Political Thread [21]
Message boards :
Politics :
Political Thread [21]
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 . . . 18 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Scary Capitalist  Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 
|
Of note: "Mr. anti-war Kook" Ron Paul gets criticism from the left and right today over endorsements by Nazi groups. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! 
ID: 693243 ·  |
Robert Waite  Send message Joined: 23 Oct 07 Posts: 2417 Credit: 18,192,122 RAC: 59 
|
You are way out there when you claim market competition has nothing do with poisons in pet food, children's toys and toothpaste. I love the way you split my sentences into seperate entities to make your case. You are so lame and tiresome. In reference to China being a perfect example, I WAS SPEAKING IN THE NEGATIVE. They are an example of what happens to working people in a market driven society. I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF COMMUNIST CHINA. I believe in a form of socialist democracy much like the Scandanavian countries have in place. BECAUSE I SAID SO. ID: 693303 · |
Misfit  Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
 ID: 693495 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
You are way out there when you claim market competition has nothing do with poisons in pet food, children's toys and toothpaste. You also advocate nationalizing all major industries, R. Waite. ....."what happens to working people in 'market driven economies' " In some senses all economies are 'market driven'. What you mean is you want to have heavy hands run by the elite (whoever happens to snag power and get to the top) tell the workers what to do. You want big government to order around the 'little people' all the time and run the minutiae of lives 24/7. What would a society run by your standards actually look like in reality? I know what mine would look like. I know what a society that Rush advocates would look like. Yours would be one that is replete with fear and terror. Literally. There's no other method that you would ever be able to employ to achieve your ends. You flat out state it that you'd initiate force to achieve your ends. And your goals are horrifying. You essentially advocate a dictatorship and the end to personal freedom, dissent, and liberty. You're a scary dude.... Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 693531 · |
|
Robert Waite Send message Joined: 23 Oct 07 Posts: 2417 Credit: 18,192,122 RAC: 59
|
OK...One more time for the simple minded in the class. I advocate for a socialized democracy. Socialized in the sense that major industries of national economic importance are owned by the people. These industries would be run in the same way as any other corporation in the world with the exception being the profits would be used for the benefit of the people. Without the need to pay a CEO and his cronies multi-millions per year and without the need to pay shareholders or issue dividends, the operating costs would be lowered, resulting in reduced rates to the public end users. Democratic in that citizens would elect representatives the same way we do now with the major difference being that corporations would not be able to lobby government or contribute in any way to the political proccess. Only a living, breathing HUMAN BEING would be allowed to participate in the political proccess. Every election would be publically funded and candidates would not be permitted donations from ANY source other than the direct funding received from the election pool. The rest of your Nazi-like impression of what I have said is pure fantasy and lies. Only a complete wad would even try to place me in some kind of terrorist group because I oppose kissing the butts of the elites. You fear power in the hands of the people by way of accountable government yet seem to trust the very people who've gotten the world so screwed up these past 40 years. I think there's something wrong with you. ID: 693687 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
2007 in review me@rescam.org ID: 695594 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
 ID: 696342 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
Now I am a 'Nazi'...which is a group of Nationalist Socialists, that are are explicitly against capitalism. Have you been reading different forums than us? Or perhaps you want to reorganize your 'arguments' so that we can actually carry on a conversation or what? Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 696462 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
Here are my predictions about tonight's results of the Iowa caucus: Democrats Obama Clinton Edwards Richardson Republicans Romney Huckabee McCain Fred Thompson Ron Paul Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 697058 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
Here are my predictions about tonight's results of the Iowa caucus: So it turned out the following way: Obama Edwards (although virtually tied with Clinton) Hitlary Richardson Huckabee Romney Fred Thompson (Go Fred!) McCain Ron Paul (10%) Not bad for the Pauliacs. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 697276 · |
Fuzzy Hollynoodles  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
From Wall Street Journal December 12, 2007, 3:43 pm Topping New Forbes List Is … McDuck! It’s been a wild year for the fictional rich, too. This year’s edition of the Forbes Fictional 15  a list of filthy-rich cartoon, book, TV and movie characters  is jam-packed with tales of great fortunes won and lost. For instance, the richest character on the planet today is a duck. As in Scrooge McDuck, the gold-coin counting Glaswegian and uncle to the famed Donald. Scrooge McDuck“Soaring gold prices mean the penny-pinching poultry’s hoard of coins and bullion is now worth more than you can shake a tail feather at,†David M. Ewalt and Michael Noer wrote in the Forbes piece. They estimate Mr. McDuck’s worth at $28.8 billion, though he’s still not satisfied. McDuck still travels the world with grand-nephews, Huey, Dewey and Louis looking for even more treasure. Last year’s number one  Oliver “Daddy†Warbucks  was less fortunate in 2007. The defense-contracting mogul and cat-food impresario was “tragically killed by an improvised explosive device during a visit to Iraq in March.†As for his curly-headed daughter, Lil’ Orphan Annie, she is “now in court fighting Warbuck’s former wives, bodyguards and mistresses†for his money. Mr. Monopoly  he of top hat and cane fame  also had a bad year. With so much of his fortune tied to real-estate, he was hit by the subprime mess and “lost everything,†according to Forbes. (Too bad the game doesn’t have a “Get Out of CDO’s Free†card.) The “quirky investor†Gomez Adams  known for “his affinity for sword fighting and crashing trains† also had a good year. He shot up to number 12 on the list, with a net worth of $12 billion. My guess is that he made his biggest gains from “Thing,†who now runs a successful black-box hedge fund. Montgomery Burns held fast at number 6, with $8.4 billion (though he’s getting up there in age at 104). Forbes says Mr. Burns suffered a setback as rioters looted Burns Manor and made off with priceless treasures. But he’ll make it up with reconstruction contracts and the boom in energy prices. Who would have thought when Mr. Burns first hit the list in 1989 that nuclear would be cool again! Forbes says the biggest controversy this year surrounds Santa Claus. Mr. Claus ranked at the top for the first two editions of the list. But Forbes got so many letters from kids claiming Mr. Claus was real that they removed him from the list. Which is too bad. Given the benefits of global warming to the tourism business in the North Pole (ice-pack to oceanfront!), Mr. Claus’s vast real-estate holdings have soared in value. Add that to his successful outsourcing program in China and Mr. Claus will be having a merry Christmas indeed. "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me 
