Speaking of Lavish Compensation…

Here’s some VDH for all to enjoy.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNkNzNhZDA2ODMzNGVlZmM3YmI5NmNiNWUxNDUyZDI=

I hope not. Are we now going to be judging en masse what people did for their bonuses (“very little,” apparently for Rahm). That’s a really intelligent use of our time. I think this is what is correctly known as a “witch hunt.”

I’m sorry but this low even for you. I don’t care what was standard operating procedure a decade ago, If you’re going to skip the last eight years in its entirety then do me the courtesy of starting with the presence to tell me what’s going on. the only purpose this serves is to stir up non-troversy for the amusement and entertainment of the national press corp.

I spoke too soon about your flute playing.
.
Is it because, in these reporter’s opinions, what he did required “…little effort.”?
.
Have things in your murky fog-shrouded thought processes now devolved to the point that someone, clearly sight unseen, justifies this stand?
.
Wow. Great. Is this our new criteria for blame?

presence = present oops preview is friend, preview is friend…

Notice that spob is happy.
.
With KT playing the flute, and the rest of us blithly following her in yet another dip in the sorded world of self-immolation, Rush Limbaugh might just make it to the White House!

Geez, guys, isn’t the issue that the House went after private citizens’ compensation, and now we have a politician as Board member of a GSE whose accounting practices would make Enron execs blush and there seems that no one will call for him to return his money. The point is the double-standard.

And by the way, while we’re at it, is anyone going to ask for Franklin Raines and Jamie “the Wall” Gorelick to give back their Fannie bonuses, given the crappy accounting there.

Let me see, was Freddie Mac getting bailout money from the government when Rahm was on the board? No you say? Well I guess you have your answer.
.
Funny that now the word “lavish” is now associated with $320,000. I guess next I will see a post where the President should take a pay cut since correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t he make more than that?

spob, let me count the number of Republicans that were on the take for far more, involving far less time, and for no effort at all!*
.
*K Street (need I say more?)

Well, that $320,000 was for 14 months of work.
.
In the rarified atmosphere of high finance, does anyone ever put in a lot of effort? And even then, who are these two reporters to say just how much effort he put in over those fourteen months.
.
I see nothing here that about 320,000 Republicans couldn’t also hang for…

KT, see my comments on your other post. I think it’s very apt, but I’m pretty sure you are done with me on the subject of this little stinkpot.
.
Keep it going, KT. Maybe Rush will annoint you yet!

Oh I get it — there has been some sort of internal discussion among the swamplanders and MS, AS and JNS insist that the reason they engender such vitriolic responses is because they write the truth as opposed to KT writing what we want to hear. Now KT wants to prove to them that it isn’t true b y writing idiotic posts and demonstrating that we won’t be mean.
.
Okay, folks here’s the truth — if you take the time to engage with commenters in honest dialogue we may still disagree with you but we won’t call you a dumb azz hack. However (and this is important MS), if you insist in posting stupid and never acknowledge or take responsibility for the stupid then we are going to call you a dumb azz hack minion or not.

Look, guys, the job of the board is to keep watch on the management. Rahm was there in that role, and getting handsomely compensated for it, when Freddie Mac was positioning itself for some pretty egregious practices. Practices, I might add, that are contributing to the situation it–and we–find ourselves in today. I think that Chicago Tribune story is a fair one, and worth calling attention to. At a minimum, he was asleep at the switch.

53_3, what do you mean by playing the flute?

Look, guys, the job of the media is to keep watch on the government. TIME was there in that role, and getting handsomely compensated for it, when the Bush administration was positioning itself for some pretty egregious practices. Practices, I might add, that are contributing to the situation we find ourselves in today. I think that the story is a fair one, and worth calling attention to. At a minimum, we were asleep at the switch.

Also, Rahm now seems to agree he was getting something for nothing:
.
At the same time, Feinberg said Emanuel now agrees that presidential appointees to the Freddie Mac board “are unnecessary and don’t have long enough terms to make a difference.”

K Tizzle
.
Allow me to quote from the article you linked to
.

Because of Freddie Mac’s federal charter, the board in Emanuel’s day was a hybrid of directors elected by shareholders and those appointed by the president.

.
In his final year in office, Clinton tapped three close pals: Emanuel, Washington lobbyist and golfing partner James Free, and Harold Ickes, a former White House aide instrumental in securing the election of Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate. Free’s appointment was good for four months, and Ickes’ only three months.
.
Falcon, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, found that presidential appointees played no “meaningful role” in overseeing the company and recommended that their positions be eliminated.
.
Now I don’t know if you missed that part of the article or you dismissed it but its there in black and white that these were puppet appointments, not some kind of hands on positions for oversight. And getting paid handsomely is not the same as getting paid “lavishly”. But hey its your post, I guess this is another trees/forest issue huh?

KT, aside from the innuendos and the very sloppy handling of them, how many others were on that board. How many Republicans. How much did they get? How long did they work?
.
And who’s the one making the decisions on the level of effort? And isn’t this more or less a symptom of swimming in dirty water? I mean, Washington is literally awash with muddy water and it seems more like that you picked Rahm out, amongst many other swimmers, for swimming in it.
.
I’m not saying that Rahm is totally exonerated, but this cannot be characterized as ‘fair’ by any means for the above reasons.
.
spob: Pied piper. You know. Flute playing. Rats. Old fable?

K Tizzle
.
Allow me to quote from the article you linked to
.

Because of Freddie Mac’s federal charter, the board in Emanuel’s day was a hybrid of directors elected by shareholders and those appointed by the president.

.
In his final year in office, Clinton tapped three close pals: Emanuel, Washington lobbyist and golfing partner James Free, and Harold Ickes, a former White House aide instrumental in securing the election of Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate. Free’s appointment was good for four months, and Ickes’ only three months.
.
Falcon, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, found that presidential appointees played no “meaningful role” in overseeing the company and recommended that their positions be eliminated.

.
Now I don’t know if you missed that part of the article or you dismissed it but its there in black and white that these were puppet appointments, not some kind of hands on positions for oversight. And getting paid handsomely is not the same as getting paid “lavishly”. But hey its your post, I guess this is another trees/forest issue huh?
.
Reposted with correct formatting.

SG: pls see my post #18.
.

53_3, on a different note, I heard somewhere that the Sun’s UV rays created hydrogen peroxide during the snowball period, and when the ice melted, the unstable peroxide broken down to release O2, and that was the mechanism for the increase in O2 to about 20%. What happened to all the H2? Escape into space?

And now the question is whether someone will ask Gibbs about this, given the outrage over the AIG execs.

