Jackson Free Press

In his response to President Obama's speech, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal just criticized the president's stimulus package for providing funding for monitoring volcanoes. On the surface, that's sounds like an important job. Is his Jindal's fruit-fly moment (i.e. Palin and McCain's vicious attacks on fruit-fly research, which can help cure autism). And other than that, what did you think of Obama's speech?

Previous Commentsshow

Jindal lost me when he started to talk about his life story. But if a volcano suddenly appeared in the middle of Baton Rouge, he'd be complaining about not why no research was done to find out about it. As for Obama's speech, it was great. I listened to the speech on NPR and E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post later said it was great that Obama painted the picture of banks lending money to homebuilders, who then, in turn, can hire workers to build and on and on. While short on specifics, this president seems ready to make tough choices to get things rolling again.

golden eagle

Feb 24 2009

From tonight's GOP response, the idea that Jindal is a POTUS contender in 2012 is laughable.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 24 2009

I don't know if there is one, inactive or not in Louisiana. There are two under Mississippi, if you want to be trivial. Otherwise... is volcano research necessary to jumpstaring the economy and curing the Bank Crash?

Ironghost

Feb 24 2009

One of the inactive volcanos under Mississippi is under Jackson, with the epicenter under the fairgrounds... I think that a volcanic eruption anywhere in the United States would have the potential to do considerable damage to the economy, so I can't argue with these particular funds. Re Jindal, I was excited when he was elected and in some ways I still consider him an improvement over Blanco (who was just as socially conservative in most respects), but his right-wingedness on various issues--particularly his attempt to restrict science teaching in public schools on the basis that it does not conform to biblical fundamentalism--is conspicuous and chilling. (It also fails to conform with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which are not anti-evolution.) There are times when it is hard not to believe that he and Sarah Palin are to the United States what the Taliban is to Afghanistan and what the BJP is to India: Symbols representing radically sectarian movements whose leaders want to destroy any trace of secular democracy and establish a brutal and authoritarian regime, organized around ancient religious texts, in its place. Bill Clinton kept talking about a bridge to the 21st century; they represent a bridge to the 13th. I can take some comfort in the fact that they probably don't believe half the theocratic philosophy they spout, but that's a small comfort indeed. Give me the Republican Party of Steele, Specter, Pataki, Collins, Schwarzenegger, Snowe, even Haley Barbour up to a point. But the Republican Party of Palin, Jindal, and Romney...that's bad news. Bad news for the country, bad news for what used to be called the conservative movement.

Tom Head

Feb 25 2009

Tom: I figured you'd know about that one. Know where the other one is? Baquan: [quote]You would think the Republican Party would tell hard core extremists, shut up - let's put out the flame, get in line take our lickin' - and prepare for 2016! Period! [/quote] No, they care about the country too much to leave it to be ruined by socialists.

Ironghost

Feb 25 2009

Yeah, Socialism. Even Obama's people are admitting there's no way to keep people who lied on their mortgage forms from getting bailed out. People who can meet their bills get shafted while liars and frauds get covered. Feel good about that? Oh, and how do you feel about Keith Olberman, Ed Schultz or Chris Matthews? I really want _your_ honest opinion.

Ironghost

Feb 25 2009

Whatever it is, it isn't socialism. Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation. And let's note for the record that it was a Republican administration that sent us down the road toward bailing out banks and Wall Street firms full of liars and frauds.

Todd Stauffer

Feb 25 2009

Why are you guys arguing over the volcano funding? You DON'T GET IT! He's not arguing that this funding isn't needed... he's arguing that it should not be in a STIMULUS bill. It's not stimulus spending. If you want to fund this, it should go through a regular spending proposal bill for regular government funding of programs. It should not be in a stimulus bill... why? It's not stimulus spending! Did you not realize this? Did it go over your head? If so... you shouldn't be voting. Sheesh!

ster5

Feb 25 2009

I must have missed the part about volcano monitoring because Jindal's delivery was so boring and robotic I found myself wanting him to just get it over with so I could watch Nip/Tuck.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 25 2009

