Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

I feel like I age 10 years listening to her. It's either that or Bob Edwards. siriusxm'a npr stations Are dull compared to local.

She usually insists on having delusional right-wing guests on, which destroys the possibility for any discussion grounded in observable fact. She does her listeners a severe disservice in her quest for "balance" in my opinion.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I wonder what percentage of the applications pending were Tea Party/conservative related. Because 72 out of 300 is approximately 25%, but if total pending Tea Party/Conservative applications were more than 25%, then you could argue they were not targeted at all.

The criteria used were designed to catch certain kinds of groups, and that remains true regardless of the ideological makeup of the other groups investigated.

Wait what the fuck?



But he provides the writer a link to his freakin' blog that has his last name!

http://geneschwimmer.com/?p=244

One nitpick (which isn't with you): There is no federal mandate anymore, just a tax if you don't meet the insurance requirements. He is proposing not paying that tax, though.

 

[Wilsongt]

She usually insists on having delusional right-wing guests on, which destroys the possibility for any discussion grounded in observable fact. She does her listeners a severe disservice in her quest for "balance" in my opinion.

Yeah... Some of her guests I want to smack.

 

[AndyD]

The criteria used were designed to catch certain kinds of groups, and that remains true regardless of the ideological makeup of the other groups investigated.

I agree. But the question is whether this is a justifiable tactic.

 

[TacticalFox88]

A recent poll found that around 40 percent of Americans don’t know that Obamacare, the new health care law, is in fact a law. This is despite the fact that Obamacare has dominated conversations for 4 and a half years and is one of President Obama’s signature accomplishments.

This will be quite a surprise this fall when major changes to health insurance go into effect.

According to NYTimes’ Frank Bruni, a large number of Americans are ill informed on a variety of issues: not only do 40% think Obamacare was blocked, 65% can’t name a single Supreme Court justice, and 30% can’t name the Vice President.

Technology use has increased but Americans have not become more informed despite the Internet granting instant access to information.

*headdesk*

 

[Wilsongt]

*headdesk*

This will only get worse with the younger generation becoming ever more reliant on insta-facts and not as much as committing important information to memory.

From our old friend Dick (Cheney)

BENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIOHGODIMDROWNINGINBENGHAZI

 

[Rhomega Beta]

*headdesk*

And to think these are the people voting on important issues.

 

[The Librarian]

Wonkblog has two good articles about the AP story and the IRS.

 

[Aaron Strife]

CBO released an updated projection of annual budget deficits over the next ten years. We're looking at 642 billion in 2013, getting as low as 378 billion in 2015 then steadily rising again.

By comparison, their projection earlier in February was 845 billion. So... huzzah!

(should be updated to reflect Bush's last deficit being 1.4 trillion, but y'know)

 

[el retorno]

CBO released an updated projection of annual budget deficits over the next ten years. We're looking at 642 billion in 2013, getting as low as 378 billion in 2015 then steadily rising again.

By comparison, their projection earlier in February was 845 billion. So... huzzah!

(should be updated to reflect Bush's last deficit being 1.4 trillion, but y'know)

Is the CBO still predicting fast economic recovery and giant interest rate hikes for no real logical reason? Their projections can be silly and are limited by current law.

Still takes the air out of the deficit talks.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Is the CBO still predicting fast economic recovery and giant interest rate hikes for no real logical reason? Their projections can be silly and are limited by current law.

Still takes the air out of the deficit talks.

Their economic recovery predictions are pretty sour, seeing as how they actually have the unemployment rate going up by the end of FY2013, and a big driver for the decrease is higher-than-expected tax revenues (more people with jobs = mo' money).

I imagine most conservatives will say it's still too high but Boehner and some other Republicans have already ceded the point that any further cutting would harm the economy more than anything, especially since drawdown in Afghanistan will bring that number down even further.