Personally I am a sub-minion in that I am new to the Swamp and the land o’ blog in general. As to this post…no, I do not see the need for Rham to return money earned that did not involve bailout money. If he would like to add a portion of his earnings to my SS disability check I will gladly provide him with my SS#. If MS want’s to contribute to the fund he will have to send cash as I do not have enough trust in him to provide my identity information. I once snailmailed Lee Atwater with a snark reply to a solicitation letter and within 6 weeks found myself “subscribed” to several “commie” publications, all of which wanted to be paid!

Yeah but the point is you have to go so far back in time to find Rahm, tell me who was asleep at the switch in the last few years who could have had the ability to stop this and then you’ll be cooking with gas. As it is right now you are engaging in the politics of personal destruction period.
.
This is part of a concerted effort to poke holes in Obama’s armor of positive public opinion. the media has failed to reduce Obama’s approval and favorability numbers and will continue to do so until they can diminish Obama — it began with Daschle and it continues. the problem with KT and her brethren is they fail to recognize that there has been a fundamental shift in the nation and the jig is up. The public gets the fact that its about you not them. They are no longer following the news cycle and they see you as the instigators you are and just as we learned to do in high school we are now ignoring you.
.
As Obama understands, for the American people this is not a game. So the media can continue to try to regain influence and relevance, by diminishing others but so far it seems the public is saying that if you continue this hackery we will not buy your newspapers or magazines and you can go find jobs elsewhere.

This really isn’t a game, Dee. Fannie and Freddie have a lot of responsibility for the current mess, and if a politician played on his political connections to get a cushy job with a Government Sponsored Entity, it’s right as rain to point out:

1) That Obama himself indicated his outrage about the bonuses of private citizens–why is he silent about Rahm?

2) The propriety of Board seats on a GSE being handed out to politically connected players.

3) The selective outrage of people like Barney Frank et al.

That’s all she’s doing. The jujitsu you guys are engaging in is hilarious. It’s as obvious as the noses on your faces.

A little harsh on KT, although I share the concern over the use of “lavish” and the false equivalence to the intentional, active creation of phantom assets by AIG officers and others.
.
That said, I agree (gack!) with spob on one thing: what’s with the flute refs? I missed something.
.
And hell no, I’m not going to ask Rahm to give it back. I just want to be in the room, ideally behind something large and heavy, if/when anyone else does. He’s likely to throw the “Undersecretary for Go F*** Yourself” nameplate.

So unnecessary now means something for nothing? K Tizzle surely you jest. If you notice his spokesperson talked about the limited amount of time they are there not the limited amount of work that they do. Here is another quote from the article.
.
One of Emanuel’s fellow directors at Freddie Mac was Neil Hartigan, the former Illinois attorney general. Hartigan said Emanuel’s primary contribution was explaining to others on the board how to play the levers of power.
.
He was respected on the board for his understanding of “the dynamics of the legislative process and the executive branch at senior levels,” Hartigan recalled. “I wouldn’t say he was outspoken. What he was, was solid.”
.
Now just because he didn’t have a role in overseeing the management that doesn’t mean he didn’t contribute. And here you have someone saying that the role he did take on he did a good job with. I guess the question has to be asked, what is the premise of this post? President Obama hasn’t asked for bonuses back from companies that actually failed with no government intervention. He didn’t say that nobody should make money, in point of fact he said the opposite. He said he WANTS people to get rich. But what he doesn’t want is to reward failure. Rahm’s compensation wasn’t a bonus and at the time he was serving Freddie Mac was financially solid. You can keep trying to build a case here but again the question is a case for what?

53_3:

Commented before I saw your flute explanation. Duh.

The calls for people to give back this and that have got to stop. It’s lazy, it’s a distraction, it’s a waste of time, and it solves nothing. In the first half of 2008, before AIG imploded, Obama took $100K in contributions from AIG employees (note – corporations cannot contribute directly to candidates but their employees can) – many of whom likely had nothing to do with the mess – and the wingnuts – like spob’s buddy Victor Davis Hanson (who is increasingly becoming one big WATB) – call Obama a hypocrite for not giving it back. (How will that help? What if those contributors don’t want the money back?) Congress and the media lose their heads over the AIG bonuses (as disgusting as they were, they were contractual and legal), leading to silly reactionary legislation to tax the bonus money at 90%. Now we have KT joking (is she?) about asking Rahm to give back money he earned while on the board at Freddie Mac.
—
At least there is some logic to wanting to see the AIG bonus money returned since they have received billions in bailout (ie – taxpayers’) dollars, although I prefer the voluntary returns that we saw over the past few days over a punitive tax that I think is stupid and maybe unconstitutional. But unless something illegal occurred in the earning/transfer of these dollars, why should Obama feel obliged to give back money to supporters who happened to work for AIG? Why should Rahm be shamed into giving money back that he legally earned?
—
Angry populism and vengeance might feel good at the moment but it can get out of control and get ugly pretty quickly. Time to reign in the outrage. As Obama said,
“we cannot afford to govern out of anger.”

I don’t know, spob. That would be hard to say. UV might certainly be energetic enough to kick the hydrogen ions/molecules out of the Earth system altogether, but then again, the higher O2 rises, the more ozone is produced. Without ozone depletion, I’m not sure that any but the most tenuous wisps of water vaper would have been disassociated. Hydrogen peroxide itself would be ravenously consumed by any monoatomic oxygen.
.
This means that we have a negative feedback loop here. Berner, Canfield, Hallam and a few others have posited that the O2 content during the cryogenian was no more than 15% of current values, or about 3 to 5%.
.
Take a look at that book ‘The Rise of Animals’ by Fedonkin, et al.
.
Also, Nick Lane’s ‘Oxygen’ is one of the most interesting books I have ever read. It’s about how aging occurs in metazoans (particularly human aging), but his lead-in to that subject involves some extremely interesing insights into our oxygen history as well as info on C3 and C4, and the role of antioxidants as well!

Sorry, I meant C3 and C4 photosynthesis.

OG, but obama fanned the flames of the anger, and now, if it’s going to bite his guy in the ass, we need to stop.

Come on.

To add to what I posted above, I don’t have a problem with Rahm’s earnings from his work on the board at Freddie Mac being reported. But the fact that he made this money is in no way an indication that he (or any other board members) did anything wrong. (nor are the bonuses awarded to the AIG folks, nor are the contributions Obama and others received from AIG employees) And while KT may have been joking about Rahm giving the money back, since the story is posted on Drudge, it’s only a matter of time (hours? minutes?) before some wingnut or maybe even a GOP congressperson gets on his/her high horse to ask why Emanuel has not returned this money.

