JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

goodDonkey's past comments

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 16, 2009 - 01:56PM JST

  SuperLib:

  It's also a bad idea for a leader who has used WMDs in the past to go out of his way to make the world think he still has WMDs.

  Yes you have repeated this position a few times now on this thread. Somehow you are able to match my saying justifying war with misinformation is a bad idea with something trivial in comparison with war as being a bad idea. Typical SuperLib defending a position into the ground when the ramifications of war do not compare with deception of WMD's. Typical SuperLib caught up in the minutia. Clueless towards why the media has been stressing a major breach in the possibility of a sworn duty to uphold the constitution.

  Posted in: Democrats suggest CIA concealment broke law

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 16, 2009 - 04:23AM JST

  I can't believe how stupid people are willing to make themselves out to be. Pretending that Palin is somehow more knowledgeable then Geitner. Ignorant people who are clueless about economics claiming that cutting taxes is the only answer needed. The sole reason they believe this is because a politician or an economist working for a politician said so. They want to believe there are simple answers and that they know those simple answers. I have studied a myriad of economists who had absolutely no affiliation with any politician. It is not as simple as cutting taxes, cutting spending and less regulation. Any Economist worth his weight in salt today will tell you there are no simple answers. Milton Friedman was correct in many ways. You can name Kemp or any other supply side politician and the original ideas will lead back to Milton Friedman or his circle of economists. Indeed he was correct that regulations in emerging economies must be lowed. Especially entrance and exit costs of entering the market sector. He was correct that taxes must be kept low and government spending cannot continue to be excessive year after year. Cutting taxes like anything else reaches a point of diminishing returns.

  Saying that what Obama offers is socialism is also stupid. If you will recall when Palin and Co. railed against Obama's "socialism" the McCain/Palin numbers fell sharply. One reason for this is that most Americans have a high school diploma. Almost 100% of those who graduated high school learned what socialism is. It is obvious the conservatives who are making the claims are either liars or just plain stupid.

  If you go to a university whether it is undergrad work or grad work you will run across some people who refuse to believe in evolution and most of those same people refuse to believe in global warming or that man could possibly effect the environment on a global scale. There certainly are those who are willing to accept some aspects of evolution and still doubt some part of man affecting global warming. The anti-evolutionists and established science doubters are never the top students. If you get top grades you will soon notice who the other students are that get the top grades. You will also tend to discover who the ignorant ones are. Those who choose to cling to simple ideas for complex situations are ignorant students. They are unwilling to recognize the complex nature of knowledge; particularly the sciences. I am not saying no beautifully simple aspects of science exist. I am just saying those that want to simplify answers concerning the United States putting 2,795 x 10^6 Tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere you are not very intelligent. Let me expand that number: 2,795,000,000 TONS of CO2 per year.

  Palin knows so little about the energy needs of our country and she knows far less about economics.

  Palin as mayor of Wasilla did not get the land ahead of time for a sports complex that she pushed though as an "accomplishment" as mayor. It resulted in $1,300,000.00 in additional costs.

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html

  Palin spent $50,000.00 to remodel her office. She did not get city council approval. Palin insisted on regional dispatch center where there had already been one for 83,000 people. Anchorage has one for 279,243 people.

  Palin and the Brige to Nowhere:

  "We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006, according to the Ketchikan Daily News.

  The Anchorage Daily News quoted Palin in October 2006 as saying she would continue state funding for the bridge. "The window is now, while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.

  "Yes, the pork barrel project, a $233 million bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it," McCain said (Apparently McCain was unaware of her prior support that wasted millions or did not realize she had been caught by reporters)

  And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records...

  http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

  Congressional spending items for Wasilla during Palin's term included $1 million for a regional dispatch center and $1.5 million for water and sewer improvements... [again USA Today]

  Posted in: Palin calls Obama energy plan a threat to economy

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 16, 2009 - 04:02AM JST

  WhiteHawk said:

  No, no and no. I said wealth REdistribution, not wealth distribution, it's not like trickle-down economics, and your definition of those economics is wrong.

