9 responses so far ↓

• 1 Just me // Jun 29, 2009 at 9:45 pm

  Has anyone else been getting calls from the NRA?? The jerk off that called tonight asked me if I knew that the Attorney General was trying to take my gun rights away? I asked the dip shit, “Who is the Attorney General?” Uh…uh…

  That’s what I thought. Idiot. Phone number was 703-656-9968.

• 2 Conservative // Jun 29, 2009 at 10:09 pm

  I would submit to you that Mongiardo sided with the interests of his constituency, particularly that of his native area of the state. Many of them make their livings in a primary or secondary nature through the coal industry, and all of them would be negatively affected by the “necessary” — to quote your president, Obama — increase in electricity rates.

  Not to mention “cap and trade” legislation requires California-style building codes on all new construction and requires your home pass a government inspection/energy audit before it can be sold.

• 3 Jimmah // Jun 29, 2009 at 10:40 pm

  “your president, Obama”?

  What happy horseshit is this? I seem to remember conservatives (and yes, maybe not you, but then, maybe you) getting all in a tizzy over President Bush being “not my President” after an election that was contested in multiple courts and potentially stolen.

  He’s your president, too, asshole.

  (Hasn’t even gotten into the fact that Mongiardo’s constituency is already negatively affected by coal, to the tune of so much taxpayer expense, healthcare costs, and humanitarian crises that we’re taking a net loss by abiding by the negative affect the Conservative cites.)

  (Has been drinking)

  (Is going to bed)

• 4 Bruce Maples // Jun 29, 2009 at 10:53 pm

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090625/pl_usnw/new_report_finds_coal_is_costly_for_kentucky_s_state_budget

• 5 E // Jun 29, 2009 at 11:45 pm

  No matter what side you’re on you can find plenty in this legislation to be displeased with…which is generally indicative of a looming bureaucratic boondoggle….so what’s news?
  Just keep telling yourself ‘it’s really going to make things better…”
  When you run out of kool aid, you’ll all come to realize that after the rhetoric dies down, government does the bidding of the highest bidder.
  Coal/power generation got taken care of just fine.

  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5Hw9eapLqDg

• 6 Bob // Jun 30, 2009 at 9:48 am

  I was glad to see McConnell repeatedly refuse to answer stupid questions about SC scandals. The network dork asking the questions was pretty slow on picking up on the fact that he was asking stupid questions and wasting public air time. McConnell is right about what he should be spending his time on and it doesn’t include the sordid marital/family problems and local political fallout of the sad little man who is the current Governor of South Carolina.

• 7 Conservative // Jun 30, 2009 at 10:07 am

  I thought the issue of politicians cheating on their wives became a dead issue during the Clinton presidency.

• 8 jake // Jun 30, 2009 at 11:48 am

  Yeah, it would be a dead issue… if the very people yelling about some random girl giving Clinton a knob job weren’t the very people cheating – usually with men – on their wives today.

• 9 keatssycamore // Jul 1, 2009 at 8:19 am

  Goldman Sachs is drooling over the opportunity to game the cap-n-trade system. Check the key paragraph from E’s link:

  “Emissions brokers and the firms who plan to take part in the U.S. carbon market will press for over-the-counter derivatives trading to be better regulated and not banned, Henry Derwent, president and chief executive of the Geneva-based International Emissions Trading Association said in an e-mailed statement.”

  And what pray tell will Goldman use those derivatives it buys for? Why they’ll use them to inflate another bubble, that’s what.

  http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/06/30/on-giving-goldman-a-chance/:

  “I tried to make that first list of questions as basic as possible. I asked if Goldman would have turned a profit in Q1 2009 if it hadn’t orphaned the month of December 2008. Then I asked if Goldman had made changes to its underwriting standards during the internet boom years; if Goldman’s position was still that the steep rise in oil prices last year was due to normal changes in supply and demand; and if it could explain its 1991 request to the CFTC to have its subsidiary J. Aron classified as a physical hedger on the commodities market. Citing various sources, I also noted that some people had complained that its move to short the mortgage market in 2006 even as it was selling those same types of instruments proved that the bank knew the weakness of its mortgage products, and asked if the bank had an answer for that. And I asked if the bank supported cap-and-trade legislation, and if it was fair to say (as we planned to in the piece) that the bank would capitalize financially if such legislation was passed.

  I intentionally put a lot of yes/no questions on that list. If the underlying thinking behind any of those questions was faulty, it would have been easy enough for them to say so and to educate us as to the truth. Instead, here is the response that we got:

  “Your questions are couched in such a way that presupposes the conclusions and suggests the people you spoke with have an agenda or do not fully understand the issues.”

  You have to have swallowed half a lifetime of carefully-worded p.r. statements to see the message written between the lines here. That this is a non-denial denial is obvious, but what’s more notable here is that they didn’t stop with just a flat “no comment,” which they easily could have done. No, they had to go a little further than that and — and this is pure Goldman, just outstanding stuff — make it clear that both I and my sources are simply not as smart as they are and don’t understand what we’re talking about. So the rough translation here is, “No comment, but if you were as smart as us, you wouldn’t be asking these questions.”

Leave a Comment