OG, isn’t there a bit of a double standard now? If Dems were outraged about AIG, shouldn’t they be outraged about Rahm? And Freddie was a GSE for pete’s sake.

spob — you are not interested in finding out how to prevent this kind of crap from happening. You are only interested in promoting right wing vitriol despite the ditch we now find ourselves in because of the last eight years of GOP rule. As long as you are unwilling to admit that conservative dogma has proved to be a disaster, based on the reality staring you in the face then be quiet while grown folks are talking.
.
The point is I don’t care about what happened a decade ago if you are not willing to expolore what happened in the last 2 years, last 4 years, etc. There is plenty of blame to go around, but I will not abide a meme by the right or the left that lacks common sense and serves a selfish agenda — including yours.

spob – Obama reined it in pretty quickly. And I was not a fan of the administration jumping into the mix – I believed from the start that this is faux outrage – or at least outrage whose energy could be better channeled towards solving our larger problems – was silly, unproductive, and a distraction. I’m not asking it to stop now just because I think it’s going to hurt Obama. (btw, it has the potential to hurt everybody…and I’ve thought that from the start) I’m glad to see the WH now acting a bit more reasonable. I hope Congress and the media follow suit.

The peroxide wouldn’t be in atmosphere, would be in ice. Once ice melts, it would break down in to H2O and O2. Photosynthesis probably doesn’t get it done all by itself, if O2 increased dramatically after snowball. Didn’t the iron (i.e., 02 sink) get used up long before snowball melted? Of course, snowball melt could have created huge algae blooms.

og, whether or not he reined it in, he undercut Summers. What’s sauce for the goose (i.e., AIG employees) is sauce for the gander (Rahm) and that’s to say nothing of the propriety of ex-pols getting high paying jobs on the Boards of GSEs.

Dee, I didn’t know Franklin Raines was a conservative republican. My bad.

Just as an aside, isn’t it funny how whenever welfare programs or social safety nets like unemployment come up Republicans talk about how it will reward laziness and how Democrats only support these programs because they want the populous to be happy just receiving government handouts, yet when a business fails and the corporation gets a government handout Republicans see nothing wrong with rewarding faiure with bonuses? Consistently inconsistent, thats your GOP these days.

spob – No double standard here, not personally. If you’re reading my posts closely, you can see that I think the congressional Dems (and Republicans, and the media, and the administration) were wrong to fan these flames of populist anger in the first place. I’d rather everybody chill out on all of this. Look at how much time and energy was wasted on the AIG bonus stuff. Can we afford to go through the same thing every freaking week when we find out that Democrat XX got campaign contributions from employees at company Y or the Republican SS made money while serving on the board at company T?
–
Prove something illegal occurred. Otherwise, these are legal transfers of money, whether they be campaign contributions, retention bonuses, or salary earned while serving on a board. And again, I direct this at everybody – Dems, Republicans, the media, etc.

sg, your comment is tiresome.

First of all, no one is saying that AIG employees should be rewarded. What we are saying is that government intervention in comp has a lot of unintended consequences. And with respect to AIG, we are saying that the House bill would make the government a party to violating a deal. Moreover, it would be unconscionable because the government accepted the benefit of these people’s work from Sept. to March, and then in March would take away what they earned.

Second of all, there is such a thing as a necessary evil. My republicanism basically tells me that business can and should take care of itself.

Just stay out of county, ok.

Sorry, OG, not going to bite. Obama said that the AIG bonuses were an outrage. Someone gets to ask him if Rahm’s paycheck was an outrage.

And by the way, OG, you gonna call on Charlie Rangel to pay tax on his below market rents?

Late to the thread but it’s an interesting double bind. Rahm had damn well BETTER admit that he did little or nothing to earn that compensation or he’ll be way deeper in the muck.
.
It also shows the local advantage that the Tribune has over other news orgs looking for dirt on the Obama administration.
.
And let me add that self-dealing is a non-partisan issue. There’s no way I’m going to pipe in to defend anyone but the reporters of this story.

Outrage over politicians is old news. Can’t be real outrage unless its fat-cat CEO’s…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

I don’t follow what goes on with Charlie Rangel…and that’s not my point and he’s not part of the discussion.
—
Why do I have to accept this endless cycle of accusations and over-the-top outrage about legally earned/contributed money just because the president I voted for and support did something I don’t agree with? This isn’t tit-for-tat, pal. It’s not an game. We’re putting our economic future further at risk by focusing on this BS, which distracts from trying to fix our larger and more critical problems. I’m sure the time Congress wasted on drafting and voting on that stupid bonus tax could have been put to better use. Ditto the days our establishment media spent breathlessly opining on this…or the hours wasted by our president in first joining the choir then walking it back a bit.
—
Obama was wrong for fanning the flames. There, I said it. He was wrong. He’s been wrong before and he’ll be wrong again. But I don’t have to sit back and be happy about people firing up their mock outrage over Rahm’s legally earned salary just because Obama did what he did. I want it all to stop.

Paul Dirks
.
So are you saying he should return the money?

KT – since you have the ear of the High Sheriffs, I gather you noted our comments on another thread of yours that some of us couldn’t see numbers. Something must have been tried and I can now see a sliver of a number. Can make it out with single digits, but when it moves to double, I’m lost as ever. Will you please say thanks and ask them to move the edge a little more? Much appreciation.

So who did Bush appoint to the board to replace Rahm and the other Clinton appointees? Assume they got money as well.

Members of the boards of large firms getting paid pretty good money for not doing all the much is par for the course. That’s not a good thing, mind you, but it happens all the time and at many companies. But unless you adopt some sort of legislation/regulation that forces board members to fulfill a defined number of required duties (eg – meet XX times per year) and/or limits the compensation these board members can make, it’s not going to change. Think the GOP will be down with that? Think either party in Congress will be on board with legislation that prohibits former lawmakers from serving on corporate boards for XX number of years after they leave office?
–
And that’s my larger point. It’s easy to feign outrage and demand that Rahm give this money back because the alternative – ie, coming up with a real solution to the problem – is not something lawmakers from either party want to tackle because it can adversely affect their future earning power and the incomes of their big dollar contributors. You don’t like what’s going on? Fine. Then do something about it that actually solves the problem.

Ivy_B
.
No actually Bush to his credit listened to one of his advisors and ended the practice of appointing people to the board.

og, not so fast. Remember, Obama fanned the flames. Thus, unless he says “I was wrong, and I apologize to the AIG folks”, then it’s perfectly legitimate to point out his lack of outrage about Rahm. And it’s legitimate to ask whether he jumped on the bandwagon as a political decision rather than true outrage.

Get that right.

As for Rangel, he got below market rents that the real estate company did not have to provide him and did not pay tax on those benefit, yet it was his committee staff that wrote the AIG bonus bill.

