« Sleep With The Fishes |
| Hope, Squared »
Please join us this weekend (and every weekend) on The McLaughlin Group. Check your local listings for time and channel, or visit www.mclaughlin.com for more information.
January 24, 2008 at 03:51 PM | Permalink
Alas, Monique (you don't mind French at certain moments?)I'll be in another country and I'm not so good at the occult science of remote viewing. What will you be wearing?
Ghost of JFK: "You ask what you can do for your country, right?"
(Chanelling by gringoVision.)
January 24, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Go get em Monica!
Looks like Romney won the Republican debate last night. He really looked confident last night. Rasmussen is showing he won the debate and has a lead on McCain/Kennedy in Florida. Looks like Romney may win a big one in Florida and knock Giuliani out of the race. Huckabee is finished. McCain/Kennedy will be seriously damaged after Florida.
I think people are beginning to realize McCain/Kennedy is a paper tiger without lots of viagra. The leftie media wants McCain/Kennedy because they believe he is another Bob Dole (1996 all over again: Clinton v. Dole). That's why the leftie media keep slipping McCain/Kennedy those viagra pills.
January 25, 2008 at 01:52 PM
Speaking of the Kiss of Death, what can be the real meaning of the NY Times "endorsing" Johnny Boy?
1. The "Pinch" Progressives of 43rd Street are too delusional to realize what their brand will mean for McCain among conservatives and even Republicans, or...
2. Delusional? Yes, but not quite to that degree. Rightly or wrongly, the "Pinch"-ed ones do believe that McCain would be the toughest opponent for the Two-Headed Monster. Therefore they "endorse" him, i.e., they poison with a purpose. Clever, what?
(post-9.11 channelling by gringoVision.)
January 25, 2008 at 06:14 PM
Re Monica's proud and utter distaste for the, uh, Clinton Couple: This will, of course, offend the little band of professed Clintonistas who say she doesn't matter and yet they must counter-attack anyway, (whether re-imbursed for their troubles or not). The type is very common on the Internet. And common as dirt is its use of ad hominems and the usual roundelays of personal attack meant to demean and diminish and, hopefully, stop their opponent's free expression. Thuggery goes at least as far back as the class wars of Rome. The problem with democrats, whether the People's Republic types or the current U.S. type, is that they keep revealing their profound hatred and fear of free speech. They just can't help themselves. They will use any weapon available to them, cajolery, insult, mud pies, potty mouth---anything, when they can't get their angry mitts on actual bricks and bats, which is what they really want to use. They are terrorists lite. Whether some hope to get beyond "lite," who knows? I imagine the average will be content with "lite" if it can kill their opponent's free speech. (In this particular case here, they seem to be betting, or hoping, that Monica is not really a warrior woman, and therefore will bend, like some politicos.)
Unfortunately for the Clintonistas, however, their idols are coming under attack now from those who have more influence than---they claim to think---Monica has. Worse yet, these influential critics are practically liberal icons. (Let's not even mention Teddy The Swimmer.) A very important black Congressman from S. Carolina. And no less than the erstwhile "victim" of Swiftboaters, John Kerry. Is the teflon, or the slick crust that shines so nicely at Davos among the Philanthropist Biggies coming off The Bubba? As someone who went into deep disillusion very shortly after voting for The Bubba Couple in '92, I may not be the best source for that. William Greider is probably a better source for that. And here's what he says as posted by Peggy Noonan in the WSJ:
Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."
January 25, 2008 at 07:13 PM
I sure hope you can answer their questions Monica, because you sure as well can't answer mine.
January 26, 2008 at 08:43 AM
Poor, pathetic Monica. What would be sad, meager existence consist of without your repetitious monotonous Clinton bashing? You'd be laughable if you werent so pathetic.
January 26, 2008 at 03:20 PM
Great show this weekend, I really enjoyed the topics this week. Monica you do a great job and are an excellent spokesperson for us conservatives.
As for the economy I believe the FED's 3/4 interest rate cut will do more than anything to stimulate the economy. The Congressional stimulus package will have only a small impact but the interest rate cuts are huge. I think the agressive FED action may prevent a recession. The lower mortgage rates will be a big boost to the houseing market.
Fashion update: Monica got a haircut, and I loved the style! It really looked great and made you look 10 years younger (19?).
January 26, 2008 at 03:23 PM
Edwards stated he represented the "adult wing" of the Democratic Party, but now after Edwards has finished third in S. Carolina it is really time for him to be a MAN AND GET OUT OF THE RACE. Be a man Edwards and get out of the race and endorse Obama. You are a loser and going no where. BE AN ADULT and get out of the race.
January 27, 2008 at 12:03 AM
TRUE TO FORM, the liberals on the panel favored the type of tax cuts that would put the rebate benefits in the hands of those with the supposedly greatest likelihood to spend such tax benefits (as opposed to save and/or invest them). People with this view often quote a published landmark study that the more "rich" one is, the less likelihood that person has to "spend" a tax rebate or tax credit. I SEE THIS STUDY AS TOTALLY FLAWED!
SAVERS DON'T PUT FUNDS UNDER RHE MATTRESS THESE DAYS! They either  deposit the funds in the bank or savings account, or,  they invest the funds in debt or stock securities, real estate, precious metals ....
WHEN ONE THINKS THOROHLY THROUGH THE FLOW OF SUCH SAVE or INVESTED FUNDS, one realizes that such FUNDS ARE ULTIMATELY EXPENDED INTO THE ECONOMY just as those funds received by "the poor" who have the perceived greater likelihood to spend.
- Funds deposited in a bank or savings account are loaned out by the bank to people who spend those loan proceeds to buy cars, build or improve homes. Or, the are loaned out to small or large business that spend the loan proceeds into the economy to pay salaries and other business costs and expenses that reach people who in turn buy other consumer items that benefit the economy. Moreover, THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT compounds the flow into the economy by allowing banks to loan out more than the tax rebaates saved and deposited in the bank. With the MULTIPLIER EFFECT, under reserve requirement rules, banks are only required to keep 20% of funds deposited on deposit and can loan out the rest. Thus for every $100 deposited, they can loan out $500. So, now you can how saved tax rebates have 5 times the effect as rebates spent by "the poor".
- Part of saved tax rebates invested in stocks go to brokers as commission income which they intern spend into the economy. The remainder goes to the seller of the security bought by the investor. That seller also ultimately spends such sale proceeds into the economy. Same goes for funds invested in real estate, precious metals,...
- Funds invested directly into companies or loaned to companies go to pay operating costs and expenses of such companies (ie. salaries, purchase or manufacture costs of inventory...) flow into the economy.
For the above reasons, I see that study often quoted to support giving tax benefits to the poor as a truck load of Marxist Class Warfare Rhetoric spouted by partisan politicians aiming to buy votes.
J. Pierpont Finch |
January 27, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I was watching the coverage last night they said the Clinton Voting block in South Carolina were lower income people without college degrees. This explains why higher educations cost so much. Keep em dumbed down.
January 27, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Ree -- Huh? What stupid point are you trying to make? Something about poor people voting for Clinton means college costs a lot?
January 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM
You looked fab, girl.
Must confess that your looks make concentrating on what you're saying, difficult sometimes.:)
January 29, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Too bad looking good doesn't make her smarter, huh?
January 29, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Why is it that a 'genius' like you, is impelled to hang around an 'idiot' like Monica's blog all the time?
Shouldn't you be in a lab somewhere working on something to improve the world?
January 29, 2008 at 05:48 PM
I come here to goof around. I don't take Monica or her sheep seriously. You are all just a laugh. You might want to consider reading a book occasionally.
January 30, 2008 at 12:18 AM
So you're a professional GOOFER!
I suppose they call you Goofy!
Enjoy it while you may! The Chinese and Muslims are coming, and the don't treat goofers kindly.
January 30, 2008 at 09:34 AM
They call me MISTER Tibbs!
I wouldn't say I'm a professional goofer. It's more of a hobby to read the idiotic things that conservatives believe and to mock them. The only problem is that there's too much idiocy on this web site alone to respond to all of it.
January 30, 2008 at 11:50 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.