...linked at the top of http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ which leads to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22886841#22886841 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Formerly 8pmEastern/5pmPacific: Live WebTV Coverage of the Clinton-Obama Debate.. ...at http://www.cnn.com/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Formerly Live WebTV Coverage of TsunamiTuesday Primaries and Caucuses... ...at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22887506#22887506 or go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ then click the "Watch live MSNBC TV coverage and analysis of Super Tuesday" link at the top of the page. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Formerly Repeat WebTV Coverage of the California and Republican Debates... ...at http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Formerly Live WebTV Coverage of Tonight's 8PM HatrackTime DemocraticDebate (on Air Now)... ...at http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/ and http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Formerly Live WebTV Coverage of Tonight's 8PM EST RepublicanDebate... ...at http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/ and http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/ and http://www.politico.com/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Formerly Live WebTV Coverage of SouthCarolina and Obama's victory speech.. ...at http://bravenewfilms.org/network?utm_source=huffpost from HuffingtonPost. Obama's victory speech due very soon. Unfortunately, ya hafta listen to the flatulence of navel-gazing political morons while waiting for the speech. And apparently, to the same absurdly ignorant commentary by Cenk and Greenwald even while Obama is giving his speech. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Formerly Live WebTV Coverage of Florida Republican Primary Debate... ...on http://msnbc.wm.llnwd.net/msnbc_1_live_8824 . Or if that doesn't work directly from here, try http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ then use their link "Watch MSNBC Republican presidential debate" near the top just underneath the header. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Formerly MSNBC : Live WebTV Coverage of the Michigan Primary ...on http://media.myfoxdetroit.com/primary/primarylive.htm
MSNBC and FoxNews are supposed to be coming up live soon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Formerly MSNBC : Live WebTV Coverage of NewHampshire... ...on http://msnbc.wm.llnwd.net/msnbc_6_live_8828 . Or if that doesn't work directly from here, try http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ then use their link "Watch MSNBC TV's live coverage" near the top right of the page
[ February 26, 2008, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
thanks for the link!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Romney is giving a GREAT concession speech.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Hey, thanks.
--j_k
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Popping this up for the Michigan primary cuz editing in a title change and a new link didn't work.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Popping this up for the Florida Republican Debate cuz just editing in a title change and a new link doesn't work.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It'll be interesting to see how it goes with less people. They should get more air time for each person.
It's pretty hilarious to hear them answer why they should be trusted with the dollars when Republicans are the ones who had spent us into the ground over the last six years. Their excuses amount to "well, yeah, I guess we messed up a bit, but, but, those Democrats they'll spend a lot! So, trust us THIS time, we'll get it right we swear!"
[ January 24, 2008, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lyrhawn, you are trying to tell us that Democrats are not the "Tax and Spend" party, when we all know increasing taxes is always the first thing they resort to (the very thing that has ruined Michigan's economy), and you are trying to tell us that Republicans are not much more likely to cut taxes and restrain spending--if anyone is. Instead of trying to convince us that Democrats are Republicans, and that Republicans are Democrats, why don't you chuck the Democrats and become a Republican. You know in your heart you really want to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You think raising taxes ruined Michigan's economy? Gyah. You probably voted for DeVos.
I know that for years the Republicans double our national debt, to the tune of $5 trillion more. I know they have us mired in an uber expensive war with no exit strategy, throwing darts at a strategy board praying to God that something works. I know that, regardless of what their individual beliefs may be, on average they vote anti-immigrant, anti-environment, and anti-gay.
Michigan's economy tanked because of the auto industry. Plain and simple, that's it. Republicans keep trying to gut education spending because they can't stand the idea of putting the sales tax on luxury services. God forbid people pay a little more for a massage so people stay in state to get their education and then put that knowledge to use here instead of fleeing the state for a job. Granholm has offered dozens of businesses TAX FREE years in Michigan just to bring the jobs here, and still they leave. Republicans wanted to get rid of the SBT and not replace it. Instead they blamed the Governor for a billion dollar defict, and their solution? Cut education spending.
Education is the only thing that will save this state. High tech jobs via education will save us, cutting education as the auto industry collapses will turn the state into a dead zone. You guys just don't get it.
How Republicans can have the gall to say we should trust them after years of fiscal mismanagement is beyond me. Some things should be cut, spending wise, some things should be increased spending wise, and likewise some taxes should be cut and some should be increased. And that's what I think the Democrats want. They want to close loopholes that the rich get, they want to cut tax breaks for uber wealthy oil companies, and they want to cut taxes for the middle class.
