Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kazakastan

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kazakastan

    "In the Constitution, Sir"

    Kazakastan? Where on Earth is Kazakastan? This woman is a fool. Just READ a little, Michelle. Just a little. Glasses or not. You're seriously going to expend hot air asking the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury to tell you which part of the Constitution gives them the power to do their jobs. What an embarassment. These two guys are tasked with righting a careening economy, and they have to take questions from a Khazakstani (no, not a 'Kazakastani') hairdresser's worst nightmare.

    Some of these Congresspeople need to take the long train to China, or better yet, Kazakastan.

  • #2
    Re: Kazakastan

    So tell me, would you rate mispronouncing Kazakhstan as Kazakastan to be a more or less serious gaffe than accidentally proclaiming the US had 57 states?

    In my mind they're both pretty minor, but I'd just like to know where you stand.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kazakastan

      Are you mad about her overall questioning or her pronouncing of the word.

      Because if it is just the pronunciation then I could care less.

      What I wonder is who cares what Kazakhstan wants or suggests?
      Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
      - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
      - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
      - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
      - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
      - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
      - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kazakastan

        The Kazakastan mis-pronunciation (I am still searching to see if she's done this before) is a joke to me. Her ignorance of the Constitution in that the Federal Reserve's powers and their relationship to the Treasury are granted not by Constitutional authority but by Congressional (her own branch!) authority coupled with her brazen arrogance and disrespect are not a joke to me at all. I think it's outrageous, and I think Bernanke and Geithner do too. At least they had the composure to answer respectfully (without pointing out the obvious, that there was legislative - not constutional - authority behind their actions and every member of the legislature should already know that).

        This isn't at all the same as an exhausted Presidential candidate (Obama) mis-speaking 57 states. Do you seriously think that Obama doesn't know how many states are in the nation? Presidential campaigns are exhausting. I don't know how an old man like McCain survived that (I hear he guzzles caffeine, but still, it's incredible to me).

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kazakastan

          This isn't at all the same as an exhausted Presidential candidate (Obama) mis-speaking 57 states. Do you seriously think that Obama doesn't know how many states are in the nation? Presidential campaigns are exhausting. I don't know how an old man like McCain survived that (I hear he guzzles caffeine, but still, it's incredible to me).
          Ok, thats good to know. Mispronouncing the name of a country on the opposite side of the world is far worse than misremembering the number of states in the Union, and isn't comparable at all.

          Of course I think Obama knows how many states we have. You know why I think that? Because its basic information that everyone in the country ought to know, which is the only reason the incident got news-time to begin with. Knowing how to pronounce Kazakhstan is not basic information, and the only reason most Americans have even heard of the place is because it was in Borat. If she went on a diplomatic mission to Kazakhstan I'd expect her to do the research to figure out how to pronounce it, but otherwise, who cares?

          Originally posted by AMosely View Post
          Her ignorance of the Constitution in that the Federal Reserve's powers and their relationship to the Treasury are granted not by Constitutional authority but by Congressional (her own branch!) authority coupled with her brazen arrogance and disrespect are not a joke to me at all. I think it's outrageous, and I think Bernanke and Geithner do too. At least they had the composure to answer respectfully (without pointing out the obvious, that there was legislative - not constutional - authority behind their actions and every member of the legislature should already know that).
          You fail to understand the nature of her questions. Yes, the Treasury department draws its authority from Congress, but Congress draws its authority from the constitution. If Congress doesn't have constitutional authority to do something to begin with, there's no way they can delegate that authority to another department. Therefore, authority for the actions of the Treasury department must still ultimately come from the Constitution.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kazakastan

            Originally posted by Kerostasis View Post
            Ok, thats good to know. Mispronouncing the name of a country on the opposite side of the world is far worse than misremembering the number of states in the Union, and isn't comparable at all.
            Comparable, but not the same thing. Like I said, I think both are humorous - no more, no less. Big deal. A little more seriously, Bachman should know the name of Kazakhstan not just because she's a congresswoman but because she should be familiar with pop culture as well!

            Originally posted by Kerostasis
            You fail to understand the nature of her questions. Yes, the Treasury department draws its authority from Congress, but Congress draws its authority from the constitution. If Congress doesn't have constitutional authority to do something to begin with, there's no way they can delegate that authority to another department. Therefore, authority for the actions of the Treasury department must still ultimately come from the Constitution.
            Do I? Isn't that much obvious? That's my point, and that's why I think this part is so obnoxious - she's asking a question for which the answer is obvious, and it's one she ought to know since she is a sitting representative in the very branch that grants the authority she's asking about (by way of the Constitution). The question, to me, seems directed at the constitutionality of what the Treasury is doing (or asking for). It's akin to a coach at a basketball game arguing a foul call by questioning the authority of the referee to make the call in the first place. In her quest for a soundbyte or press clip, she'd be better off just throwing a chair across the court like Bobby Knight.

            Come on Kero, you're not really going to stand up for yet another one of Bachman's misguided/misinformed quests for press, are you? Michelle 'Obama has anti-American views' Bachman? Michelle 'you be da man' Bachman? Claiming the stimulus bill had provisions for a 'health care rationing board' and that ACORN was under federal indictment. She doesn't only gets things wrong, she just makes things up!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kazakastan

              Originally posted by AMosely View Post
              Like I said, I think both are humorous - no more, no less. Big deal.
              That's not really what you said, but we'll go with it. We get to snicker at her expense a little, and then move on to the real question: The Constitution. You don't seem to like that question much though...

              ...that's why I think this part is so obnoxious - she's asking a question for which the answer is obvious, and it's one she ought to know since she is a sitting representative in the very branch that grants the authority she's asking about (by way of the Constitution).
              Yet no one was able to provide an actual answer to this "obvious" question. Isn't that interesting?
              The question, to me, seems directed at the constitutionality of what the Treasury is doing (or asking for).
              Yes, exactly! She's trying to make a point about the lack of constitutional authority for these actions, and you're getting hung up on the fact that she's asking the Treasury about it instead of asking Congress about it. I'll make a concession here and agree that the question is being directed at the wrong people -- for some reason Congress never seems to have to answer any questions, they only ask them. But that doesn't make it a bad question.

              The Treasury Department has the powers given to it by Congress. But Congress can only hand out the powers given to it by the Constitution. Hence, if the Constitution doesn't hand these powers out to Congress, then Congress can't hand the powers out to Treasury. So the question is, does the Constitution grant those powers to Congress?

              (Assorted ad-hominem against the congresswoman)
              Who cares? I mean, if you were deciding whether or not to vote for her re-election next year, by all means you should take all that into account. But how does any of that bear on the question of whether the Constitution authorizes TARP*?

              *(I've lost track of exactly which treasury program she was questioning, since it isn't mentioned in the soundbite. Some of them probably are constitutional, while others are very iffy.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kazakastan

                Originally posted by AMosely View Post
                there was legislative - not constutional - authority behind their actions and every member of the legislature should already know that
                Since when does a member of Congress need to have any clue about legislation? Even legislation they "authored" (ie. let their staff and campaign supporters prepare)? They repeatedly demonstrate that they have no clue what they're signing.

                http://www.downsizedc.org/page/rtba_legislation
                Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

                snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

                Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

                Comment

                Connect

                Collapse

                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                Collapse

                Advertisement

                Collapse

                Twitter Feed

                Collapse

                Working...
                X