Ok, I’ll do something about it–Rahm should resign.

So are you saying he should return the money?
.
The compensation was earned in 2000. It’s a little late for him to simply write a refund check. But there’s no doubt that it stinks and that the Republicans don’t have a monopoly on getting rich on other people’s backs.

Paul, should Rangel write a check to cover the taxes on his sweetheart rentals?

What about Franklin Raines and Jamie “the Wall” Gorelick?

spob,
Um no. Your obsession over Rangel is overblown horse____. And for the record, I’ve not been among those screaming for the AIG folks to return their money either.
People will always seek the best outcomes for themselves. That is the heart of capitalism. The goal of government should be that when there is a public need, private self-interest can be harnessed to meet it. If you don’t want people engaging in swindles than don’t legalize them.

Don’t want to intrude on the politics or highjack the thread, but as a scientist (and longtime lurker), though I don’t understand what spob is getting at, I can tell you that hydrogen gas (H2) and helium both DO escape into space, since they are light enough that a substantial fraction of molecules exceed escape velocity. That’s why there’s essentially no helium in the atmosphere, even though it’s been produced for billions of years through alpha decay and why helium is precious enough that we have a national helium reserve–it’s yet another non-renewable resource. It’s also part of why the idea of a “hydrogen economy” is a non-starter–the only way to get hydrogen gas is to extract it from something else and that process either uses as much or more energy than it produces or also relies on non-renewable resources.
.
Science lesson over–go back to discussing politics.

Whatever they’re paying you KT, it’s lavish, ie, you get paid too much for what you do.
.
There is good news however:
.

“And today’s announcement isn’t too surprising given the fact that just yesterday, Chairman Don Graham said the Post — which lost money in 2008 — is likely to lose “substantial money” in 2009 and will be forced to cut costs during the year.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0309/WaPo_offering_buyouts_again.html

Paul Dirks
.
I think you are missing some people or at least my position on this issue. I really don’t have an opinion one way or the other about people getting gifted a position on Freddie Mac’s board. Now the reason I am indifferent to it is because sometimes, not necessarily in Rahm’s case, people take big pay cuts to serve an administration. I can understand the tendency to want to reward them with a cushy job once if they have served admirbly and are competent people. I can also understand even the appearance of impropriety or somebody getting a job that either they don’t deserve or that they end up doing a sh*tty job at.
.
But my point is that this story and the story of AIG bonuses aren’t even in the same universe. Even if I were to feel that it was wrong for Rahm to have that job that doesn’t equate to me in any way shape or form executives getting paid bonuses when their company went belly up and the only reason they even have a job to get a bonus from is a huge influx of taxpayer dollars. There is no convergence of issues in the two stories in my mind yet this post comes off as trying to make a false equivalence. “Rahm should give his salary back because the administration is saying the AIG execs should give their money back” That just doesn’t fly to me.

Speaking of lavish, yesterday on Fresh Air Terry Gross interviewed Frank Portnoy about derivatives. Really interesting – says that the base of the current economic problem is in the hands of Wendy and Phil Gramm. But, he’s just another whiner.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102325715

This is old news. Wasn’t this already out in the media a couple of months ago?

What exactly is the point?

@SG,
There’s more equivalance than your acknowleging. The most charitable version of Rahm’s involvment is that he was compensated without having any responsiblity. That’s his best alibi because if he did have any responsibity while on the board, then he was directly involved in an accounting scandal that was one of the first dominoes in the whole collapse we’ve just witnessed.
.
The best way we can move our country forward is stop putting team-membership before principles.

I don’t know if KT is being purposefully disingenuous, or if it is the fact that there are so many different opinions about the outrage over the AIG bonus issue. Unlike many others, the biggest issue for me was not the fact that these people got paid a lot of money or received bonuses that were not tied to compensation (although I do believe that this was one of many factors that put the company on the road to hell). My problem was that when their circumstances changed, i.e. when your company is on the brink of collapse so you have to borrow an obscene amount of money from the government, you are no longer in the same position you were before that happened. Things have changed. So when I hear people say that they deserve bonuses or “retention” compensation, I call B.S.

Do you know how many companies, that are NOT receiving government money are asking their employees to take unpaid leave? Reduce their working schedule? Cut their benefits? Early retirement? Or out and out being laid off? But people want to explain to me with a straight face that we should feel sorry for all of the innocents at AIG because they “earned” that money? GMAFB. That is what burns my biscuit. When dire circumstances like these come up, everyone has to sacrifice, even the people that did nothing wrong. but apparently, we can’t ask AIG employees to sacrifice because it would hurt the market’s feelings. bullsh*t.

So getting back to Rahm. This is not surprising at all. My, along with my classmate’s, eyes popped in law school, when our Business prof told us what obscene amount of money people on the board of directors get paid for doing minimal work per year. So the fact that Rahm apparently benefited in the same way is not shocking and it is not comparable to AIG. Was Rahm on that board when FM was receiving a bailout, yet still requesting this money? Has Rahm been accused of cooking the books? No you say? Then KT please explain to me why he should give back money he earned almost 10 years ago.

He may have made out like a fat rat, but this false equivalency nonsense is getting ridiculous.

“Rahm should resign”.

The ownership and management of GM are a bunch of twits and have been that way a long time. GM management has taken taxpayer money after being paid to be twits. By association I think everyone who works for GM should resign and not get unemployment pay.

The employees of Exxon have made huge profits without trying too hard. They’re my heros. I think they should be paid twice as much by any means necessary. See spob? My logic is the same as yours.

Why is Rangel’s tax issue overblown horse manure? First, his acceptance of below market rents create significant ethics issues. Second, he has told the public that he is 100% compliant with federal tax laws, which isn’t true, so not only is he a tax cheat, he’s a liar as well. Third, he’s a hypocrite, a tax cheat writing tax laws to screw private citizens–isn’t that rich? Fourth, selective outrage is an issue. Politicians savaged AIG employees, yet are silent about Rangel.

SG, you are a moron, aren’t you. The issue really isn’t whether Rahm should give the money back–it’s about a political climate, fanned by Rahm’s boss, that led to the House passing a punitive tax bill to claw back money from private citizens. Well, Rahm apparently got paid by a GSE which has (a) caused a lot of problems and (b) requires taxpayer money too. It’s legitimate to ask about that and the apparent double-standard when it comes to outrage.

Let’s not forget, genius, too, just how crappy this clawback attempt was. It would have been one thing for the government to announce in September 2008 (when it made its investment) that it was altering the deal with respect to comp. But it didn’t do that. Instead, it accepted the benefits of these people’s work for months, and then in March, would have clawed back payments due them. It should have given the employees the chance to quit in September, but it did not. I have raised this point numerous times in here, and NO ONE can seem to justify the March clawback.