The problem is, if the Democrats are the "tax and spend" then the Republicans are the "cut and spend" party. At least the Democrats are up front with you about what you need to pay for what they spend.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Gosh, I hope McCain learned from what happened to Giuliani and Romney after the YouTube debate. I think that's where Huckabee got his real foothold.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes, Lyrhawn, I did vote for DeVos. And virtually every day I think "See, I told you so," at the majority who unwisely re-elected Granholm to do more damage, as the depression and joblessness and housing crisis deepens in this state. At every turn, when urged to get rid of the taxes that were driving businesses and jobs out of Michigan, Gov. Jennifer Granholm would pay lip service to the desirability of doing this, and yet her priority was always that the overall level of taxation must not be lowered. Democrats never seem to get it, no matter how many times it has been proven, that when you encourage business by cutting taxes, you wind up with more businesses paying taxes, and more people with jobs paying taxes, and the feared government budgetary shortfall does not happen, and actually what results is a surplus.
Education will not save this state within the next year or two, and the crisis is at an emergency level now. The businesses that employ most people are small businesses, not the auto companies, and it is the small businesses that are being forced to relocate out of state. It was the SMALL BUSINESS tax, which virtually no other state has, that did most of the damage.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You keep buying the party line don't you? You know why no other state has an SBT? Because they all have CORPORATE TAXES, which the state of Michigan DOESN'T HAVE. So long as we're shouting. It brought in more than a billion dollars of revenue, and you can't cut the budget by that much, you have to come up with SOMETHING to replace at least part of it. You also ignore the fact that Granholm during her first four years cut more than a billion dollars in wasteful spending, a BILLION. And after she did that? Republicans said cut more. There wasn't any more to cut without cutting services, and that means firing firefighters, it means firing cops, and it means letting felons out of prisons. That's all there is to it.
She wanted to replace the SBT with a different more business friendly tax. And eventually they did. She offered a lot of businesses the chance to stay here tax free, and they still went to Mexico. She goes to Japan and she goes to Germany, and she comes back will millions in investments and hundreds of jobs.
Republicans just want to slam a Democrat, they don't even care about the facts, if they did, they wouldn't be saying the lies they do. And you sir, are just repeating the party lines.
Businesses collapsed because the auto industry did, and thousands were laid off work, factories shuttered, and dozens of subsidiaries did the same. That comes as a result of the foolish moves of the Big 3 and bad trade policies at the national level. Is there anything else you want to blame her for? Maybe the renaming of the Ford Taurus?
And on education, thanks to the Republicans we already have some of the most rapidly increasing costs for tuition in the country. It won't solve the problem in the next year, but if the Republicans ruin Michigan's education infrastructure, it could ruin us for a decade. You have to start fixing it now, so in five years we have the educated workers we need to fill high tech job spots. Otherwise it won't matter what businesses we bring in, no one will be qualified to take them.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Amen.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Lyrhawn, have your heard Hilary Clinton's plans? All the money she wants to spend, but doesn't have a plan to pay for?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've read some of her material, near as I could tell it was all revenue neutral, but not all of it. Other than hearing other candidates rail against her, I haven't heard anyone give any specifics on how much she wants to spend and how much is accounted for. Is there a direction you could point me in to find where the Democratic candidates want to spend and where they want to cut or increase taxes? All I've heard is the Republican attacks, no specifics. You'll forgive me if I don't take their word for it.
But even if it were so, how is that worse than what the Republicans want? They've all called for massive military increases, for increases in energy spending, for increaes in spending at the borders without raising any taxes on anyone to pay for it. And I haven't heard any specifics on what spending cuts they want to make.
My point above is, asking us to trust them is a load of crap, and attacking Democrats for what they've done the last few years is hypocritical. Even if the Democrats were going to spend us further into the ground I'd still vote for them. $5 trillion in new debt and nothing to show for it on the Republican side. At least with the Democrats we might get a new school out of it. Republicans are proposing just as many spending increases as the Democrats, and twice as many tax cuts without any specifics on spending cuts, and then accuse Democrats of being fiscally irresponsible. Do they think we're stupid?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:What we found interesting was the third 30 minute session: Not for creative questions, quite the contrary, it was for creative answers which appeared to be whispered to Mitt Romney. When Mitt Romney was asked by a moderator if he would handle social security’s challenges today the way President Ronald Reagan handled them, you could clearly hear someone whisper to Mitt Romney, “raise taxes”. It appeared like answers were being fed to some candidates.
I did not see the debates. Can someone verify this?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah...I DID hear that, and I have no idea what the heck it was. I thought it was one of the other candidates who had a hot mic and was saying something. You could clearly hear it, but I haven't a clue as to where it came from.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Dubya has spent half a trillion dollars per year in office that he still has no plan to pay for, and has blown a quarter trillion per year of surplus* that Clinton handed off to him in 2001. Do you have any problem with that? Do you have any problem with paying it off? Do you have any way to pay it off other than taxes? Can you say "Dubya raised taxes by more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars per year." Naturally someone else is gonna be blamed, in the same manner that BushSr and Clinton took the heat for Reagan's huge tax increase.