  Yeah, he is wrong even though Bush cut taxes disproportionately to the rich. I remember the old term "windfall tax." What Bush gave was a windfall tax cut to the rich. Before you go on and on about the higher percentage of MARGINAL tax that the rich pay I have a few more statements to make. Whatever anyone else makes as total income the rich pay the same rate on that amount (possible significantly less due to increased write offs). You can verify that on the IRS website. I have posted the exact page numerous times. I am not putting forth the effort until someone says I am wrong. The same is true for corporations they pay so much tax on the first amount, then they pay another rate on the second amount above that and so on and so on. So anyone that has ever said they went into a higher tax bracket and ended up losing money is full of crap. If you hold your assets long enough for which you pay capital gains on, you will be paying 15% on capital gains. That is not bad once you begin deductions. So don't tell me about your theories of wealth "redistribution" when there are folks out their with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets that pay a much lower percentage then middle class folks. Why don't you explain how oil companies pay taxes on foreign profit? Good luck with that. You can forward it to the Palin is a Genius on Energy and Energy Economics article.

  When money is taken by the government for the purpose of REdistribution, most of it is consumed by the bureaucratic machine itself, and only a small percentage gets back to the public in any form.

  Just what "small persentage" would that be?

  When the market works according to it's natural flow, the top buy goods and invest in business. Those goods are menufatured [manufactured] and supplied by lower classes, in exchange for money. Those classes buy more goods, and that money is further spread around among those classes and lower.

  Wow, where in that model does the massive entrepreneur's contribution, whether small business or larger, fit in? What about the massive middle class investment in companies? By the way the merchant class model of business and business investment goes back thousands of years so don't claim the money flowed down to them. Your model is straight out of the Supply Side propaganda playbook. Without a top down model all your explanations, that justify tax advantages to many of the rich, the entire Supply Side theory crumbles. If you study Milton Freidman you will find he lends credence to you ideas. But what he presents is far more complex than a Jack Kemp model. The problem is that it still breaks down because there is no model yet to even modestly predict the future and that is one of the pillars of a science. On big problem with Supply Side economics is diminishing returns. Can you cut taxes indefinitely and still improve the economy? Can you reduce regulations indefinitely and still improve the economy? Can you cut government spending indefinitely and still improve the economy? Cutting taxes will cut government services and the economy is dependent on government structures like highways. Building must be built to a standard; a code.

  We had tax cuts and reduction of regulations and our financial institutions were frozen in January. It is no longer frozen. Our job loss rate per month is half of what it was under Bush. Whether you conservatives want to admit it or not our economy was in shambles. There is no way you can attribute the cause to Bush's spending either. I have seen idiots on here try but they have made enough statements about economics that are devoid of any truth that they have zero credibility anywhere except the closed society of JT where extensive arguments would need to be made to expose their simplistic, naive notions that are nothing more that memorized statements passed down to them by their leaders. It was not out of control spending by the government that caused this recession. I am not saying that spending a trillion dollars on Iraq was not foolish and problematic; just that it is not the reason our financial structures began crumbling. It was merely a factor.

  WhiteHawk said:

  If you want to know about the housing market bubble, I can tell you ALL about it, from the engineering, investment, consumer and real estate side of things.)

  Maybe I will just take you up on that offer.

  WhiteHawk's statement:

  The government that forced banks to lend money to those with bad credit or no credit or documentation,

  Totally false you have been brainwashed into believing bs about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. You don't hear the conservative touting that line anymore. Lawrence Kudlow, of the National Review was one of those who began these lies with his cronies. No one was forced to make bad loans. Some institutions were required to make loans to lower income people. There was a plethora of qualified lower income people. The numbers of loans to lower income folks has far exceeded the required number because it is relatively low. The number of qualified lower income people are still plentiful enough to satisfy the requirement. But the kicker is that many institutions (not Credit Unions) that were had no requirement at all to make loans to low income people had just as many bad loans as those that did. The regulation only covers low income loans. There was an astounding rate of wealthy and middle class defaults on loans. Lending institutions made risky loans on their own accord because they could bundle them up with higher quality loans and sell the bundle. Those purchasing the bundle knew what they were buying through full disclosure. Risky loans as everyone knows of course bring significantly higher rates. We were buying and selling risk at many levels in the financial markets. Believe it or not there is nothing wrong with that and we will return to buying and selling risk; leveraging risk. Risk has become a commodity and rightfully so. Start up companies are a risk and need capital. We now have a myriad of means of supplying that capital. Or at least we will again when the economy gets rolling again. I may praise risk but I also praise restraint. They are just another pair of things that need balance.

  Posted in: Palin says she's not leaving politics

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 16, 2009 - 12:40AM JST

  WilliB at 01:10 PM JST - 14th July

  So, the government jumps in action not to go after Al Quaeda but to to go after the people who go after Al Quaeda. The inmates are truly running the asylum now.