Paul Dirks
.
No this isn’t about team membership. Again lets say he phucked it all up. Obviously he didnt, but lets say he did. That was back in 2000. Freddie Mac didn’t get a bailout until 8 years later. So again, how does that equate to AIG executives forgoing bonuses AFTER getting a bailout. I didn’t notice anyone asking AIG executives to give back their bonuses from 2007 and that is surely when a lot of the decisions that brought down the company were made. This isn’t even close to being equivalent in my opinion.

acceptance of below market rents create significant ethics issues.
.
If he agreed to pay an cartain amount of rent then it by definition can’t be “below market”. What do you think a market is?

lawchic, if you are a lawyer or a law student, you should be embarassed by that post.

First of all, you forget one crucial fact, namely that the government made its investment in September 2008, but didn’t get around to making noise about the bonuses until March. So the government (as a major equityholder in AIG) received the benefits of these people’s labor. Had the government stated in Sept that it was altering the deal, then people would have been able to make an informed choice about whether to stay or leave. If the House bill makes it into law, then they will have been denied that opportunity.

Second of all, a Board of Directors is responsible for corporate oversight. And remember Freddie is not just some company–it’s a Government Sponsored Entity and has a public role. Rahm got paid. If Obama was outraged about the comp AIG employees got because they ran the company into the ground (an overbroad generalization), then why isnt he outraged that his own Chief of Staff sat on a board of a GSE, got paid a lot and the GSE had a lot of accounting issues–something which the board is supposed to oversee. It’s a legitimate question.

Third of all, Dem politicians led the charge to put forth a constitutionally dubious scheme to claw back cash from AIG employees. So why can’t we ask why Rahm gets off–I mean, the law ain’t all that important any more. So why not go after Rahm.

SG,
OK, we just see things a little differently. The Chicago Tribune published a piece on Rahm to the effect that he accepted a patronage job from Bill C. and that it happened to correspond to the timing of an accounting scandal. The Tribune by the way has a rather long record of tracking patronage arrangments. They work in a target-rich environment.
.
KT linked to it with a snarky lead in to go with it.
.
The only person suggesting equivalence has a tongue firmly placed in cheek. AND its a genuinely damaging story.

“The peroxide wouldn’t be in atmosphere, would be in ice. Once ice melts, it would break down in to H2O and O2.”
.
The negative feedback aspect is that UV would have to reach the surface in order to do this type of disassociation. If oxygen levels rise, so does ozone, as the amount of ozone is determined by the balance between it’s creation lower in the stratosphere and it’s destruction in the statopause. This is all taking place far above the surface, of course, but even water vapor doesn’t get this high, except in trace amounts.
.
Photosynthesis probably doesn’t get it done all by itself, if O2 increased dramatically after snowball.
.
I think the dramatic increase during the three most well documented glacial episodes (720, 635, and 580 Ma) involved rises in the O2 level, but it would snuff that peroxide channel in the process.
.
“Didn’t the iron (i.e., 02 sink) get used up long before snowball melted? Of course, snowball melt could have created huge algae blooms.”
.
That’s what they say about the BIF’s, but Canfield showed that Preston Cloud was wrong about a direct “rusting”, because that model wasn’t reconcilable with the low O2 content before the cryogenian. Instead, the high-SO2 Canfield ocean fixed iron because oxygen wasn’t available down the water column during the Archean and Proterazoic. The Canfield ocean doesn’t rule out direct oxidation of dissolved Fe in the water, just that it didn’t play as big a role as Cloud envisioned. He basically inserted a sulfide-sulfate step in the oxidation process that created BIFs, hosted by sulfer-loving chemoautotrophs.
.
Check out those two books. They really get to the bottom of this, but I should always say that the jury isn’t in yet, either.

Paul, that logic is ridiculous–you’re smarter than that. The real estate company rented 4 properties to Rangel at rent-controlled rates. Rent control regs say that a renter only is entitled to have one property at such rates. So, the real estate company gave Rangel a sweetheart deal. And he’s liable for tax on it, unless, of course, you believe that the fact that Rangel is a powerful Congressman is irrelevant and he’s just a great negotiator.

Paul Dirks
.
In all honesty I don’t see how its genuinely damaging. There is nothing in the story to suggest Rahm had anything to do with the accounting scandal. In fact the authors of the piece point out that presidential appointees didn’t have oversight responsibilities. I suppose some hay could be made about the fact that he was advising them on legislative issues that may relate to their lobbying but what other there is there? He got a job as a political favor? Well thats what it was for Paul. The posts ALWAYS got filled by the President until Bush put a stop to it. I am pretty sure that Clinton wasn’t the first. Did he get over paid? Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t but that definitely isn’t quantified in the story. I don’t see any actual problems here. I concede that there could be the APPEARANCE of impropriety though. But I don’t think many people are reading that article and coming away surprised by it or calling for Rahm’s head. But we can agree to disagree on this one.

spob, on the political side, you ask why Rahm doesn’t get ‘got’ like everyone else.
.
It’s clear that whatever he did (and even whether the ‘effort’ was), it probably didn’t differ from those other individuals doing the same thing for the Bush Administration.
.
So I think to be fair, if we hang Rahm for this, lets hang the Republicans on K Street and anywhere they are to be found doing things that the GOP never even tried to moderate.
.
I mean, since it is clear that KT is slanting with the word ‘Lavish’ in her blog title and is relentlessly overlooking the very shallow assessment of Rahm’s efforts over 14 months of work by accepting it at face value, then I say, OK:
.
Fair is fair. If we hang Rahm, then lets get the GOP’ers too!

53_3, why do you think I harp on Rangel’s taxes for the below market rents? How many other similar deals involve other (Dem and GOP) Congresscritters? I’m guessing a lot.

The beauty of the tax point is that it draws a roadmap to an ethics violation b/c taxable benefit = improper gift under ethics laws.

Join me.