* Which was supposed to be used to pay off the NationalDebt in anticipation of Boomers going on SocialSecurity and Medicare.
[ January 31, 2008, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Dubya has spent half a trillion dollars per year in office that he still has no plan to pay for, and has blown a quarter trillion per year of surplus that Clinton handed off to him in 2001?
And you should look up where Clinton got that surplus from. Look carefully around the bits where they stop filling government jobs when workers retired and now the people who could have for example found the lead paint in toys coming from China don't exist anymore. Or perhaps the folks who made sure goods coming into the United States were safe, that are so under staffed now? What amount of money is wasted on damage control for that sort of thing, and we are completely vulnerable to many such accidents. Or heck look at the then booming economy that Clinton had virtually no control over.
I'm sure Gore's reinventing government initiative probably cut alot of fat that needed to be cut, but cutting regulations is not universally good, and his project went from good to manic IMO. I'm still researching it, but it's quite possible that Gore in his zeal to cut fat from the government job sector has ended up costing us more money over time then the initial surplus he helped generate.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
That's very nice to say -- like the Republican debaters last night agreeing that Clinton launched the IraqInvasion in 1998, and Dubya was just following up in 2003 -- and equally far removed from anything vaguely resembling reality. eg The ConsumerProductSafetyCommission is and has been a reactive rather than a proactive force inregard to consumer interests. Nearly always, CPSC technicians begin tests only after complaints start pouring in; most often after hospitalizations and/or deaths have already occurred, and lawsuits have already been filed or threatened. Of the items under CPSC purview, I doubt that even as little as one item per thousand product lines have been tested by its technicians before reaching the market. I wouldn't be surprised if it were less than one in ten-thousand. To the degree that testing is done, it's done internally by the company making and/or selling the product under its brand, and/or externally through non-governmental organizations such as UnderwriterLaboratories. CPSC oversight, if any, consists of making sure that required paperwork, if any, is filled out properly.....and, rarely, finding a disallowed material listed within that paperwork.
[ January 25, 2008, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You still haven't shown that specific sort of office was removed from the federal gov't while Clinton was President, BB.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You still haven't shown that specific sort of office was removed from the federal gov't while Clinton was President, BB.
Here is some stuff on OSHA problems since the policy was inacted.
The governments outline of Gore's policy, this paragraph is significant.
quote:Vice President Gore personally challenged the leaders of these “High Impact Agencies” to commit to a small handful of significant, concrete, measurable goals that can be achieved over the next three years. About 1.4 million of the federal government's 1.9 million civilian employees work in these 32 agencies. When the Vice President met with the heads of these agencies in late 1997, he told them: “You should focus your efforts in three areas: partnerships, the use of information technology, and customer service. . . Yours are the agencies that shape the public's opinion of government and can redeem the promise of self-government. Public cynicism about government is a cancer on democracy. Reinvention isn't just about fixing processes, it's about redefining priorities and focusing on the things that matter.”
Partnerships besides meaning obviously cooperation also meant cutting jobs and having individuals from say Food and Safety Inspection service doing work for not only that agency but for Food and Consumer Service. Information technology was another euphamism for cutting jobs, and replacing those individuals with computers.
Scroll down to the list of High Impact Agencies and I think you will find every single agency that deals with imports, safety, and environmental control is on that list.
This paragraph I found to be significant, though the entire article is quite interesting.
quote:What's really tragic about Gore's failure to make any headway on this front is that the need for better workers has never been greater, and the press - bored with Gore's jargon-rich presentations and hung up on Monicagate - has utterly ignored it. Think about it: There are now more people on the verge of retirement in the government than ever before, and the quality of new hires is still going downhill. "When we asked supervisors to tell us to what extent the quality of applicants had worsened or improved in the past three years," concluded a 1998 study by the Merit Systems Protection Board, "we found that their assessment of applicant quality had fallen for just about every type of job category." As Seth Grossman points out in this issue, some agencies can't even answer phone calls from prospective applicants. And the failings of the current workforce have become legendary. One Defense Department official failed to show up for work for seven straight months, and successfully challenged an effort to fire him on the grounds that his boss made him nervous and gave him a "stress disorder." Another federal worker, fired for truancy, kept his case bouncing from one appeal to another for over 12 years. As one VA official told me, his union is "a refuge where you can go if you don't want to do any work. It's a black hole." For the most part, supervisors don't even try to fire incompetent or lazy employees.
