Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to kingcuke's blog Subscribe


Special Features


#123 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2016-04-12 12:19 PM
"No kidding that is the Point. You must have attended the same history class as NorthGuy 2.5
I see you support Team Obama in his ME efforts, do you think he was SAVVY when he negotiated the terrorists real good in the Bergdahl trade? Obama and Kerry also negotiated the deal with Iran another disaster and yet you support his efforts WHY?"

Say WTF? No the point was you equating an Germany with the Iraqi government we supported. As far as who was in my history class, at least I was in school.
War is a last resort and a useless threat, negotiation is always valuable whether it succeeds or not.
One cannot foresee the long term results of negotiation & equating short term posturing with eventual results is as mistaken as blindness to the known consequence of military action.
Peace through Permanent war is a failure as the most recent 25yr Gulf entanglement proves.

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
Jonathan Swift

Once the US got involved failure was per-ordained, the only policy which Obama or anyone could have taken to avoid failure was complete takeover of both Iraq & Afghanistan.
When the US military is kicking down doors & trying to sort insurgents, between pro, anti, & neutral militias & civilians we're an occupying force & there is no good end.

Just like Bush & Clinton and every other misguided moron in charge, the heroin of the short decisive war is irresistible, especially since the military-industrial complex employs a lot of people and the military has become the 4th branch of government.

Hmmm why has Colin Powell dropped out of politics? Because thoughtful, intelligent, rationalism is futile against the oligarchy?

"When you decide to get involved in a military operation in a place like Syria, you've got to be prepared, as we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, to become the government, and I'm not sure any country, either the United States or I don't hear of anyone else, who's willing to take on that responsibility."
Colin Powell

#23 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2016-04-11 11:03 AM | Reply
"Many people have attempted to educate both you and Obama on the policy of early withdrawal. You were both informed repeatedly NOT to Cut and Run or there would be a Power Vacuum in Iraq that would be filled."

"It is easier to stay out than get out."
Mark Twain

Disregarding of course that Bush set the timeline for withdrawal & Iraq refused to sign a new SOFA, or as Twain as said "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.".
One man's education is anothers propaganda.
Just like with the economy the Bush inheritance left Obama with little choice but to follow Bush initiatives, bailout & withdrawal.

Iraq and U.S. agree that all U.S. forces will withdraw "no later than December 31, 2011." On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, often referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009." [U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, 11/17/08]

"Two strategies follow from this. The first is that the United States will reduce U.S. forces in Iraq somewhat but will not complete the withdrawal until a more distant date (the current Status of Forces Agreement requires all American troops to be withdrawn by the end of 2011). The problems with this strategy are that Iran is not going anywhere, destabilizing Iraq is not costing it much and protecting itself from an Iraqi resurgence is Iran's highest foreign policy priority. That means that the decision really isn't whether the United States will delay its withdrawal but whether the United States will permanently base forces in Iraq -- and how vulnerable those forces might be to an upsurge in violence, which is an option that Iran retains...
The United States cannot withdraw completely without some arrangement, because that would leave Iran in an extremely powerful position in the region. The Iranian strategy seems to be to make the United States sufficiently uncomfortable to see withdrawal as attractive but not to be so threatening as to deter the withdrawal. As clever as that strategy is, however, it does not hide the fact that Iran would dominate the Persian Gulf region after the withdrawal. Thus, the United States has nothing but unpleasant choices in Iraq. It can stay in perpetuity and remain vulnerable to violence. It can withdraw and hand the region over to Iran. It can go to war with yet another Islamic country. Or it can negotiate with a government that it despises -- and which despises it right back. "

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2016-04-11 12:44 AM | Reply
"Sander's big interview flop should relieve big banks greatly. He didn't seem to know his away around how to break them up at all."

Unless of course one actually read the transcript of the interview, rather than the media spin of the interview.
Under Dodd-Frank banks and non-bank financial entities can be required to meet the same capital & leverage requirements as FDIC insured institutions.
One of the main causes of the financial crisis was over-leveraging with the five major banking institutions leveraged at ratios between 30 & 40 to one just prior to the collapse.
Simply imposing the FDIC capital requirements would lead to the large institutions divesting themselves.
The media spun Sanders's statement that he had not studied the legal ramifications of the court decision rejecting MetLife's SIFI designation into a statement that there was no mechanism for breaking up to big to fail institutions which was a deliberate mis-characterization.
MetLife had already begun a break-up strategy because of the the regulatory & capital requirements of the SEFI designation and too big to fail institutions would likely not avoid the SEFI designation and would divest rather than face the regulatory & capital requirements of the designation.

" Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?
Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.
Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?
Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.
Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have
he Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"
Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.
Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?
Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

(2)Minimum risk-based capital requirements
The appropriate Federal banking agencies shall establish minimum risk-based capital requirements on a consolidated basis for insured depository institutions, depository institution holding companies, and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board of Governors. The minimum risk-based capital requirements established under this paragraph shall not be less than the generally applicable risk-based capital requirements, which shall serve as a floor for any capital requirements that the agency may require, nor quantitatively lower than the generally applicable risk-based capital requirements that were in effect for insured depository institutions as of the date of enactment of this Act.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2016-04-08 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Re: Ref
So one unattributed line in a lengthy article is the basis for your comment that Sanders wasn't a serious candidate?

"All those decisions stemmed in part from Mr. Sanders's outlook on the race. He was originally skeptical that he could beat Mrs. Clinton, and his mission in 2015 was to spread his political message about a rigged America rather than do whatever it took to win the nomination."