  Yeah right, the government is not going after al Qaeda.. Whoops the goes your credibility once again. Not that it ever actually recovers.

  Posted in: Calls grow for probe of CIA plan for al-Qaida hits

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 16, 2009 - 12:36AM JST

  WhiteHawk said:

  Well, Panetta nixed the program the minute he heard of it, so there's one Democrat who did have a problem with it.

  You don't know that to be fact. You criticized others on the other thread about the difference between fact and opinion. Your conservative comrades have been reciting over and over like a mantra "The program never was active." So you have no evidence that Pannetta did not cancel the program because it was an inactive program or for any other reason for that matter. But you so boldly say he had a problem with it. So go ahead now, you have enough wiggle room to say his problem with it could have been that it was inactive. But the prior implications by people were that Democrats did not want to go after al Qaeda. Most people would interpret the "a problem with it" to be something other than deleting an inactive program. I would say you don't have to have a problem with a program because you deleted it due to it being inactive. You may just be following protocol. But that is just my opinion of one possibility.

  But regardless of Pannetta's intent it was a nice red herring to throw out to divert attention from the only remaining question. Did Cheney direct the CIA to withhold information? It was a nice red herring while it lasted.

  PROVIDING INFORMATION TO CONGRESS

  SEC. 605. [50 U.S.C. 425] Nothing in this title may be construed as authority to withhold information from the Congress or from a committee of either House of Congress.

  According to the article above:

  Panetta also told lawmakers that former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA not to inform Congress of the specifics of the secret program.

  Let's just see if there is evidence to back that up. Shall we?

  Posted in: House lays groundwork to probe CIA plan to kill al-Qaida leaders

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 15, 2009 - 11:37PM JST

  It would appear that all we have to do is prove Cheney gave the orders that have been clearly defined in the news: "Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress about a new counterterrorism program that CIA...."

  Oh and JoeBiggs, I swear I did not see your posting of the NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947. I went to get the quote on Dick directing the CIA not to inform Congress and saw you had done your research. I also did independent research since I saw the B.S. comments that I quoted that claimed to exonerate Dick. When you posted the comment that referenced the law I was probably still studying the Federalist Papers and James Madison. lol

  Hey I don't mind giving credit where credit is due but I worked my ass off to get that information. I will give JoeBiggs credit for scooping me. Curse you JoeBiggs for stealing my thunder. I wanted sole credit for dropping that bombshell.

  For those who care to reference the actual law instead of taking conservative's word for what the laws are in this country I offer the following:

  http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

  I came across the act on a CIA webpage. I was looking into there description of Congressional oversight of the CIA.

  https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/wagenen.html

  Posted in: House lays groundwork to probe CIA plan to kill al-Qaida leaders

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 15, 2009 - 11:09PM JST

  sailwind said:

  President George W Bush authorized the killing of al-Qaida leaders in 2001. Congress was aware of that notification.

  Leave to the conservatives to trivialize congressional overersight. Our constitution was founded on removing power from kings. Seperation of power is a founding principle of the United States. The conservatives have never given a crap about the constitution. When Reagan lied by saying "I don't recall" and "I don't remember" they thought of him as a patriot. Never mind that he violated a law enacted to curb the very actions he took in a clandestine manner against the law, which he in fact signed. The conservatives never liked the law so it was ok to violate it. I thought that was the lowest thing they did collectively (since they did not shield Nixon collectively) in my lifetime. But now they have no problem throwing out the constitution to protect Dick Cheney. Soon enough to be President, James Madison clearly spelled out the intent of our constitution in the Federalist Papers (From Federalist No. 51):

  This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

  But let's not let our precious constitution get in the way of citing specific law:

  NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 (ACT OF JULY 26, 1947)

  SEC. 102A.. [50 U.S.C. 403-1] There is a Central Intelligence Agency. The function of the Agency shall be to assist the Director of Central Intelligence in carrying out the responsibilities referred to in paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 103(d) of this Act.

  RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

  SEC. 103. (50 U.S.C. 403-3] (a) PROVISION OF INTELLIGENCE. (1) Under the direction of the National Security Council, the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for providing national intelligence -

             (A) to the President;
  
             (B) to the heads of departments and agencies of the executive branch;
  
             (C) to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior 
  

  military commanders; and

             (D) where appropriate, to the Senate and House of Representatives
  

  and the committees thereof.