And i’m not saying to hang rahm–just that he needs to be fired.

spob – I’m through with you. Even though I admitted that Obama was wrong for jumping in the mix and that I thought he was wrong from the start, even though I admit that I think the bonus tax law is stupid, you don’t care. As somebody else noticed, you’re not interested in finding out how to fix our larger problems. You just want to play games of tit-for-tat and gotcha. I’m saying two things a) everybody was wrong for fanning the flames of populist outrage re: the AIG bonuses, and b) rather than continue down that course, let’s stop the feigned outrage and figure out lasting, long-term solutions so we don’t have to read stories like this week after week after week. Instead of wasting time asking, “Why isn’t Obama angry about Rahm’s salary?”, or, “Why doesn’t Rahm give his money back?”, how about proposing a solution to the larger issue – ie, grossly overcompensated executives and do-nothing boards of directors. I’m all ears. And no, asking for Rahm to resign is not a solution to the larger issue – it’s as useless as asking him to give the money back.
—
And I’m curious – why should Rahm resign?
—
As for Rangel – regardless of his personal tax issues, even if he was squeaky clean I still think it was stupid for his committee to draft that bonus bill. And it was stupid for the House to pass it. (on a bi-partisan vote, I should add) Hopefully, it will die in the Senate.

—
Finally, what sgwhite said.

ooooooooh really OG–then why can’t Obama simply admit he was wrong and apologize?

Again, spob, explain the reasons why Rahm should be fired.

Well, spob, the problem is that you ascribe wrongly to the idea that ‘our criminals are better than your criminals’.
.
I’m not buying it. All politicians are swimming in dirty water, and I don’t see you saying anything about the transgressions on the side of those who held positions during the last administration that positively dwarfed anything Rangel did.
.
I’m really not on the side of transgressors (except for, possibly, oceans) on either side, but till the GOP fixes itself by divorcing the fat white guy hooked on Oxycontin most of you are frantically trying to appease*, I will continue to point these problems out.
.
*To the point of insane “rush” to smoke the Great White One’s ceegar*.
.
**Erect penile member, or parts thereof.

“Finally, what sgwhite said.”
.
I’ll agree. He says it better than I could.

ogliberal, he was a board member of a GSE when that company had serious accounting issues, which contributed to the problems we have today. Your guy cannot condemn AIG people and at the same time have confidence in Rahm. Unless, of course, Obama’s AIG outrage was feigned. And if that’s the case, then he’s a real scumbag, isn’t he?

53_3, the taxable income thing will be bipartisan.

spob – He won’t apologize because he’s an arrogant, elitist, inexperienced, stupid, terrorist-loving, socialist, communist, fascist, slave to Wall Street, hell bent on destroying our nation, who cares about nothing but his personal fame and ACORN. Plus, his teleprompter is technically incapable of displaying the words “apologize” and “sorry”. And we all know he can’t talk without his teleprompter.

On the snowballs, I forgot a few points:
.
The rapid transition from Icehouse to Greenhouse probably pushed a lot of dissolved oxygen out into the atmoshpere, also, as worldwide, cap carbonates lie atop each of the Snowball tillites (I’m including the Gaskiers/Elatina glaciation and the cap carbonates at the Ediacaran/Cambrian boundary). These are inorganic precipitates caused by the dissolving of CO2 in enormous quantities – and that absorbtion must certainly have displaced much of the other dissolved gases in the water column.
.
I think that these wild swings might have been the cause for what appear to be mass-extinctions across each horizon*.
.
*The last one, on November 4, 2008, was caused by a change in the political atmosphere, induced by economic concerns. As the recovery period continues, look for these taxa** to finally die out in the post-extinction period.
.
**Species of the far-right persuasion.

og, then if he doesn’t apologize, then he was really outraged, and he should be outraged at his chief of staff . . . . .

pick your poison, sycophant

now the question 53_3, was there two snowballs or one?

“And if that’s the case, then he’s a real scumbag, isn’t he?”
.
Well, spob, I didn’t see any fakery in it. It is an outrage, and rightly so, in my opinion.
.
I think the person you refer to a ‘scumbag’ is an honestly concerned human being who has a very, very difficult job. I noticed the other day that he had no teleprompter when conducting the press conference.
.
The only ones who say so are Hannity, at Pravda – I mean – Fox, and the Great White Whale.
.
I don’t know why, with your obvious intelligence, why you aren’t able to recognize it in others – and – recognize the lack of it in some of your peers.

Commenters (and KT):
.
I’d like to associate myself with the commentary of lawchic22.
.
I think, despite KT’s apparent implication, that this is a case of false equivalency. Fannie & Freddie weren’t holding a gun to the head of the world economy in the year 2000 (as far as I know).
.
That said, I’d like to reiterate a point I’ve made here many times, which is that the centrist, corporatist Democrats of the 1990′s like Rahm played an integral role in getting us where we are (in hell), and their inclusion in the Obama Administration can only mean more public questions of this nature –questions that should be asked, btw.
.
Paul Dirks is also right when he comments: “…there’s no doubt that it stinks and that the Republicans don’t have a monopoly on getting rich on other people’s backs.”
.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with an adversarial press corps shining a spotlight on the systemic corruption or near corruption of political elites.
.
What is wrong is when examples are plucked out of the air, or from RNC talking points memos, or from Drudge (same thing) or Politico (similar) that don’t serve to shed any real light, but serve to foist a cynical “they’re all crooks” narrative upon a battered, weary public that still believes, despite everything they’ve learned over the past six months, that change is possible –enough to continue to demand it from their political establishment.
.
IMO, to add this sort of noise to the debate soley in order to satisfy Beltway reporters’ own urges to indulge in savviness is irresponsible…and a little disingenuous, KT.

“now the question 53_3, was there two snowballs or one?”
.
I’m guessing two hard ones, the Sturtian and Marinoan. The Gaskiers/Elatina and the one at the boundary of the Ediacaran/Cambrian were more limited in extent, in my opinion, and the Gaskiers/Elatina event at 580Ma was of an intensity intermediate between that of the Marinoan and the boundary event.

spop – OK, I demand that Obama apologize. Now that I’ve done that, in addition to my repeated admissions that I felt the Obama was wrong for jumping in to the “I’m angrier than you” mix, am I no longer a sycophantic slag?

A telling moment on MSNBC just now. Chuck TOdd talking about the AIG bonus brouhaha said that he’s suprised the outrage in the public AND THE MEDIA didn’t hurt Obama’s approval ratings. Chuck Todd would have us believe that newsrooms and cable news sets across the country were filled w/ employees shouting and slamming doors, perhaps turning the air blue. Does anyone believe this? No, what Chuck meant is the he’s surprised the public’s outrage and the media’s FEIGNED outrage didn’t hurt Obama’s approval ratings, surprised because that was the intent all along and the media usually gets what they want in that regard.