I think with regard to the socialism question, that if the administration and the leaders of the Democrat party were truly wanting to institute some form of socialism here they had the perfect opportunity to nationalize the major banks and they didn't. I, personally, think they could have sold it to the people if that was their aim. Once you control the money and the access to it what don't you control? So I think we can lay the red menace argument aside. I didn't see Gov. Jindal deliver his response but I read his speech from the link above and I think he put the difference in ideas best when he said, "In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government." In following their ideals the Republicans managed to prove conclusively that too much limited government sucks for most people. He also summed up the reason why almost no one is listening to the Republicans now, Trust. Which is sad because they might have some good ideas but now an overwhelming majority of people feel like we can't afford to listen to them. One of the main things I always liked about the Republicans was they talk a lot about personal responsibility and accountability. Well, they are reaping the fruit of what their leadership has sown. So it looks like that part of their platform works. As far as the President's speech. I couldn't help but keep comparing it to George W. Bush's state of the Union addresses so I didn't expect a lot of details but I can't think of anything he didn't cover. So it wasn't so surprising to me that he didn't go into a lot of detail covering that many different topics. He did say that he would deliver his budget soon so therein will lie the details. This man can inspire hope in anyone I think. What a great speech.

WMartin

Feb 25 2009

Baquan: It's call "a life". I have one. I don't obsess over ever microdetail of politics. I have a family who needs me.

Ironghost

Feb 25 2009

Someone on Morning Joe (one of the few conservative pundits I listen to) stated that Jindal put Palin back in the forefront of contenders. That was heavy liftin'. Ha ha. He seemed nervous like he may have been overcoached. Maybe he will get better. He is just 37 and is relatively new to the national stage. Plus, anyone would be nervous having to follow Hope. He sounded like: Why would a sane Republican want to remind the nation about Hurricane Katrina?

FreeClif

Feb 25 2009

ster5, first watch the personal tone. We discuss and debate respectfully on this site. Secondly, if the volcano monitoring funds create jobs, then it's stimulus. It seems the definition of "stimulus" keeps going over a lot of partisan's heads. Fortunately, Obama keeps directly reminding the American people what it means. Otherwise, I agree: Jindal was less than impressive. Sam Hall said on his blog that he looked like "howdy doody," which I wouldn't exactly agree with, but he sound a bit goofy. And his Katrina gov't example really feel flat. Unfortunate to use his state's (and our) tragedy in such an illogical, partisan way. The socialist rhetoric is tired and silly. Stay focused on the actual issues, please.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2009

ladd: I agree that his speech fell flat. I understand the problem with using Katrina, but that happens on all sides. Plus, he is the gov. of Louisiana. The issue really is Socialism. Less than 20% of the 'stimulus' spending will be spent this year. Most of it will be spent after the second half of 2010. (CBO stats) Just look at the bill. If it was "targeted, timely, and temporary" and was focused on jobs, I would support it. However, it's full of junk and there's no question about it. A big example is Harry Reid's $8 Billion for a mag-lev train from Anaheim to Las Vegas. The estimate is that with the environmental studies, having to have the courts take over private property for the train to run through, and all of the judicial time that is needed, construction (according to the CBO) will not begin until 2013. It may create jobs, but it's jobs in 2013. That's not stimulus now... we need it now, not 4 years from now. It should be in a regular spending bill, not this one that was sold to create jobs now. That is the problem with this package. It is full of things that are not going to start for years. That is why cons. have a problem in it. Why do you think legislators were not given time to read it, and it wasn't online and searchable for 48 hours for the public. They even posted the bill online as a picture/scan based Adobe file. They've never done that before since they started posting all bills years ago. Because of that, you cannot search for any terms or words. There was a reason for that. Think about it. So people like us couldn't see what's in it and wouldn't have the time. Why hide it? Remember how we couldn't give the public 48 hours because this was so important, but it took Obama 3 days to sign it after it was rushed through? If we couldn't wait 48 hours, why did he wait three days? Because it was BS. Simply, most of it is not stimulative now, and is basically a majority spending program that will go on for years. I would bet my last $ that if 75-80% of the funds would be spent in 2009 and the welfare reform rollbacks were not in there, and there were not strings on how the states could spend the $ a majority of Repugs would have voted for it. Only about $160 Billion will be spent in 2009. Why not pass a bill for THAT -- and then see if we need to pass another for 2010 late this year? Make sense? Not to the government.

ster5

Feb 25 2009

Well, I have a less civil response on my journal (http://graywalker.livejournal.com/251191.html) Despite what Ster5 and others think, you don't stimulate an economy by giving rich people tax breaks and waiting on them to start doing the right thing. You stimulate the economy by starting projects, hiring companies who then hire workers and once the project is built, it hires workers and pays them and they buy stuff. So, the High-Speed Rail has a couple hundred workers build a connection between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, then they have other workers build terminals, then they hire people to work in the terminals, people use the rails, save on gas and traffic congestion and boom - stimulated economy.