 

[GhaleonEB]

yglesias on the CBO projections:

The CBO's Projected Budget Deficits Just Shrank by Hundreds of Billions of Dollars

The Congressional Budget Office just did a new series of baseline budget deficit projections (PDF) and they're a lot lower than the old ones. The short-term deficit, in particular, is way lower. We're looking at a $643 billion deficit for 2013 rather than an $845 billion one. That's about half higher-than-expected tax revenues and about half higher-than-expected payouts from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In both cases what we're seeing is that a stronger-than-expected economy leads to a smaller-than-expected deficit.

But they're also revising the 10-year deficit forecast down by $618 billion, primarily because of the slowdown in health care spending.

Now the trick here is that the important budget deficit problem is actually outside the 10-year window. The current projection has the deficit shrinking for the next couple of years and then growing again. That leaves us with a very manageable 2024 deficit. The problem is that it's trending upward. And nothing in this revised projection changes that fact. Under current law, the deficit will bottom out in a few years and then grow and grow forever.

The flipside, though, is that there's really no need to panic or think that there has to be a grand bargain. What we need are more measures to reduce the cost of health care and more measures to boost economic growth.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...e_deficit_is_way_smaller_than_we_thought.html

The conclusion is particularly on point. A bit faster economic growth and a bit less of a rise in healthcare spending, and the deficit is no longer growing as a share of GDP. Even if people don't care about the deficit, those are worthwhile policy ends in and of themselves.

Not that it will dampen deficit hysteria in Washington any. :\

 

[el retorno]

yglesias on the CBO projections:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...e_deficit_is_way_smaller_than_we_thought.html

The conclusion is particularly on point. A bit faster economic growth and a bit less of a rise in healthcare spending, and the deficit is no longer growing as a share of GDP. Even if people don't care about the deficit, those are worthwhile policy ends in and of themselves.

Not that it will dampen deficit hysteria in Washington any. :\

To be fair it seemingly has. the grand compromise seems to be dead isn't in the news. dems aren't talking about it, etc.

there still is the doomsdaying over the "long term" though which is fear mongering to get cuts in SS and medicare.

 

[The Librarian]

Vermont has been on a roll lately with signing an equal pay act and a bill decriminalizing marijuana. Something interesting I learned about the state too: By law, there are no billboards allowed on Vermont's highways/interstates.

 

[Dan]

*headdesk*

40% of Americans changed the channel after this.

What's funny is, aren't Republicans constantly reminding people that Obamacare is in fact law and needs to be repealed? That message is also not reaching people.

There's already enough confusion about what the law entails, let alone having people believe it's not in effect.

 

[AndyD]

What's funny is, aren't Republicans constantly reminding people that Obamacare is in fact law and needs to be repealed? That message is also not reaching people.

There's already enough confusion about what the law entails, let alone having people believe it's not in effect.

I think part of the issue is that some things have taken effect, others have not, and many don't affect the somewhat average person receiving insurance through their employer. So it's not a clear cut, one day it's all on.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Michael Linden ‏@MichaelSLinden 42m

Get ready for this crazy stat: Original Simpson-Bowles plan called for deficit of 2.3% of GDP in 2015. Today's projection puts it at 2.1%.

Grand bargain is dead, Christmas is canceled, we can all go home now.

 

[gcubed]

Grand bargain is dead, Christmas is canceled, we can all go home now.

didn't one of the two (or both) come out and say that 2 weeks ago? (something like, after the sequester their targets have been met and they should focus on expanding the economy)

 

[electricpirate]

Hmm, so that ABC "Bombshell" yesterday turns out to be selectively edited hokum.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

"Whoever provided those quotes and paraphrases did so inaccurately, seemingly inventing the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed…Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his email on the State Department’s concerns."

 

[Avon Barksdale]

 

[Tamanon]

So, is Ted Cruz legitimately eligible to even run for President? He was born in Canada.

 

[B-Dubs]

So, is Ted Cruz legitimately eligible to even run for President? He was born in Canada.

No, he isn't.

As far as the Cuomo vs Christie numbers go you need to remember that Christie is always in the spotlight. He's a national name. Shit I live in NY and I hear more about Christie than Cuomo on the news.