Under Gore's program people close to retirement were given bonuses for retiring early and the positions were not necessarily filled. I am still researching this topic, I'll try to get to the good materials a professor of mine is providing me with next week and see what I can bring you then.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Obama is on now. Keep forgetting to bump this thread up when I retitle and relink.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Where can I find Obama's victory speech without random pundits speaking over it?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Transcript of Obama's SouthCarolina victory speech. It's not on YouTube yet, but the video will probably be posted there within an hour or so.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Bumping early as a reminder
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
On air now
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Man can I just say Obama's answers are blowing me away. He is nailing every single one of them.
Kudos to him for taking the hard answer to the whole, "Latinos hurt African American jobs" question.
Clinton is not doing too bad herself, but MAN Obama is on tonight.
edit: Doh! I was not too pleased with his response to the question about Experience. It sounded too much like, "Hillary has alot of experience, but I've got some good experience too!"
[ January 31, 2008, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
on air now. Results start coming in at 7:00PM HatrackTime
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
What's "HatrackTime"?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Not as far as I know. Go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ and click the Watch live MSNBC TV coverage and analysis of Super Tuesday link at the top of the page, and see if that works or whether you have to download. Then again, MSNBC's coverage was on&off (transferring to NightlyNews spots) for the first two hours or so.
Another problem might be your antiVirus/firewall program. I do know that Norton will automaticly lock out a lot of Java instructions, without bothering to tell you.
[ February 05, 2008, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Added a bit above concerning the breaks in MSNBC's early coverage, and also inregard antiVirus/firewall programs.
Must admit that Huckabee was impressive in his interview with BrianWilliams. Definite natural for the media age.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There isn't a common time, aspectre, each user can set an offset in his or her profile.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Thanks for the info, never noticed. And wouldn't have thought that anyone would care enough to do a reset.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
bump
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He's hitting all his sweet spots. It's a longer speech, it seems, than most, but he's obviously doing two things: 1. Emphasizing policies and details of his plans. 2. Answering criticisms leveled against him from opponents.
Despite the fact that, for someone who has seen most of his speeches and feels some the older chestnuts are getting, well, old, I still think it's a damned good message.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't remember the constitution part or the closing Guantanamo part. Were those new or had I just missed them?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Old. Well, him touting the fact that he was a Constitutional law professor is new, but the fact that he was isn't new at all. I haven't heard him talk about it often before, but it's a good line, actually I think it's a great line, when he ties it to the current administration.
And he's used the closing Guantanamo thing off and on, not nearly as much as the other things in his stump speech. I wouldn't call it new, but it's not a line he uses every time I don't think. And it's neither here nor there, but, I don't think he'd actually close it. It's a great base, I think he means he'd shut down the detainment facility there.
Also neither here nor there but, does McCain's wife freak anyone else out? When I look at her, I just can't help but think that's she's one of those villain women on a daytime soap opera. There's just nothing attractive about her, and I don't just mean physically. I very rarely ever judge a person just by their looks, especially in politics, I'm far more interested in their policies, but for candidate spouses there isn't quite as much to go on, and she just turns me off, her look and her voice and the things she has to say. I think I might have a little crush on Michelle Obama though, so it's possible I'm biased. M. Obama I think is shaping up to be a strong, dynamic woman on the campaign trail.
It's just a feeling, but I think she'd be an amazing first lady. I think she has the draw and appeal that her husband has, and is also smart, a good public speaker, and can bring people together for a cause. She could be the next Eleanor Roosevelt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Only much better looking.
Yeah. I knew that he taught Constitutional law, But I hadn't heard him talk about it in these speeches, yet.
And I also assumed that he was talking about the detention facilty rather than the whole base.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
bump
I thought Obama was off his form at the Houston rally / Wisconsin victory. The next day, he gave a speech starting with "I've got a little head-cold..."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Argh. I have to work tonight and can't watch it live. I'm counting on you all to keep me informed.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I'm watching it now. Clinton's pissing me off. Obama's doing awesome.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ah hell, I missed it. I see CNN has it separated question by question. Is there any place where I can watch the whole thing?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I missed a lot of it. I caught the end, including Clinton's closing which I thought was really stellar, and most of the pundits seemed to like as well. I'll be catching the rerun later.
Ick - I'm betting it'll be rerun on CNN later, or YouTube usually has it within a few hours.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The Austin debate "will later be available on demand on both Univision.com and CNN.com. It will also re-air on CNN and CNN en Español."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I gave in and decided to watch the snippets.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sorry, MSNBC didn't put up a live link until the actual start of the debate
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
i have a fast connection, but this feed is not streaming well at all.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I have a fast connection, but this feed is not streaming well at all."
MSNBC has always had rotten video streams compared to almost everyone else. Probably an absurd amount of copyright-protection encoding that's sludging up their broadcast. The last time "It's not a bug. It's a feature!" Microsoft wrote anything even vaguely resembling a clean program was before they launched their initial public stock offering. Heck even their own website is cludgy beyond all rational programming.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)