BobbyKearan

Feb 25 2009

Ugh this Obama economy is the pits.

QB

Feb 25 2009

Regarding the volcano research, I defer to the president, who has repeatedly said that while there are a few items in the stimulus package that may not belong there, the vast majority of spending in it is sound. It's political opportunism to seize on such items as if they are a fair representation of what was in the bill. The latest polls show that Republicans' obstructionism on the stimulus did not sell well with the American people. They seem set on appealing to people like Ironghost and indifferent to the other 80 percent of the population. It's like they're locked in permanent primary mode. As for style, I thought the contrast between Obama and Jindal was remarkable. Bush was the barbecue president, who used a kind of aw-shucks populism to appeal to the public. Jindal brought the same sort of shit kicker tone to his comments. "Hey folks, I don't know much, but guvment'll rob ya blind." I think that this sort of tone plays best in states the Republicans are going to take anyway. (McCain performed best in Oklahoma.) Obama sounded like a statesman. I don't Jindal could even fake the tone Obama uses so comfortably. We're a long way from 2012, but if the Republicans run some aw-shucks candidate like Jindal or Palin, they'll do very well. In Oklahoma. But they'll lose even bigger than last time.

Brian C Johnson

Feb 25 2009

Was that really the same sheriff? If so, I wish someone would have arrested him. That Gretna business was some of the ugliest racism of the disaster, in my opinion.

Brian C Johnson

Feb 25 2009

Fat Harry.... Fact is this is a Bush Economy. A Republican created Economy. Obama has been in office for only 35 Days. He is trying to start cleaning up the Bush-it mess, but Bush and Cronies had 8 years to mess it up this bad, so its going to take a little while. Give Obama at LEAST 8 months.

BobbyKearan

Feb 25 2009

"Despite what Ster5 and others think, you don't stimulate an economy by giving rich people tax breaks ..." I never even mentioned tax breaks. But that leads to a point. How many poor people have hired you for a job? I don't care about cuts, but if you raise taxes on higher income folks, many of whom are small business owners, that gives them an incentive to cut employees or cut pay. "You stimulate the economy by starting projects, hiring companies who then hire workers..." Yes, but my point is that we need stimulus now, not in 2013. Some of this stimulus bill will not be spent until 2015. Be careful what you wish for, if we all used rails to get around, automotive workers would be out of a job. And if the govt. has to borrow for that project, it takes money out of the hands of companies that could have hired for other things. I WANT a stimulus package. But not a bloated one that cost $1.2 - $1.3 Trillion (with interest) of which most most stimulate anything for several years... when we won't need it. Heck, if borrowing and spending on anything is stimulative, let's borrow $100 Trillion and spend it. Why not? We have to spend frugally, now, and on quick projects. Most of the spending has an end date, so those workers hired for stimulus projects will be out of a job later. That may be OK now, but there are conscequences people don't think about. When the govt. borrows, it takes away $$ that might have been lent to companies to expand. Also, if the govt doesn't borrow and prints the money, we get inflation - which makes us all worse off. We needed a stimulus program, but I believe this was not a responsible one. Someone mentioned that "most" of it was OK and that even Obama said "some" of it wasn't good spending. So..... why not take those parts out? Simple.

ster5

Feb 25 2009

Graywalker said: "Fact is this is a Bush Economy. A Republican created Economy. Obama has been in office for only 35 Days." But you forget. The Democrats have owned both houses for two years. Don't they get any blame? Here's a quick fact to bring in some balance... The Congress controls spending, no? The last deficit we had under a Repug. controlled Congress was $200 Billion. With the Demos, it went over $500 Billion and now will be over a Trillion. You can look it up. Sure, Bush screwed up, but so did the Dems in Congress. Heck, look who were in control of Fannie & Freddie that started the meltdown - Demos. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al. Also, look who blocked attempts to put more stringent regulations on Fannie & Freddie in 2005... All Democrats. And Repugs have gotten the blame for deregulating? They tried to regulate Fannie & Freddie and were blocked. When Repugs were last majorities in the legislature, (2004), the economy was doing pretty well. There's plenty of blame to go around. If you're going to sit here and just 'blame bush' for everything, you have partisan blinders on.