 

[Black Mamba]

CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

...

Whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns.

...

So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and more focused on the talking points, than the e-mail actually stated.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

LOL. The leakers lied. CNN got the e-mail and it contradicts what they said.

BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!!!

 

[B-Dubs]

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

LOL. The leakers lied. CNN got the e-mail and it contradicts what they said.

BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!!!

Holy shit, CNN redeemed! They knew they fucked up and decided to bring the good stuff. This is what you should be doing all the time CNN, shit like this. Journalism!

 

[el retorno]

So, is Ted Cruz legitimately eligible to even run for President? He was born in Canada.

Both parents were citizens, there is no geographic requirement, just natural born which he would be.

 

[Aaron Strife]

No, he isn't.

As far as the Cuomo vs Christie numbers go you need to remember that Christie is always in the spotlight. He's a national name. Shit I live in NY and I hear more about Christie than Cuomo on the news.

I wonder what Cuomo's numbers would be like if the media was constantly speculating about his inevitable 2016 candidacy. If Hillary and Biden both came out tomorrow and said they weren't running, you might see a bump in Cuomo's name recognition as the bored ass media turns their attention to a new shiny thing.

 

[Link]

Both parents were citizens, there is no geographic requirement, just natural born which he would be.

The argument is that "natural-born" is not clearly defined, and many interpret it as someone born on US soil.

 

[Tamanon]

Either way, send Cruz up to be Hillaried.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

@Dax I always thought Vermont sounded like the best state.

 

[B-Dubs]

I wonder what Cuomo's numbers would be like if the media was constantly speculating about his inevitable 2016 candidacy. If Hillary and Biden both came out tomorrow and said they weren't running, you might see a bump in Cuomo's name recognition as the bored ass media turns their attention to a new shiny thing.

I sort of doubt he's running, the guy has turned down every opportunity to up his name recognition. Turned down a spot at the DNC, didn't appear with Obama after Sandy, never took a victory lap after legalizing gay marriage. He's not going to be running, he may have time to get himself out there but if you want the presidency you don't turn down the sort of opportunities he's had. Dude is making way for Hillary.

It would be funny to see a Cruz vs Hillary race. So funny.

 

[The Librarian]

@Dax I always thought Vermont sounded like the best state.

Vermont is best state. Except they have crazy gun laws.

 

[el retorno]

The argument is that "natural-born" is not clearly defined, and many interpret it as someone born on US soil.

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Its not clearly defined, true. but it seems pretty clear to most scholars what its meaning is.

 

[BLACKLAC]

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

LOL. The leakers lied. CNN got the e-mail and it contradicts what they said.

BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!!!

smh.

New thread?

 

[Incognito]

Cruz is eligible to run for president. Period. And he will.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

:jnc

 

[cooljeanius]

Vermont is best state. Except they have crazy gun laws.

What crazy gun laws? They certainly can't be worse than New Hampshire's...

 

[Link]

Cruz is eligible to run for president. Period. And he will.

Fine by me. The bloodbath will be amazing.

 

[Owzers]

:jnc

But Issa is such a convincing hero for the truth, how can liberals not abandon Hillary?

 

[Zeus Molecules]

wait so the sequester is making the economy worst but people are still talking about benghazi.... *sigh

 

[phaze]

Truly, the only option for a self respecting Keynesian is to vote Republican.

 

[Aaron Strife]

wait so the sequester is making the economy worst but people are still talking about benghazi.... *sigh

But hey, that deficit sure is dropping!

Republicans: WHO CARES ABOUT THE DEFICIT?

Truly the only option for a self respecting Keynesian is to vote Republican.

"We tried deficit spending for years, and we just kept running surpluses! It was a real problem"

- Bill Clinton

 

[GaimeGuy]

yglesias on the CBO projections:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...e_deficit_is_way_smaller_than_we_thought.html

The conclusion is particularly on point. A bit faster economic growth and a bit less of a rise in healthcare spending, and the deficit is no longer growing as a share of GDP.