“Look, guys, the job of the board is to keep watch on the management.” “Rahm was there in that role”
.
Was he? From the article I took away he more there to offer advice to management and not as an overseer. While watching management is a role of the entire board. Rahm didn’t appear to sit on any of the sub-committies that peformed those functions.

og:
.
I’m waiting for spob to address his own transgressions.

oops, I mean his own party’s transgressions!

gysgt, Board members have duties as Board members.

gysgt213:
.
I don’t think he was anything more than one of the players on a stage full of others doing the exact same thing – and many of them probably with an even greater level of responsibility.
.
I wonder just how much ‘effort’ any of them put in, how much money they got, how long they worked, and what responsibilities they had.
.
All of which KT glossed over in her eagerness to get to Rahm…

spob — could you give me one cogent reason why you feel the only people qualified to lead this country our from your side of the aisle. And remember to make your response fact based if you are still in touch with reality.

gee, I dunno, Dee, I don’t like unprecedented massive deficits as far as the eye can see . . . .

“gee, I dunno, Dee, I don’t like unprecedented massive deficits as far as the eye can see”
.
Probably so until we start increasing the taxes on the upper incomes, which I think will eventually have to happen. They broke it, they pay for it, in my opinion.
.
I mean, it certainly isn’t the poor, who are the primary recipients of GOP bile…

With all due respect (and there’s a big assumption in that one, eh?), can’t you guys – 53_3 and spob – take this over to Bill Nye the Science Guy’s blog or somewhere? Here in Swampland we only have room for snark, false equivalence, process and ad hominem posts.
.
Oh, and links. Lots of links.

You know its funny a few weeks ago I challenged KT for not recognizing the Daschle debacle as an effort to derail health care reform. She said I should ignore the chatter and turn off my television. She claimed that the media negativity didn’t mean anything in the real world. So here’s my question, now that she is the one fanning the flames is it still irrelevant?
.
I abhor hypocrisy in any form from any direction. So KT — in light of your earlier dismissal your latest actions beg the question — have you no shame?

“gee, I dunno, Dee, I don’t like unprecedented massive deficits as far as the eye can see . . . .”

Were you complaining when Bush was turning the Clinton surplus into a huge deficit? Do you agree with Cheney’s statement that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”?

53_3

It wasn’t the poor? Come on…spob will tell you that ACORN and poor brown people buying homes they couldn’t afford – and their enablers in the Democrat Party – are the only reason our economy is in crisis right now.

cincinnatus est exterminata!:
.
…what Chuck [Todd] meant is the he’s surprised the public’s outrage and the media’s FEIGNED outrage didn’t hurt Obama’s approval ratings…
.
That’s a great point. I love it when the political press corps push back against themselves.

“gee, I dunno, Dee, I don’t like unprecedented massive deficits as far as the eye can see.”
.
Spob — Is this a cogent reason why you feel only the right wing is a legimate form of leadership? Because I don’t see how this answers the question. The right wing has been engaged in a deficit based economic model since Reagan — In fact I believe they called it supply-side or trickle down, of course before drinking the kool-aid Bush 41 called it voo doo economics. And Reagan asked to show comcern about his mounting deficits claimed “the deficit was big enough to take care of itself.”
.
So do you want to give me a legitimate reason for your belief in GOP rule now?

SZ: Over at Kos Barbin MD sets out Ed Henry’s prep for his questioning the President. The striking part: he wanted to MAKE news. I thought he was a reporter. And he consulted on strategy with the Blitz. Nuff said.

Want to know when the US never had to worry about deficits? When our taxes were SKY HIGH. From the moment he cut taxes and raised Defense spending the GOP deity, Ronald Reagan showed he didn’t give a flying phuck about deficits. It took a “tax and spend” Democrat to come in and restore fiscal responsibility when not even one single Republican voted for his budget. Thats no opinion thats verifiable fact. Thats why I chuckle everytime a Republican says they need to go back to their fiscally responsible roots. I just want to know how far back are they talking about going? Lincoln?
.
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4599/budgetdeficitorsurplus.gif

Apparently, Dee was absent from school they day they taught what “unprecedented” means.

Speaking of ignorance. Obama blames the red river flood on global warming (gee, wasn’t it colder in northern US this year):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023165.php

Ahh…the old, “It snowed in NYC on the first day of spring…there can’t be global warming!” argument.

Here’s an educational link for you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather

SZ, it was one of those moments when a member of the press inadvertently reveals their true inner selves and intentions. Outrage in the press over AIG bonuses…just imagine how angry they must have been over no WMDs. Oh wait!

Karen,
..
This post is not up to your usual standards and I wonder why? Do you think it is more fun to jump on a right wing smear at this point in time? Coming from you, in particular, this scares me.
..
There is no doubt in my mind that you know that this Freddie Mac information about Rahm is not new and was well publicized as soon as he was tapped for COS. E.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-8001526,00.html
..
You also know that the accounting issue involved in the Freddie Mac case during Rahm’s tenure is not what brought our economy down and that Freddie Mac’s accounting restatement showed higher but more volatile income over several years, not losses. “Smoothing” was the accounting issue in the early 2000′s. Not.the.same. Admittedly, those accounting issues implicate the deplorable short-term executive compensation incentives that are the bane of our existence and need to be changed for the economic health of the country.
..
All due respect, you can do so much better than posting this trash and you know it.

“Apparently, Dee was absent from school they day they taught what ‘unprecedented’ means.”

But, wait, weren’t the deficits created under Reagan and Bush I and Bush II also “unprecedented”?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/when-will-rahm-emanuel-give-back-the-money/

enjoy it guys

OG, the deficits run up by Obama and this orgy of spending are so massive (esp. when compared to GDP) that “unprecedented” doesn’t really do them justice.

Ahh…when challenged with facts – ie, the Republican God and his GOP successors did indeed all run up “unprecendented” deficits – spob now retreats to the “it’s worse than unprecendented” defense. On what day in Dee’s school did they teach that lesson?

Ooooh…HotAir is wondering when Rahm is going to give the money back. I can’t believe that Emanuel has run afoul of the Malkin crowd. Who da thunk?

You want hypocrisy? Again, I present to you the unprecendented deficits run up by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II – all presidents from the supposedly “fiscally responsible” Republican party. And where were these “fiscally responsible” folks during the 8 years that Bush was running up his own “unprecendented” deficit?

“Apparently, Dee was absent from school they day they taught what “unprecedented” means.”
.
At first I was going to challenge spob to a duel of degrees but the truth is it doesn’t really matter what schools we attended because it’s clear one of us had an evidenced based education and the other well not so much.
.
Spob — your fear of deficits unprecedented or not is hardly a justification for GOP rule, especially since I can’t find a single Republican with an aversion to one. — Tell me why is it that whenever you right wingers find yourself trapped without a cogent response plan B is always a personal attack?
.
.
“Speaking of ignorance. Obama blames the red river flood on global warming (gee, wasn’t it colder in northern US this year)”
.
enough said

This can be tiresome. The “school” comment came because Dee didn’t mention “unprecedented” in her response. Now that Bush, Reagan defs are part of the issue, well, guys, fine. I wasn’t crazy about Bush 43′s deficit spending, but his, while bad, is not anywhere close to the degree as Obama’s. And not wanting these massive debt numbers doesn’t mean that you have to be opposed to all deficit spending. I know it’s hard, but try to think clearly.