ster5

Feb 25 2009

"And let's note for the record that it was a Republican administration that sent us down the road toward bailing out banks and Wall Street firms full of liars and frauds." Oh, heck yeah. It certainly was. But... that still doesn't make it right. When your kid says "But Dad, Tommy did that too." You don't accept that as an excuse, do you? Why do we let our politicians get away with it. That's what we're doing here... We hated the deficits under Bush, but when the Democrats have huge deficits, they point and say "Bush did too." I guess that's just what politicians do (on both sides). We need to vote ALL of 'em out. All of 'em. As as to Bobby looking like a robot (he did), he was matched by Pelosi. Did you see her during Obama's speech? Sheesh. A botox robot. Yikes!

ster5

Feb 25 2009

Ouch... just passed the 'other' $400 Billion spending bill. 8,570 earmarks Ouch.

ster5

Feb 25 2009

ster5, you, too, are misusing the word "socialism," which adds nothing to the discussion. Go back and read up on what it actually means, and then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation about this. That kind of rhetoric adds nothing.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2009

And in all this, from the headline of Donna's blog entry, isn't it odd the Jindal would pick on a program to monitor for natural disasters? I mean, if the research money was going into detecting, say, hurricanes -- would he still have brought it up as an example of execrable government waste? Seems like a minor league mistake.

Todd Stauffer

Feb 25 2009

So, the High-Speed Rail has a couple hundred workers build a connection between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, then they have other workers build terminals, then they hire people to work in the terminals, people use the rails, save on gas and traffic congestion and boom - stimulated economy. The high-speed rail program could also be a model for the rest of the country, one that ultimately could use considerably fewer resources per-passenger than air travel, creating a more logical spoke and wheel system for transportation in this country. http://blog.wired.com/cars/2009/02/what-the-stimul.html Oh, and according to Wired, there's no high-speed rail planned between LA and Nevada -- apparently Dittoheads have cooked that up based on a WaPo story that *mentions* the possibility. This is $8b for all rail, particularly potential high-speed corridors, in the U. S. of A., including the Gulf Coast.

Todd Stauffer

Feb 25 2009

Why doesn't our Governor spend some time getting them to run a high speed rail through Jackson? Connections between Atlanta and Dallas and Memphis and New Orleans could stop here- makes sense to me!

Rico

Feb 25 2009

I suppose high-speed rail doesn't burn enough oil per-passenger to interest Mr. Barbour? :-P Just a guess. Otherwise, I don't see what there is not to like. Frankly, there's this bizarre way that things get pinned down ideologically that ends up making zero sense in the long-run, and I guess trains are just in the box.

Todd Stauffer

Feb 25 2009

Right, they are lying about the high speed rail. They are also distorting the CBO time frame for funds to be expended. The CBO has published a statement saying that 75% of the money will be spent by June of 2010. Ster5 should provide a link to the CBO report that says something different. Here is a link to something truthful: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/a-controversial-cbo-repor_n_160495.html Why do they lie so much? They cannot win elections with falsifications these days because with the Internet lies are more quickly exposed. It only takes a few seconds.

FreeClif

Feb 25 2009

Indeed, Ster may be misusing the term socialism, but I think that has caused some of his legitimate concerns to be ignored in subsequent comments. Centrally, the large portions of the stimulus bill that will not provide jobs until 2013 and beyond. Can a supporter of the stimulus respond to how creating jobs four years from now helps us out of recession before that time?

choctaw

Feb 25 2009

Indeed, Ster may be misusing the term socialism, but I think that has caused some of his legitimate concerns to be ignored in subsequent comments. That's the problem with starting a discussion with ridiculous and false rhetoric, choctaw: You immediately lose credibility. As for me, I don't keep reading comments that start that way; why would I waste my time on them? Otherwise, y'all should check your facts on the actual timetable before posting about it.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2009

Sadly, Barbour et al are really showing their partisan stripes on this one. It's sad, but informative, to watch.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2009