LOWER TAXES!

MORE FREEDOM!

PROBLEM SOLVED!

 

[Jackson50]

Initial reports from last month's battle in Baga are as gruesome as feared. Details of the attack remain ambiguous, but it's apparent the Nigerian government inflicted a number of attacks on civilians in their reprisal. This only accentuates Nigeria's worrisome disregard for civilians. In addition to being iniquitous, their methods are counterproductive. Surprisingly, the indiscriminate killing of civilians is an ineffective method for quashing an insurgency. But more disquieting than the government's response, the attack suggests a resurgent Boko Haram. After recent progress by the Nigerian government against the insurgents, the attack indicates predictions of their demise were premature. Another testament to their resurgence was a surprisingly sophisticated attack on a prison and military barracks last week. And the evidence of cooperation with other militant groups across North Africa is incontrovertible. Their resurgence will reverberate across West Africa and the Maghreb.

I'm ambivalent regarding the Obama Administration's policy. First, I would refrain from designating Boko Haram an FTO. It's not only pursuant to Nigeria's request, it obviates our contribution to sectarian tensions. Second, I would increase appropriations for PEPFAR, the President’s Malaria Initiative, and agricultural development. The Nigerian government's capacity to distribute aid is inhibited by corruption and a weak bureaucracy. More specific forms of aid should circumvent this to an extent. I'd refrain from increasing military aid. A lack of civilian oversight, in addition to excessive violence by the armed forces, is prohibitive.

lololololololololololol http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/05/13/rnc_hispanic_outreach_operative_becomes_a_democrat.html

All of this because the Heritage Foundation promoted a blatantly execrable study. Whoops.

I love reading your posts even if I have no idea what half the words mean

That makes two of us.

 

[Metaphoreus]

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

LOL. The leakers lied. CNN got the e-mail and it contradicts what they said.

BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!!!

Here's a response from Jonathan Karl, the reporter from the original ABC story:

This helps fill out the portrait of the inter-agency deliberations that went into shaping the now-discredited talking points. Assuming, as appears to be the case based on time stamps, that this is a version of the same e-mail ABC News reported on last week, there are some differences.

...

The differences in the two versions are being taken by some as evidence that my source sought to intentionally mislead about the extent of State Department involvement in changing the talking points. The version I obtained makes specific reference to the State Department, while the version reported by CNN references only “all of the relevant equities” and does not single out State.

But there’s another important note here that touches on State Department involvement and shows that the portrait remains far from complete. The subject line of the e-mail, according to CNN, was “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.”

The e-mail was sent to, among others, officials at the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence office, the National Security Council, and the State Department, including then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The official who provided this e-mail to CNN removed the other e-mail exchanges from other principals. That includes anything written by Nuland, who – as I reported – objected to a paragraph in the draft talking points that referenced prior threats against US and other foreign interests in Libya.

In that e-mail, according to source, Nuland wrote that such information “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph Nuland was “concerned” about was removed in its entirety. That e-mail has not been disputed by the administration.

I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words “State Department” were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN’s Tapper.

This was my source’s response, via e-mail: “WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”

The White House could still clear up this confusion by releasing the full e-mail transcripts that were provided for brief review by a select number of members of Congress earlier this year. If there’s “no ‘there’ there,” as President Obama himself claimed yesterday, a full release should help his case.

I haven't been keeping up with this whole Libya thing, so I have no opinion on who is telling the truth about the e-mails (the CNN e-mail could be edited, for instance, and we would have no way of knowing), but I thought posting this response was in order.

 

[empty vessel]

Truly, the only option for a self respecting Keynesian is to vote Republican.

It's true, actually. Neither Republicans nor Democrats oppose Republican spending. The economy would be better under Romney right now. The problem is that Republican spending tends to be the least effective in that it is often targeted at people who already have a lot of it.

And I still wouldn't vote for Romney just to appease Republican economic terrorists.