As for the personal attacks on Obama. Well, as I have made very clear, I really don’t like the guy. The Red River comments he made were, in my view, appalling. He is trying to make political hay out of this. What an ass.

And I still notice that no one here can defend the House bill against the argument that it is fundamentally unfair because the government (as equityholder) accepted the benefits of the employees continuing to work from September to march without saying a word.

And remember, Obama himself whipped up the outrage. Now it turns out his Chief of Staff had a ghost employment, er board seat, on a GSE. Where’s the outrage, President Obama? Where’s the outrage.

Folks, don’t feed spob and his powerline cohorts. He is here to make mischief and thrives on our response. The Republicans have no credibility; and no amount of anti-Obama guff is going to help. Don’t feed a troll. His starndard spiel is so obvious.

I don’t think that spob is a troll. I don’t think that his sole goal is achieve pointless, antagonistic and forum-destructive debate –which is what trollism actually is.
.
I think that we need to distinguish between people who are here honestly representing their principles, and scum who like to destroy public debate by riling up the gullible.
.
I wasn’t crazy about Bush 43′s deficit spending, but his, while bad, is not anywhere close to the degree as Obama’s.
.
Looking through the CBO Report on this budget, do you believe that it is Obama’s scheme to hand off such a huge debt-to-GDP ration (in out years of 90 percent of GDP, potentially), to a GOP President in 2016 that any Republican will be forced to raise taxes, spob?

“standard spiel”? Seems to me sevenoaks07 that I am winning this one.

First, no one here can come close to dealing with the September to March issue. So basically, all those posts defending Barney, Pelosi et alia are just wrong, and obviously so.

Second, Rangel’s tax issue from taking those below-market rents is a big deal. He has lied to the American people in saying that he has paid all of his taxes, and now he wants to impose a punitive tax on private citizens. Oh, I guess the only time hypocrisy matters is when some GOP family values guy gets caught cheating on his wife, or in the case of Haggard, other things. Here we have hypocrisy of the highest order, and people here think it’s not a big deal. Whatever. Moreover, if Rangel gets nailed for this, it will be a template to nail any other Congressman (both GOP and Dem) who gets a sweetheart deal. Let the chips fall where they may.

Third, Obama. He helped foment the AIG outrage. And now it’s back to business as usual when one of his guys does some ghost-employment, er board seat on a GSE? Whatever. No. The press should ask very hard questions about Rahm, e.g., why are you outraged about AIG but not so much about Rahm’s failure to provide oversight as board members are required to do. I won’t hold my breath for Gibbs to be grilled on this.

By the way, Dee, you said one reason. There are plenty more, including the courts.

I don’t think that’s Obama’s scheme. I just think he wants to expand governmental control over the nation.

SZ
.
I don’t see what you see bruh. I will just leave it at that.

SZ — I don’t know if spob is a troll but I do know he lacks a certain familiarity with facts. I asked him to give me one cogent reason why he felt that right wing rule was more legitimate than anything coming from the left. His answer was deficits unprecedented or otherwise it’s clear he believes that some how Republican deficits are less problematic than Democratic ones. I requested that spob’s response be reality based, clearly that didn’t happen either. He is irrational so what is the terminology for that?

Dee, if you cannot see the difference between Bush’s deficits and Obama’s, well, I just cannot help you.

sg, once again, you’re the one who has loudly claimed that Justin Barker deserved a six-on-one beating. (Of course, that makes you slightly worse than our esteemed President, who called that beating a “schoolyard fight”–love to see anyone defend that comment.) Therefore, you have no business whatsoever talking about who is or is not violating the sandbox rules in here. None. Personally, I think you’re a soft b _ _ _ _ who couldn’t hack it for a day in a county lockup. And that you legitimize racially-motivated violence means that your manliness is fair game. Like I said earlier, you sound to me like some guy who’s jealous of hard guys who have the street cred you don’t. It’s pathetic, really. And going to college and becoming militant doesn’t make you hard. It just makes you a joke craving faux authenticity. At least the Jena Six, thugs that they are, aren’t some fake punks. You support what they did, but you’d never have the guts to do it yourself.

I have zero desire to be a street thug or anything like that. I just have the cred to call out a soft b_____ when I see one. And SG, your online persona screams soft b_____. Like I said, stay out of county–you won’t be just one dude’s Charmin, you’ll take care of the whole lockup, ’cause you’ll be good at your role and passed around. You’d probably start to ask to do the tossing.

And Dee, if you think that Bush 43 was right wing, you’re to the left of Lenin.

I’d like to see Tom Coburn as president, personally.

ha ha ha ha ha ha:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023166.php

Dee:
.
SZ — I don’t know if spob is a troll but I do know he lacks a certain familiarity with facts.
.
Exactly. Perfectly said, Dee.

spob:
.
if you think that Bush 43 was right wing
.
Really?
.
What was Bush…a centrist?
.
Was he left-wing?
.
I’d like you to back up that assertion, spob.
.
I mean…think about it: if there’s a “liberal media” with which George W Bush was dogged during his administration, was he to the left of that “liberal media”, or to the right?
.
Are you really going to make the case –seriously– that W was not right wing?
.
After you tell me, do you want to go ahead and let these people know?

Well, I;ve pretty much cleaned everyone’s clock in here re: AIG bonus and retroactive tax as well as the hypocrisy re: Emanuel.

So I can’t be that ignorant.

No Child Left Behind, Perscription Drug Benefit, moderate tax cuts . . . .

Guys, “W” was a big-government semi-conservative. And all the “fascist” talk–look at Obama, basically doing the same thing Bush did with respect to GWOT, or whatever the hell Obambi’s calling it now.

When I think “right-wing” I don’t think Bush. I think Santorum when I think right-wing.

Dianne Feinstein is a liberal; Barbara Boxer is left-wing. Get it?

By the way, if anyone is all that upset about my crude humor with respect to Mr. Softie, SG, I’d remind people that such crude humor should be less offensive than cheerleading a racially-motivated beating, as SG has done here.

Anyone care to dispute that?

Dianne Feinstein is a liberal; Barbara Boxer is left-wing. Get it?
.
That’s insane. They’re both centrists.
.
I get what you mean about big-government Bush, though.
.
That part is because he’s a neo-conservative, not a centrist.
.
That’s the thing…centrists are big government for its own sake, it’s not really a liberal position.