Ouch... just passed the 'other' $400 Billion spending bill. The word you're looking for is "proposed." Not passed. Just FYI. Here's hoping they listen to the president and get the earmarks out, which current comprise about 1 percent of the package. BTW, funny story, Republicans used to use earmarks all the time, and not just in fiscal year spending bills. Indeed, they were huge champions of the practice right up until they lost control of Congress. Then, all the sudden, they started "railing" against them. Anybody remember this oldie-but-goodie, back when Lott and Cochran put together the biggest earmark in history into an "emergency" war spending bill? Bonus -- it was for railroads! ;-) http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/78801 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0419/p01s01-uspo.html Oh, and for what it's worth, apparently Thad Cochran asked for 262 earmarks totaling $1b in fiscal 2008. http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks.html?by=search&member=Thad+Cochran Should we assume those were all bad?

Todd Stauffer

Feb 25 2009

In fact, iTodd, both Barbour and Wicker lambasted Musgrove because Musgrove wanted to eliminate earmarks! How's them hypocritical apples!?!

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2009

Update...my bad, the House *did* pass that legislation today, at least according to Kai on Marketplace. ;-) Here's hoping the Senate take a fine-tooth comb to the earmarks.

Todd Stauffer

Feb 25 2009

Ster5, the specter that worries economists now is deflation, not inflation. Your comments about the stimulus indicate that you don't understand how it works. Inflation might be a problem if the stimulus were permanent, but right now, the private sector is not providing loans. Therefore, the government has to "print money" to counteract deflation. There is little need to worry about inflation in the short term. Along the same lines, your point that stimulus jobs are not permanent is an argument for the stimulus, not against. By providing jobs now, the government can blunt the worst effects of the depression. As the economy recovers and those government-generated jobs expire, the private sector (a recovering housing market, maybe?) can pick up the jobs. This should be an ideal scenario for a champion of the free market. Frankly, it's hard to take your protests that you would support a leaner stimulus seriously, just as it's hard to take Barbour's comments along the same lines seriously. By the criteria you've established, no stimulus package would be palatable to you. Your comments smack of political opportunism.

Brian C Johnson

Feb 25 2009

Be careful what you wish for, if we all used rails to get around, automotive workers would be out of a job. And if the govt. has to borrow for that project, it takes money out of the hands of companies that could have hired for other things. I don't think anyone will advocate getting rid of the automobile, but high-speed rail is something that the U.S. is light-years behind on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the large mainland European cities connected by high-speed rail? I wouldn't justify building a high-speed rail line in Montana, but many of our major urban centers could very well benefit from having high-speed rail. Plus, if you give the people an alternative to driving, but not pay higher plane tickets, I bet many of them would use high-speed rail. One added benefit: it could help us ween our use on foreign oil by not having so many drivers on the road.

golden eagle

Feb 26 2009

Did anyone see Jon Stewart last night on The Daily Show compare Jindal's speech to Mr. Rogers' speeches on Mr. Rogers Neighborhood? Hysterical.... He also made same point itodd did re: why the gov. of a state devastated by a natural disaster is opposed to monitoring potential future natural disasters... Maybe itodd has a future in television!

UTgrad

Feb 26 2009

Obama just rambled about the same things he always does. As did Bobby Jindal. Bobby Jindal passed an ethics reform here in Louisiana, but ironically enough, it made it harder for ethics violators to be prosecuted. Obama is still dragging people behind his lustful words of change, when in reality, he is dragging the citizens along into a globalized society.

....

Feb 26 2009

Not only should a high-speed line go to Memphis, it should go to Chicago, given how many people travel to and fro between Chicago and Mississippi to visit family and so forth. I'm planning a trip there myself later in the summer. I took the Amtrak there a few years ago, but it took 14 hours. High-speed rail could cut down a good chunk of hours and could possibly be less expensive than driving.

golden eagle

Feb 26 2009

Obama is still dragging people behind his lustful words of change, when in reality, he is dragging the citizens along into a globalized society. The world is globalizing everyday. Long before Obama came around. So, what's your point?

golden eagle

Feb 26 2009

[quote]Did anyone see Jon Stewart last night on The Daily Show compare Jindal's speech to Mr. Rogers' speeches on Mr. Rogers Neighborhood? [/quote] All he lacked was a sweater, sneakers, and a miniature trolley to the Neighborhood of MakeBelieve. It was an incredibly boring speech that lacked any real substance.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 26 2009