 

[el retorno]

Here's a response from Jonathan Karl, the reporter from the original ABC story:



I haven't been keeping up with this whole Libya thing, so I have no opinion on who is telling the truth about the e-mails (the CNN e-mail could be edited, for instance, and we would have no way of knowing), but I thought posting this response was in order.

This was my source’s response, via e-mail: “WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”

lol read what I want read into it, its not in there but put it in there anyways because it goes with the narrative I want.

The emails were reviewed by congress, if anything stood out they would have said something. The only way they can get bombshells are to mislead and put words into people mouths.

 

[RustyNails]

Holy shit, CNN redeemed! They knew they fucked up and decided to bring the good stuff. This is what you should be doing all the time CNN, shit like this. Journalism!

Agreed. Now if only CNN does 1 million more of this type of stories, they will be barely respectable again. In any case, this news story further muddles the BENGHAZIGATE hysteria and will move people further from it than towards it.

 

[Black Mamba]

Here's a response from Jonathan Karl, the reporter from the original ABC story:



I haven't been keeping up with this whole Libya thing, so I have no opinion on who is telling the truth about the e-mails (the CNN e-mail could be edited, for instance, and we would have no way of knowing), but I thought posting this response was in order.

Edited? doubtful

The ABC reporter seems to have gotten screwed by his source a bit. Notice how the e-mail is misquoted, it's "all of the relevant equities."

I agree the whole chain would help, but reading that e-mail I have a hard time it directly refers only to what that guy's source claims. It specifically talks about the investigation and intelligence and not compromising that rather than the interests of the State Department not looking incompetent as well as talks about correcting the record.

Furthermore, even if that e-mail reply exists (and we don't have full context), it's not exactly something that matters.

 

[zero shift]

It's true, actually. Neither Republicans nor Democrats oppose Republican spending. The economy would be better under Romney right now. The problem is that Republican spending tends to be the least effective in that it is often targeted at people who already have a lot of it.

And I still wouldn't vote for Romney just to appease Republican economic terrorists.

Pretty much. Democrats are more fiscal conservative than Republicans. They just don't hate non-senior related social services to all hell and back.

 

[Oblivion]

So I came home yesterday and was planning on catching up on my daily MSNBC watching, and I happened to notice that every goddamned show on the network had done a segment on that IRS thing. Hell, Chris Hayes devoted nearly a half an hour to it! As did all the other members of the liberal elite media: CNN, Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, the 11 o'clock news, etc. This little kerfuffle once again highlights the gigantic differences between the left and the right.

Remember that one douchebag Republican from Pennsylvania's legislature that said voter ID would help Romney win? During that time, I made a post documenting the response from right wing media, and after scouring twenty of the biggest conservative websites, you know how many reported the story? ZERO. How many times did Fox News mention it on any one of their programs? ZERO. How many times did Rush Limbaugh mention it? ZERO.

I'd argue that should have been an even bigger scandal than this IRS thing.

And yet, I'm seeing just as much coverage on that on the lefty news outlets that I have to make sure I didn't accidentally surf the wrong channels. Liberals do not know how to play goddamned game. The proper way to handle such a situation is to do the same friggin thing. You go about your day like nothing happened, and if (and ONLY if) one of your Republican guests point it out, you then turn that shit completely around and say "HOW DO WE KNOW THESE IRS GUYS SINGLING OUT REPUBLICAN AFFILIATED GROUPS WEREN'T THEMSELVES REPUBLICANS, HMMMMMMMM?!!!" But noooooooooooo. We gotta be "impartial", "objective" and "consistent".

UGH.


*takes deep breath*


Okay, having said that, before anyone jumps on me, I'm not advocating we actually start doing that. As annoying and insufferable as liberals can be when it comes to matters like this, this is also the sort of thing that makes me side with the liberals to begin with. This was just me venting my frustration more than anything, I guess. I'm just tired that liberals have to always try and be fair and honorable when engaging the enemy, whereas Republicans have no problem bringing a fucking bazooka to a knife fight.