  TITLE VI - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES

  PROVIDING INFORMATION TO CONGRESS

  SEC. 605. [50 U.S.C. 425] Nothing in this title may be construed as authority to withhold information from the Congress or from a committee of either House of Congress.

  So sailwind's statement: "According to the article they didn't hide anything at all really if you think about it."

  "President George W Bush authorized the killing of al-Qaida leaders in 2001. Congress was aware of that notification."

  As I was saying sailwind's statement, is total bunk. The law is clear that the CIA must not "withhold information from the Congress or from a committee of either House of Congress." It is the CIA's responsibility clearly. sailwind is in fact the one "playing politics" both with the very essence of our constitution and with a very clearly defined law. The conservatives would rather throw the constition out the window then not provide Cheney with cover. Cheney gave an order not to inform Congress of the CIA's information.

  The merit of the CIA's program is irrelevant. Because if it was a good program then Congress could have enriched support for it. They have that power. Congress must be informed. The CIA was not Cheney's Private Dick (detective) Agency. Now I will let the conservatives continue to spew crap in defense of the indefensible.

  Posted in: House lays groundwork to probe CIA plan to kill al-Qaida leaders

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 15, 2009 - 12:46AM JST

  SuperLib said:

  The burden of proof was on him, and he did everything is his power to make the world believe he still had WMDs and the ability to produce them because he was worried about Iran.

  That is a really bad idea when it comes to justifying war against another nation. Most Americans have now decided that if America goes to war, the burden of proof is on America. And rightfully so.

  Posted in: Democrats suggest CIA concealment broke law

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 14, 2009 - 07:49PM JST

  Klein2, great post. Unfortunately there are those here that care less that the article is about the CIA. For them it will always be about CYA.

  Posted in: Democrats suggest CIA concealment broke law

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 14, 2009 - 07:43PM JST

  Orange blossom honey is my favorite but it can be very expensive. You can definitely taste a flowery orange flavor. But now I just stick to the splenda honey. One of the best inventions was sugarless bees.

  Posted in: 100% pure Australian honey

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 14, 2009 - 06:04PM JST

  I made an error in listing Carney as a mayor of Wasilla. He was never mayor. I erroneously meshed two sentences together; one ending with his name and the other beginning with "The current mayor...." I have read 30 - 40 articles in the past day so my 50 yr. old eyes play tricks on me sometimes. It turns out he was a former Wasilla City Council member. Nick Carney is now retired living in the lower 48.

  Posted in: Palin says she's not leaving politics

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 14, 2009 - 05:38PM JST

  sailwind said:

  Governor Palin never claimed she was an intellectual or a foreign policy expert. You held her to a standard she never set for herself. You set her for failure and ridicule the very day you set that bar.

  What bar? What standard? Intellect and intellectual are two different words. I said I questioned her intellect. Every person on earth has intellect. Next you'll be saying I set the level at genius. I do question her intellect and now a lot of other people are doing the same. sailwind you are no mind reader so don't claim to know that I meant something I never said.

  they would rather have them have a good dose of common sense instead

  What common sense? That would be nice. I don't think you are listening to the voices out there. Sarah Palin spent $50,000 of the taxpayers money to remodel her office. Carney, the now, newly elected mayor confronted her when she said, "I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't.'" Because the confrontation took place at a City Council hearing this quote can be found numerous times on the internet. If you enter the search terms "palin" and "i'm the mayor" with "i'm the mayor" in quotes you will see countless pages with the quote. The dates go all the way back to September. Some people knew about this but just didn't care. Palin wanted a sports complex on the outskirts of Wasilla, which she pushed through city government.

  "I feel sorry for our current mayor [Carney], because of the mess that Sarah left behind," said Anne Kilkenny, a respected government watchdog in Wasilla. "And the sports arena is still a money loser for the city."

  Today, the sports complex sits like a huge airplane hangar outside the Wasilla city limits, in a clearing in the woods. Since Palin's administration decided to build the complex far from Wasilla's population center, kids can't walk there or ride their bicycles. On a recent, drizzly afternoon, the cavernous building sat nearly empty. Inside, two girls glided aimlessly around on the ice rink.

  Because of Sarah's bungling of the sports complex land the city was forced to pay at least $1,300,000.00 in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. "Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla." This according to the Wall Street Journal.

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html

  Common sense, yeah right!