That is exactly my point. Before he was elected he promised CHANGE! You know like no lobbyist, public viewing of bills for five days, out of Iraq in 16 months and no pork barrel project which would move us away from a one-world government. Now that he is elected, he has already appointed 17 lobbyist, Lilly Ledbetter bill passed with no public viewing, looking at withdrawal in 23 months while keeping 50000 troops in afte and the stimulus is filled with pork. I know politicans lie, but Obama fell into the same New World Order mentality that many before him have tried to achieve. What about his civilian force that is suppose to be "as strong and well funded" as the army. He is dangerous to the fight against the NWO. I am not a republician, and do not think McCain would be better. I am a strong libertarian.

....

Feb 26 2009

19-year-old Libertarians are not common around these parts.

....

Feb 26 2009

You're surely didn't think Obama will change everything in 37 days, did you?

golden eagle

Feb 26 2009

No. Seeing that in 37 days he has diminished and hope for the changes I would have like to see (see earlier post), then I don't see him making positive changes. If we continue to let main stream media and banks choose our candidates, then we will not see progression in America. As seen in this last selection, not election.

....

Feb 26 2009

Any hope*. I'm on an iPhone, sorry

....

Feb 26 2009

This has already been stated on this page but Robot Jindal's point was that monitoring volcano's is NOT going to stimulate the economy. How many volcanologists do you know who are currently looking for a job? Why not put the money into projects where the unemployed can be rapidly trained in a field that is likely to be in high demand? Jindal wasn't saying that we need to ignore natural disasters. Give me a break. Also, Brian C Johnson, please google "Stimulus + Inflation". http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123388703203755361.html?mod=article-outset-box One should not be condescending towards another for something that he himself does not understand.

mc

Feb 26 2009

"All he lacked was a sweater, sneakers, and a miniature trolley to the Neighborhood of MakeBelieve." Republicans LIVE in the Neighborhood of Make Believe. Anyway, JOKeefe, you've fallen victim to the GOP Lies. Check http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/year-end_whoppers.html and http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html Like I've said - Give Obama at least 8 months to start clearing up the last 8 years mess.

BobbyKearan

Feb 26 2009

Wait, I have fallen to GOP lies when George Bush Sr. was the first to try to push the USA into this New World Order (see speech on Sepember 11, 1991). Everything that I have quoted has come from Obama speeches in Berlin, Colorado Springs, etc. I have fallen to lies, and you couldn't me? He also supports the North American Union. Oh wait, no don't listen I've fallen.

....

Feb 26 2009

How do you feel about the Oklahoma man who had the secret service called in because of his anti-Obama sign? Last time I checked that was the First Amendment, and for the past 8 years there have been anti-Bush signs that was more "threatening" then this mans sign. I am not for either person, but there is much hypocrisy towards many situations regarding Obama.

....

Feb 26 2009

If the sign was not in a threatening gesture, then I see nothing wrong with it. There was a guy in Hollywood who hung an effigy of Sarah Palin during the campaign. That's clearly wrong and I would go so far as to say the guy should've been arrested (if he wasn't). It doesn't matter what party someone belongs to; a threat is a threat.

golden eagle

Feb 26 2009

Well, I do not think either should be arrested. It is their view. The main reason behind the sign is that the Oklahoma gov. is for 3rd stage abortion. Agree to disagree.

....

Feb 26 2009

If we continue to let main stream media and banks choose our candidates, then we will not see progression in America. As seen in this last selection, not election Man you gotta love a good conspiracy theorist. I love how they will say stuff like that after a guy like Obama gets elected who no one thought really had a chance to win. I like it when they say the individual vote doesn't matter either even when these last elections have been so close. The Franken-Coleman race in MN came down to less than 500 votes. Talk about riding the trolley to the land of make-believe.

WMartin

Feb 27 2009

Instead of monitoring volcanoes. Everyone here should really get in the spirit of stimulus and come out to Sam's lounge tonight and spend some money and hear my band Tilt play. Yeah it's a plug for our show but it will be stimulating. :)

WMartin

Feb 27 2009

Oh the 500 votes that just " showed up" and all were for Franken. How can you really say media did not push for Obama to win when the positive over negative stories for Obama were so much greater then McCain? It's ok my "conspiracy theory" will be heard more as an intern. :)

....

