". In a serious game, that's just as good as running away.
"Classic Rabid Right technique."
Nyuh-uh. With a pompous wave of my hand, I declare your statement to be Communist Proppaganda. *waves hand*
I gotta admit Zell, you are much better at the game of Declaring The Opposition's Argument To Be Whatever You Want It To Be Without Providnig Support Simply Because Zell Says So Game than I am. You win. But that's a pretty stupid game, kind of like the Think You Won Because You Posted Last Game. We have nothing to talk about. Have a great day!
'We have nothing to talk about'
This is something else we agree upon.
"Those 'deceits' are arbitrarily defined and poorly backed matters of opinion,"
LOL! Retreat! Retreat! What a pussy! No they aren't. Each one is well described and backed up, and he even included Moore's vague and unspecific responses which seem to have disappeared from his site. I let them stand on their own, completely untouched by you or anyone else. Why is it that you didn't provide any specific analysis? Because you can't. You are a *pussy* because you are *afraid* to discuss the article. That’s just an opinion, not an argument.
Why would Moore remove discussion of a well thought out set of criticisms about his movie from his site?
from Zell January 27th, 2011 9:31 pm
"My point is that you're demanding hard and logical 'proof' from others as a claim of legitimacy for their arguments about Bush's intent and thoughts,"
Nowhere have I done that. I haven't made that demand because I think it's impossible for them to do that.
from Zell January 27th, 2011 9:35 pm
"you're claiming that your assumptions about a person's motives are legitimate points of argument, without proof,"
The points are legitimate because they are part of an obvious pattern for which I offered as support the fifty-nine deceits page that you *ran away* from.
from Zell January 27th, 2011 9:39 pm
"making false statements"
You will now provide your *single very best* example of a "false statement" I have made in this thread.
I think that you are a *True Believer* regarding Moore and this film, that has been obvious all along. I am not interested in trying to convert a *True Believer*. I am uninterested in doing any more back and forth with you unless you wish to make specific points about the fifty-nine deceits article.
I've read them and won't waste my energy repeating fascist propaganda. For those interested, they may read the website and witness the lack of merit. It's a matter of public record. Those interested could look it up.
I'm not sure about your fixation with the word 'pussy,' but I'd lay off that, as it's probably offensive to many of the readers here _ regardless of how ~you~ translate the colloquialism. If you were concerned about making a point, you'd have some regard for your audience. Your lack of such regards leads me to suppose _ though one can't prove it _ that you're looking for the only version of a 'fight' you'd be able to get into. I'm fairly certain that if we stood face-to-face, you'd refrain from the derogatory language. Your fixation also leads me to assume that your life could be lacking something.
Regarding making false statements _ falsity is part of the legal definition of libel, along with malice. I know from court. You yourself acknowledged that you 'libeled' Mike Moore, in one of your posts, as is your freedom. I'm not accusing you of making false statements. You thoroughly implicated yourself.
I'm not seeing any possibility of a constructive motivation for engaging me on this topic. If you had a constructive motive, you'd used civility and balance. My own motivation does involve anger, but also moral principle _ Men of the generation before ours died fighting Fascism, and now it's back again, on my own soil. Your attitude and tactics smack of it, along with Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and the rest of that trash. You can shout down the truth on FOX news, but you can't do it on CD _ it might seem irrational for me to engage a lesser mentality, but part of the reason the Left is faring so poorly is its inherent decency and rationality, and we're now working in an environment in which those attributes are cynically used against us. I'm not going to let my 'better angels' bow and give your crap an uncontested space in a forum that means much to me.
I've read them and won't waste my energy repeating fascist propaganda."
Now *that* is a *perfect* example of ad hominem. The paper is false because it is "fascist propaganda". That is a false argument. By saying who or what the argument is, you falsely think you don't have to address it specifically. Classic, perfect example.
Had I simply said that Moore's film itself was "communist propaganda" and refused to discuss it's specifics you could say the same to me.
Since you refuse to make a counter argument, the paper stands untouched. It does not matter to me why you won't touch them, or that you put forth a false ad hominem argument.
"I'm not sure about your fixation with the word 'pussy,' "
You may substitute "'fraidy cat".
"Regarding making false statements _ falsity is"
Specifically, something that is untrue.
" You yourself acknowledged that you 'libeled' Mike Moore, "
I retract that, I was wrong, assuming your vague definition is correct. I was posting quickly and assumed a much broader meaning of that word than you were.
So let me be very clear: When I say that Moore is dishonest, I am not committing libel because nothing I have said in support of that is false.
"I'm not seeing any possibility of a constructive motivation for engaging me on this topic. "
My constructive motivation is to get people to see the deception of Moore. I have acknowledged that you won't change your mind on that. There were others here who indicated an interest in the circumstances of Bush's statements and maybe they now think differently, such as Tom Joad January 26th, 2011 10:09 am
You? I don't care about changing your mind. Although I would claim a small victory if i could get you a little further along in understanding what an "ad hominem argument" is.
"If you had a constructive motive, you'd used civility and balance."
Non sequitur, and you have not been very civil yourself.
"My own motivation does involve anger,"
OK, I care just a little about this. Your anger is like a millstone around your neck, and you should try to get out from under it. Good luck.
"but you can't do it on CD "
The fact that you refuse to comment on Koppel's paper proves I can. Kopel's paper stands untouched. I have "done it" once again.
'but you can't do it on CD'
'the fact that you refuse to comment on Koppel's paper proves I can'
That is an outright falsehood. I have commented on Koppel's paper, by saying it's all entirely nonsense. Posting something on the Internet doesn't make it correct. You can find a lot of other websites that prove 9-11 was planned by the government, that aliens crashed in Area 51, that Obama was born in Kenya, that levitation is possible. You can keep posting falsehoods, but they'll always be just that, no matter how long you keep posting. No amount of repetition can mask your disingenuousness nor motivation _ it'll work on FOX News, but just not here.
"I have commented on Koppel's paper, by saying it's all entirely nonsense."
Yes, and with a pompous wave of my hand I declare the same about Moore's film. *waves hand*
IOW, you offer no counter argument and therefore it's contents *still* stand untouched. Just so we are clear.
Imagine a world where all we had to do is declare anything we disagree with as "nonsense". Unfortunately This "technique" cannot be found anywhere in the rules of logical discourse that have been around for centuries. Sorry Zell, that world does not exist, and with any luck or desire you will one day figure that out and if it happens I will take some of the credit for it and be happy.
So that's where we stand, fifty-nine individual deceits showing a pattern as to how Moore plays his audience for fools. Untouched. Since you have obviously no interest in any logical discourse on this subject, I don't see what elese we have to say.
'Imagine a world where all we had to do is declare anything we disagree with as "nonsense'
Nonsense
Who flagged my comment and why?
I wouldn't worry about it because there's nothing flaggable.