  The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. [WSJ]

  Posted in: Palin says she's not leaving politics

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 14, 2009 - 01:22PM JST

  Molenir said:

  and 3 CIA directors later, and none of those previous CIA directors felt there was a need to brief congress on this program yet.

  You need to get your facts straight I also included the quote above where Cheney ordered the CIA not report it to Congress. So don't tell me what the "CIA directors felt there was a need" to do. Because you have no idea. It is mere conjecture on your part. But then you have always been fast and loose with the facts. I am willing to state my opinion that I am suspicious of 8 years and the program never became active. But that is just my opinion. You state unequivocally as fact "8 years, and 3 CIA directors later, and none of those previous CIA directors felt there was a need to brief congress on this program yet." But you frequently confuse fact with opinion. You try to pass things off as fact; like you could have possibly known how the CIA directors "felt." Who are you trying to kid?

  Posted in: Cheney told CIA not to discuss counterterrorism program

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 14, 2009 - 12:31PM JST

  Correction:

  Dilema should have been dilemma.

  Posted in: Palin says she's not leaving politics

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 14, 2009 - 12:29PM JST

  The conservatives as usual must label it hate. Without that they have nothing. I do not hate Sarah Palin but I like to make fun of her. It has to do with her diva status. If I am not mistaken Republicans have said the same thing. It has to do with her formulaic answers to questions that require depth and understanding. I was initially frustrated in the beginning because I was the first and for a long time one of the few that questioned her intellect. If ever there was a vindication of my perception it would be that of Palin's intellect. Now tens, if not hundreds, of millions are stating what I immediately noticed. I took a beating for months because I questioned her intellect. The conservatives said I hated her. How does that possibly equate? It really only leaves a question of their own intellect that they must use faulty logic.

  The conservatives are going to find themselves in quite a dilema in short order. As more and more Republicans say the very same things I have been saying all along they will have to make choices. Will they vilify those Republicans who are simply stating their opinion of Palin, which is negative in nature?

  Posted in: Palin says she's not leaving politics

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 14, 2009 - 12:42AM JST

  sarge said:

  ...you won't find that he broke any laws. At least not any dumb laws..

  Now sarge is offering us qualified answers.

  Posted in: Democrats suggest CIA concealment broke law

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 14, 2009 - 12:29AM JST

  Sad to hear our brave troops have fallen. I suspect it is going to be very difficult for the foreseeable future. It appears we are increasing our efforts to destroy and disable the enemy. The Taliban have the advantage of knowing the terrain and having had time to plan routes of escape and strategic maneuvers using that knowledge. The Marines on the other hand have a technical advantage, an advantage of supreme discipline, superior skills and a fierce mindset brought on by a mixture of intelligence and sheer guts.

  My sympathies go out to their families.

  Posted in: 2 U.S. Marines killed in Afghan blasts

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 14, 2009 - 12:08AM JST

  Check out this pic of Palin.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/us/politics/13palin.html

  What the heck is she doing to that baby?

  Can't Palin tell the difference between a human and a baby harp seal?

  Posted in: Palin says she's not leaving politics

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 13, 2009 - 08:11PM JST

  sarge said:

  Heh, I'm still waiting for some proof that Cheney violated any laws.

  I guess that means you approve of our continuing to investigate Cheney and his order to the CIA to break the law. I think we can do that.

  Posted in: Cheney told CIA not to discuss counterterrorism program

• 

  0

  goodDonkeyJul. 13, 2009 - 07:29PM JST

  sailwind said:

  Sure is sad to watch someone continue day in and day out ... yada yada yada

  "Sad," that would indicate sympathy this week. Where is the anger of the past? I guess that victim thing just works out better. Good luck with that. It should help disguise the fact that I practically wrote her script within a day or two of her resigning. Let see I said, book tour, speaking tour, politics. Oh, I also said raise money. She is making it more and more difficult for that prediction to come true. I mean of course she can collect money from the horny JT guys. We have seen them pop up to defender every time her name gets mentioned. I guess we can expect them to pop up when the hat gets passed for her political ambitions.

  I just passed on information that I had come across that reflected the article on JT. That would seem to have more relevance then criticizing me for posting it. I'll bet many readers were not aware of the steady stream of Republican detractors of Palin.

  As I seemed to recall the day she resigned sailwind said she was only resigning because people were being so mean to her. I differed.

  Posted in: Palin says she's not leaving politics

Follow us