Feb 27 2009

You haters are pathetic. Get over it. You all ruined our great country and you were voted out. Obama was elected, not selected by the Supreme Court after voting was halted. By the media conspiracy theory, the people don't even need to vote, they just let the media tell them who to vote for? The media conspiracy theory also seems to assume that the media are not at all a reflection of the people. Wingnuts have their own media empire: Fox, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Drudge Report, Lou Dobbs, Ann Coulter, et al. If the people don't pay attention, then blame the people. If the people are thoughtless dummies easily duped by the librul media (when all they have to do is tune in the wingnutosphere) then it is still the people's fault, right? The media surely conspired to make Jindal look and sound dorky. I wonder why the powerful librul masters of the media allowed conservatives to rule for the last eight years?

FreeClif

Feb 27 2009

So, when Democrats are elected, it's because of the media. Is it the media's fault when Republicans are elected? Please come up with a better reasoning than that.

golden eagle

Feb 27 2009

I wonder why the Republicans didn't use Steel to do their rebutal of President Obama's speech the other night? Jindal blew it! Steele and his "Hip Hop" drive as a direction for Republicans is just as ridiculous. Can you believe that all of a sudden that party is led by the browns and one female, Sarah Palin.

justjess

Feb 27 2009

You know, the media reports Facts (well, perhaps not Faux news) and lets the people decide. In a media study, Faux News leaned so far Right-wing-nut. MSNBC leaned almost as far left. CNN was shown to be as neutral as possible. http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 I watched as a Fox News anchor mocked the idea of being fair and balanced live. If facts, figures and policy are more on the side of one candidate, then real media can't help but seem biased in reporting. Faux News' blatant lies and mis-representation of fact, easily looked up and verified on the internet, does more damage to their nut-cases than simply stating facts might would.

BobbyKearan

Feb 27 2009

The presidency: easy come, easy go. Governor Jindal, Rising G.O.P. Star, Plummets After Speech

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2009

Truthfully, Jindal's idiocy about Volcanoes, etc., in the speech was no worse than Sarah Palin's fruit-fly stupidity, etc., but Jindal doesn't wink. Here is CNN on reaction to Jindal's swipe at volcano monitoring. What a provincial fool.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2009

From that CNN piece: The $140 million line-item for the USGS includes not only monitoring, but also replacement of aging equipment "and other critical deferred maintenance and improvement projects." The spending could provide new jobs "no different than the amount of money you would spend on building a street or building a bridge or something," said Danny Boston, an economist at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, Georgia. Duh.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2009

I saw a television documentary a few years ago about the fact that some scientists who are experts in volcanic activity say that there is a small chance that a once in ten thousand year eruption of one of the active volcanoes in the northwest could result in nuclear winter type effects. Such an event might be remote, but it might be worth monitoring. Even moreso if it creates some useful work in these hard times. We are in an economic crisis right now precisely because many people bet that since there had not been deflation in housing prices in decades that it was a safe bet that it would not happen. It is wise to have safegurds in place for events that seem unlikely. That is why I am for putting some money into asteroid monitoring also. Don't laugh. So what if we might be in danger only once every ten thousand years?

FreeClif

Feb 27 2009

My name is Bryan Doyle, and I support active, calamitous volcanoes.

bryan doyle

Feb 27 2009

Jindal is now admitting that he lied in his GOP response about the incident with the sheriff. Cheers to Folo for calling him out on it already.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2009

Mc, your Wall Street Journal article is the most underwhelming refutation I've ever seen. All it can do is talk about how their might be inflation down the road. It can only make that argument because inflation is not a problem now. Rather, deflation is the larger threat. That is exactly what I said in my post. Do you want to try again?

Brian C Johnson

Feb 27 2009

I love active volcanoes. They are like greeting cards from some prehistoric age. Don't want to live next door to one though.

Jennifer2

Feb 27 2009

Isn't this outrage all just a knee-jerk reaction by the powerful, conspiratorial anti-volcano lobby?

bryan doyle

Feb 27 2009

Definitely. We pro-volcano people need to declare ourselves.

Jennifer2

Feb 27 2009

I see a whole new movement. Who's for stimulating the economy by printing up a bunch of bumper stickers "I Volcanoes"

chaffeur

Feb 28 2009