It is rather an article that shows Sanders's dedication to his Senate job & desire to run an issue based campaign.
The article is basically a statement that professional political advisers have a different viewpoint than the candidate, that issues don't matter as much as attacks do.

One could easily pick an earlier statement, actually attributed to Sanders:
"His strategy for capturing the Democratic presidential nomination was based on sweeping all three early-voting states, and he had fallen short, winning only New Hampshire -- to the consternation of his wife, Jane, who questioned whether he should have campaigned more in 2015."

That one could conclude from the article that Sanders was a protest rather than a serious candidate is an example of confirmation bias rather than analysis.
Rather than going negative the media wants to characterize responding to attacks as negative & enforcing that epitome of election logic "issues be damned attack ads work".
Sanders does respond to to Clinton's attacks & how those attacks are reported in the media.
The "qualification" is a perfect example, Clinton's refusal to acknowledge Sanders was qualified was widely reported as Clinton saying Sanders was unqualified, but when he responded that Clinton was unqualified based on her specific positions the story line was quickly changed to Sanders declares Clinton unqualified.
Sanders has always been a serious, issue orientated candidate, & obviously struck a chord with the electorate.
Rather than campaign missteps it's the DNC trumpeting an delegate lead based on superdelegates committed to Clinton prior to the first primary vote was cast & a virtual media blackout on Sanders's campaign.
The few stories on Sanders, including the qualification scandal feature both Hillary & Bill more than Sanders the alleged subject of the report.

Neither Sanders's nor Clinton's websites are very specific on what actions to take to correct the dominance of Wall Street & Big Banks.
To criticize one over the other is a bit specious, since both simply state generalities rather than specifics and of course any accomplishment is either limited or enhanced by Congress.

That said according to a recent Forbes article
"In 1990, the five biggest U.S. banks held less than 10% of industry assets, but that figure has steadily marched higher ever since, pausing only for the year from 1999 to 2000. Today, Wells Fargo, the third biggest bank, controls basically the same percentage of assets the entire top five did in 1990."

Industry conglomerates rarely perform well for consumers when a small number of players dominate any industry.
As far as Krugman's assertion that it was primarily smaller banks & institutions which caused the meltdown he conveniently avoids the issue of where the smaller entities acquired the funding for their risky investments.

There is a widely held contention that JPM precipitated Lehman Bros collapse solely for it's own benefit by freezing 17 billion in assets which caused the liquidity crisis which led to the bankruptcy filling which led to JPM being the conduit for Fed money to stabilize the market.
Isn't this simply the old market maker boom/bust that characterized Wall Street prior to regulation after the Great Depression but with the added socialized loss privatized profit of today?

Currently the five largest banks hold 44% of of the 15.3 trillion in assets held by U.S. banks, is that not a concentration of wealth that is still dangerous to the economy?

Is it really any different today then it was during the Pecora Commission of 1933?
"Bitterly hostile was Wall Street to the enactment of the regulatory legislation... Had there been full disclosure of what was being done in furtherance of these schemes, they could not long have survived the fierce light of publicity and criticism. Legal chicanery and pitch darkness were the banker's stoutest allies."
Ferdinand Pecora 1939.



The PLCAA does not provide firearm manufactures with greater protection than other consumer goods manufacturers, but does protect them from legally frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt the manufactures, essentially guaranteeing firearm manufacturers the same third party consumer liability protection that keeps victims of automobile accidents from suing vehicle manufacturers unless the accident was caused by defect or negligence.

From an emotional standpoint suing firearm manufacturers for guns designed for no purpose but killing no doubt seems reasonable to many.

The trouble is of course that it is a limited, emotional, Utopian vision, that conflicts with reality.

The much maligned NRA and many other state marksmanship organizations were created because of the abysmal marksmanship of both armies in the Civil War.
What no one brings to the perennial debate is, just like in the Civil War, a trained marksman is both more likely to survive in combat but will also protect their fellow soldiers.
As long as we have troops,(that's fathers, sons, wives, & daughters) in harm's way, we need well trained marksmen, what the Founders called well-regulated.
Which is of course why the 2cd Amendment exists.
While firearms are indeed designed to kill it is in the same sense as birth control is abortion, one can argue the point but it is essentially irrelevant.
Firearms are are like any other sport or hobby interesting & fun, but unlike any other sport or hobby an unalienable right, Constitutionally guaranteed, and philosophically representative of freedom
A society where only the police & military have firearms is not one in which free men dwell.

#5 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2016-03-06 10:36 AM | Reply
"Striking it down effectively places lives at risk in the interest of politics. If an abortion clinic wants to operate, they need to operate under the same rules and regulations as every other clinic."

An unambiguous position, but also one the is clearly wrong.
TRAP legislation is specifically designed to drive abortion providers out of business, a religiously based political goal rather than any legitimate patient safety or medical concerns.
The universal medical opinion is that abortion is safe, designing serial attacks on Roe v Wade via innovative interpretive obstructionism is not a legitimate legislative action and wastes millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars money that could be better spent on caring for the 300,000 children in foster care without permanent homes.
Only the Conservatives can be simultaneously for right to life & against welfare babies on food stamps while refusing to allow school sex education programs to discuss birth control, a proven strategy to reduce the rate of elective abortions. Damn reality, belief rules!
As Justice Ginsburg correctly points out:
"Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that changed their abortion laws before Roe are not going to change back. So we have a policy that only affects poor women, and it can never be otherwise."

The one thing which everyone should be able to agree on in the abortion debate is that the government, whether state or federal, has no legislative role.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State."
Edward Abbey

"Abortion is among the safest of medical procedures: Fewer than 0.3% of patients experience complications that require hospitalization, and overall incidence of death is

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable