User profile
Status:
Name: Nathan Moore
Nickname: nathan
Member since: 1979-06-06 00:41:00
Website URL: http://moorethoughts.com
About me:
Name: Nathan Moore
Nickname: nathan
Member since: 1979-06-06 00:41:00
Website URL: http://moorethoughts.com
About me:
It's Usually Not a Problem (wishing that were not the case ...)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:02 pmI don’t know why they can’t do two shifts. Training costs, maybe? Honestly, I think it would be better that way.
Incite (sic) into the Late Bush Years
September 16th, 2009 at 10:38 amPatting myself on the back? How in the world was I patting myself on the back? Silliness.
Of course the president knew who she was – he was joking, but this made the larger point about the insanity of her as the VP pick. The excerpt was not literal – of course he knew who she was and he was a team player. I simply agree, and still believe, she is not the answer, and if we Republicans embrace someone like her to be our standard bearer, we’re in deep trouble.
Sorry. Conservative first here. I like competence, too. If that makes me a RINO, then good. I sleep well not being lassoed in with the big spending ideological reprobates who have destroyed my party.
Video from the Nashville Protests - Jim Cooper's Office. August 21, 2009
August 24th, 2009 at 11:16 amThey were there. I was enjoying the spectacle of the union thugs and the mouth-breathers, though; hence the excess video on that side.
Tuesday Morning Thoughts
June 16th, 2009 at 10:04 amYes, government spending is immensely popular, as is a weaker national defense and tax increases. That poll is TOTALLY wrong.
“Labels” are descriptors, and without them communication becomes nearly impossible. If labels weren’t relevant, the Left wouldn’t be so adamant about being called “progressive”, or concocting such absurdities as “man made disasters”. Labels are fine. If you don’t like what you’re called, believe in something else.
Gitmo Duck and Cover
May 25th, 2009 at 9:32 amYes, Bush said he would like to close it in 2006, but realized he could not under the present circumstances. That contrasts starkly with Obama’s decision to simply close it, apparently with no plan for those held there.
Actually, I am rather glad the administration has kept many Bush policies in place. On issues of national security, he ought to keep them all.
The Fair Tax Code Farce
May 4th, 2009 at 12:30 pmWhy would you want to increase social security taxes on Bill Gates? Because he makes more? That’s rather distasteful.
Changing the terms of the entitlement certainly reduces federal expenditures. The social security fund and the general fund are hopelessly intertwined. You are right – if one counts social security, the deficit would end up being much worse than $1 trillion per year.
In response, we are getting solutions in pennies.
It’s not as if Obama has any credibility on discretionary spending, anyhow. The stimulus pork fest more than cancels out any revenue increases from this new effort, which is merely “hoping” for an additional $21 billion per year (that number is not concrete, by the way). You can’t spend $800 billion over here, and collect $21 billion over there, and then expect to get anything but a chortle from me.
Besides, you’re ignoring the other effects of this – the higher cost of producing goods and services and the overall increased cost of doing business. The businesses he is targeting are not doing anything illegal. The proposed change in law will in fact increase the costs of doing business in a variety of ways. The corporations don’t pay taxes anyway – consumers do. This is no-win for everybody but the federal government.
The Fair Tax Code Farce
May 4th, 2009 at 11:26 amYou can choose to believe that it’s about that, if you want. And no, I don’t have to give credit to token efforts that make no stab at real budgetary problems. The problem is spending, not revenue. If he started to seriously talk about real solutions, like raising the social security retirement age, I would be lauding him from here to the end. However, that would take political courage.
The number I cited is correct – the figure the president was citing was over 10 years. Divide $210 billion by 10, and it is $21 billion per year. The budget deficit is going to be $1 trillion this year, so this is, as I stated, a 2% solution, that will simply be passed on to the consumer.
Janeane, You Ignorant Slut
April 19th, 2009 at 6:19 pmYou bring up some valid observations. However, I do not think the evidence is there to support the conclusions, absent a preconceived notion that opponents to Obama’s policies must have the most evil motives.
No one disputes racism still exists. The disservice to us all is finding it where it is not. I found it in money behind the English Only effort, which supported 90%+ of their monetary efforts, but I determined it through finding transcripts and primary sources, not through innuendo and presupposition. I can find no one crying socialism who is a closet racist. Do you think Ben Cunningham and those like him give a rat’s derriere about the president’s race? The Tea Party complaints are on their face a legitimate criticism. Take them for what they say.
Besides if Stormfront has a nickel to their name, I would be shocked. White supremacist groups are more marginal today than they have ever been. In fact, I found and read the Jack and Jill bit you are referring to. I would be hard pressed to call it “compelling”. Quite frankly, it is a bunch of hooey. Unless, of course, you are ready to call me, and millions like me, racist idiots. Feel free if you must, I can take it. Search my house – if you find a white hood, I’ll put you in my will.
Anyway, I know the people involved in the protests here in Tennessee, in one of the few states that delivered Obama an admirably sound defeat in 2008. Not a single person I know came to this from any racial angle whatsoever. We must get past the completely unfounded belief that any criticism of Obama is based in race. It is not.
And actually, there were cries from conservatives during the Bush years about his propensity to grow federal spending, to include complaints here. However, aware of the realities that a president John Kerry and a Pelosi led Congress would be worse (which is now proven out by the Obama administration with a Pelosi led Congress), one must choose one’s battles wisely. No one I know on the right side of things was excited about Bush’s spending, but its magnitude over eight years is being dwarfed by Obama’s in 90 days. You are not going to find a Bush apologist here. However, I find the straw breaking the camel’s back metaphor compelling. This is too much, too fast. And it ain’t because he’s black.
Taking a nut or two and impugning the rest of us is not an honest approach. Sure, there are crazies, but they are on both sides, and I know we try to marginalize ours. If there are two people who are racist bastards in a crowd, I can fully guarantee the other 9,998 are not. Any Stormfront assertion they will lead anything dies in their dreams.
Finally, to discuss something more substantive, liquidity is important. The bad bank model is the right way to go, which Obama has decided to either not pursue or to pursue slower than Christmas. The reality is that he has proposed nothing to address the credit issue – the stimulus and proposed budget do nothing to address credit liquidity. That is a red herring. I support real efforts in that regard. The president is not doing it, unfortunately. I would support him if he did.
Those on the right actually leading the Tea Party movement are completely devoid of any concentration on race. Nothing I can recall in recent memory has been any more purely economic. Sadly, I can’t the same about the left.
Janeane, You Ignorant Slut
April 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pmRead the Constitution, then get back to me. I don’t object to government spending for authorized purposes of government. Infrastructure was but a minor, minor part of the “stimulus”.
Check your facts, m’am. Reagan proposed a budget less than that of Congress 7 of 8 years.
Dissent is patriotic, remember? Or is that just when the Left does it…
Why Does Obama, Like, Hate the UK?
March 7th, 2009 at 12:40 pmThank you. Exclamation points and CAPS make the point all the more convincing.
There’s no need to get hung up on the bust, and I do hope one does not think that a set of DVDs is appropriate in exchange for two truly meaningful, thoughtful gifts. It lacks class. He might as well have just given Brown a day calendar with pictures from the Washington, DC duck tour.
Anyhow, expensive is not the point. Thoughtful is. If I wanted to make a point about excessive spending during this, the greatest of recessions, I would have written a post about the tax payer funded parties in the White House. Thanks for bringing that up, though.
Finally, that last paragraph is based on two untrue assumption. Liberals tend to whine when they lose, but please don’t project that on us conservatives. I just don’t like what Obama wants to do to this country, and I think his foreign policy is already a series of blunders. That’s fair, I think, and certainly not “whining”.
Whoops. I forgot to capitalize any whole words. Maybe next time. Oh, and sorry for your name. That’s gotta suck.
Voter ID's, What's Really the Big Deal?
March 4th, 2009 at 2:49 pmThe argument that it is not the most convenient thing to get is not a good enough one to not require it.
Let me get the numbers right, though.
Over 80% of elderly Americans have a photo ID already.
75% of black people have photo IDS already. Of course, race is not a disability, so it has nothing to do with the difficulties surrounding obtaining a photo ID.
90% of those with disabilities already have a photo ID. This is the only group that would remotely have a legitimate gripe. I am presuming that this includes any elderly individuals are disabled (see above). Fit elderly individuals are no more in need of assistance than you or I.
85% of low income voters already have a photo ID. There are indigency provisions in all these laws, anyway, so I’m not sure how that affects anything.
As for public transportation, there tend to be stops around government buildings. For instance, in Nashville Howard School is easily accessible by bus. We can certainly assuage that concern completely by requiring at least one photo ID location be accessible by public transit. Easily done.
The legitimacy of every person’s vote affects everyone’s vote. My vote is diluted (as is yours) every time an invalid vote is cast. It is not too much to ask that someone get a photo ID once every five or ten years to make the process air tight.
The problem though is that without admission of methodology on these statistics, I suspect the League of Women Voters is quadruple counting (an elderly African American disabled on a fixed income fits four boxes). The real number is what matters, but they skew that, too. (”As many as 11 percent of United States citizens do not have a photo ID” and there is no demarcation between non-ID holders who are and are not registered to vote).
Please pardon my en Francais, but their numbers are crap (I know! I know! Thomas Crapper was English…). And remember, the voter photo ID bill allows for provisional voting, anyway.
The Gibbons Strategy, How the DA From Memphis Will Win the GOP Gubernatorial Primary
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:52 amThe data I have seen show slight declines over the last 5 years, with a leveling off before that. I think it is going to be hard for McMillan to rise above the income tax din and attack Gibbons for Memphis’ problems, especially with the reputation Memphis already had when he got there. It is not like it was a really safe place before Luttrell and Gibbons entered office.
I could be wrong, but I don’t see it as being that sort of a sledgehammer issue.
The Gibbons Strategy, How the DA From Memphis Will Win the GOP Gubernatorial Primary
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 amWell George, that simply is not accurate. You need to do a bit more reading on Bob’s stances on the global warming issue. Anyhow, I simply cannot bring myself to apologize for supporting one of the most intelligent, conservative members of the United States Senate.
Matt, At least we can get past it – that’s the important part. I certainly understand anyone’s support of Ramsey. Hopefully, this one won’t be getting nasty anytime soon. The great thing is that barring a catastrophe, whoever wins the GOP primary ought to be our next governor.
The Tea Party Times: It's an Amateurish Conspiracy!
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:21 pmNot sure, exactly. I counted early on and easily got into the 250-300 range – there was clearly a few hundred there over the hour. The report that said “dozens” they cite is the only one that got it that wrong. Every other media outlet in attendance the Village Voice ignored got it right.
Even though the Voice is one of the most leftist rags there is, I still offer congrats on the link!
The Gibbons Strategy, How the DA From Memphis Will Win the GOP Gubernatorial Primary
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:42 pmI agree that Haslam will be able to do so to a certain extent, but less so now that Ramsey is in the mix threatening his rear guard. No matter the money advantage, it will be for naught if Haslam comes weak out of East Tennessee.
If nothing else, even considering the few points that Haslam will be able to peel off in the West, Gibbons’ start out of West Tennessee makes him more viable than many observers presently think.
And, with Marsha not running (and actually, even if she was), I think that the nomination will be nearly wholly decided on who gets more than their share here in Middle Tennessee.
Praise for the Democrat Governor of Tennessee
February 25th, 2009 at 3:00 pmEh, political correctness is for losers!
Praise for the Democrat Governor of Tennessee
February 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pmI believe Charles Schumer put in some sort of unconstitutional override provision for acceptance by each individual state’s general assembly, but there is no way that can be enforced.
Masochistic Republicans Anonymous: Yes, We Watch MSNBC
February 25th, 2009 at 1:21 pmI must repent. I will make my own sequin covered Barack Obama sweatshirt – then my skills will be complete, and I will be worthy. I hope.
Masochistic Republicans Anonymous: Yes, We Watch MSNBC
February 25th, 2009 at 11:55 amSo I cannot call myself a political blogger if I miss the live shots of a smattering of partisan standing ovations? Besides, I’ve watched it by now, so you can relax. I do hope my credibility with those who buy into Obama’s awful policies can be restored!
Plus, there was a conflict – I actually wanted to watch the Predators play the Blackhawks. I asked them to delay the hockey game for me, but they said no, so I made the call and went to an event that celebrates competition instead of watching a man who derides it on principle.
The New American Tea Party Coming to Tennessee
February 24th, 2009 at 3:39 pmYou, my friend, are there in spirit.
The New American Tea Party Coming to Tennessee
February 24th, 2009 at 2:52 pmThere is no site set up that I am aware of, but I’ll post all the details here as I get them. Speakers should be announced shortly.
The Beginnings of a Ridiculous Presidency
February 19th, 2009 at 4:56 pmThe issue isn’t perfection – it’s more that he doesn’t even seem to be trying.
For instance, bigger government isn’t “change”, but more of the same. As a matter of degree, the more the central government throws itself into the economy, the more the people who don’t contribute to the federal pot become dependent on it. If that’s the change you want, then you got it. Congrats!
But, about transparency and my apparent “nit picking”… There is absolutely nothing transparent about the way Obama has run his administration. In fact, his MO has been the polar opposite of transparent. That it could be considered anything but opaque is a facially absurd thing to assert.
As for being “liked”, he is liked less every week he has been in office – as if that ought end the discussion anyway, or matter a hoot. Could you leave the polls alone and argue something on the merits? The stimulus, tax evading cabinet nominees, weasely Iranian overtures… something.
Alas, I guess that constitutes “nit picking”. Nevermind.
Finally, as my lifetime goes back to Carter, I’ll have to disagree with your assessment of George W. Bush. Be assured that I do with whole heart believe that the two guys he ran against would have been much, much worse.
Okay. Emmett’s got your Kool-Aid. Go refresh.
The Beginnings of a Ridiculous Presidency
February 19th, 2009 at 1:42 pmAh yes, the polls. Nothing matters more than being liked! (even if the trends are going…ahem, the other way).
Seriously. Has American politics really devolved into such a sad set of adolescent values? And saying one thing and doing another at every turn is hardly “trivial”, especially when we are talking about spending trillions of dollars in what can only be described as an historic and uniquely haphazard fashion, drastically altering the citizenry’s relationship with its government in the process.
But hey – he’s got positive poll numbers (for now). Let’s dance in the streets!
Sheesh.
The Beginnings of a Ridiculous Presidency
February 18th, 2009 at 5:14 pmUh, that was actually full of “substantive policy disagreements”, with the added bonus of links to prior such disagreements by me and Sarah. You think I would be supporting a Republican who proposed that “stimulus” bill? Really? You apparently have not read much of my criticisms of President Bush, then.
If you think Obama is “on-track” or something akin to it, I’ve got a Nigerian banker I’d like you to meet.
Oh, and lighten up. You’ll live longer!
You Have Delegated...(Un?)wisely
February 6th, 2009 at 12:03 pmC’mon – you are more politically savvy then that. He is losing the public debate on this and everybody knows it.
Contrary to the assertion otherwise, Obama is indeed doubling down on Bush’s domestic policies, and that is largely the problem. Out-of-the-barn domestic spending with no rhyme or reason is not “change” and certainly won’t be stimulating the economy any time soon (”any time soon” defined generally as some time between “tomorrow” and “eternity”).
The neverending liberal opposition to the creation of wealth is befuddling. Liquidity is the economy’s problem (something Obama is not addressing), not insufficient direct wealth transfers that, if they have no immediate effect, will have no effect whatsoever.
Throughout our history, the pie has never failed to get bigger. What gives?