ID: 697723 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
Looks like Hillary surprised everybody by beating Obama in New Hampshire last night. Wow. And most pundits thought she was all but dead. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 698597 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
 Speech mixed straight talk, fantasy Union-Tribune editorial January 9, 2008 After a two-year sojourn to a land of fiscal make-believe, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger returned to reality yesterday with a somber State of the State speech warning that California must finally live within its means. Confronting a $14 billion deficit over the next 18 months, the governor struck the right notes. “We cannot continue to put people through the binge and purge of our budget process,†he said, promising a 2008-09 budget that “does not raise taxes. It cuts the increase in spending – across the board.†As expected, he formally declared a state fiscal emergency. At the same time, though, Schwarzenegger's speech pointed to a fundamentally incoherent 2008 policy agenda. On the one hand, he called for new constitutional restraints to even out spending in boom and bust years and to allow the governor to reduce spending in the middle of budget years when revenue downturns make such cuts prudent. These are smart, badly needed reforms. But on the other hand, Schwarzenegger made plain that in 2008, as in 2007, his No. 1 priority remains passage of a complex measure to expand health insurance coverage, which is now before the Senate. As justification, he likened California's health care woes to the enormous hardships endured by America during the Great Depression – and to implicitly compare himself with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The health package won Assembly approval without a single hearing to examine any of its many sweeping assumptions or obvious weaknesses. Few in Sacramento believe the governor's and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez's claims that the plan, which is built on a variety of shaky, possibly illegal funding sources, really won't tap into the state general fund in a major way. And that's even before a single serious analysis is done of the fiscal wreckage likely if – as the governor wants – businesses are given an incentive to drop their own coverage by paying a relatively small fee to the state for its coverage. The possibility this will spur a huge and costly expansion of the state's role in health care is plain. How can Schwarzenegger possibly think this is a gamble that a state mired in red ink can take? Senate President Don Perata cut through the usual soaring platitudes by delivering a harsh official response scorning Schwarzenegger's talk of shared pain and shared responsibility in dealing with the budget mess. Given that Perata has already suggested he will support Schwarzenegger's health reform plan in return for budget concessions, watch out, taxpayers. Incredibly enough, the tax-and-spenders have the upper hand in Sacramento, even when the state is swimming in red ink. me@rescam.org ID: 698775 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Leno scores, and guild can't handle it RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR. THE UNION-TRIBUNE January 9, 2008 Some Americans turn to late-night television to escape the tension, conflict and political backbiting of the day. So what happens when tension, conflict and political backbiting come to late-night television? Consider what's happening with the Hollywood writers' strike and the strong-arm tactics of the Writers Guild of America. The strike is – as strikes are supposed to be – inconvenient and costly, both to the entertainment industry and to the California economy. This week, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association announced that it had canceled the annual Golden Globes ceremony because so many actors said they would not cross the picket line to attend the show. The Writers Guild is right that its members deserve a fair share of profits generated by television scripts they produce, especially since the networks will cash in for years through DVDs and other distribution means that haven't even been dreamed up. But the guild is wrong in its tactics. For instance, the union has vowed to discipline one of its own, late-night star Jay Leno. According to the strike rules, guild members cannot write material for any company affected by the strike, even if the material is intended for the member's own use. In recent installments of NBC's “The Tonight Show,†Leno has begun to write his own comedy monologue. Not that he has much of a choice. The show's 19 writers may be on strike, but the network declared that the show must go on. The sticky part is that Leno is also listed as a writer on the show and a member of the guild. Things are different at CBS, where late-night host David Letterman owns his show. Letterman reached an interim agreement with the writers and production resumed. Leno went to the guild beforehand to get permission to write the monologue, say NBC executives. The comedian and a few of his writers met with Patric M. Verrone, the president of the Writers Guild of America West, and Leno told him that he wanted to write the monologue himself. According to the executives, and at least one writer present at the meeting, Verrone gave Leno permission. Verrone disputes that interpretation of what occurred at the meeting and insists he made it absolutely clear that Leno could not write for the show. Now union officials are threatening to take action against Leno for violating the strike rules, though they have not been specific as to what sanctions would apply. What's wrong with this picture? The union can't seem to figure out what category to put Jay Leno in – is he a writer or a talk-show host? The guild can't insist on treating him as a writer when it wants to control him, then change the script when he seeks an exemption that would allow him to compete with Letterman. This whole drama illustrates what's wrong with much of organized labor these days. Unions once served a purpose, but now they just serve their own interests. Whether it's an organization serving mill workers, farm workers, teachers or police officers, it usually starts off with a just cause. But, often, the groups go too far, demand too much and wreak havoc. And they almost always stray from the principles they espouse. Then when things go badly, they put the blame on someone or something else. If only we didn't trade with China or outsource to India or import low-wage workers from Guatemala, why, the mill would be open again and business would be humming. And, of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that the unions demanded that their members were entitled to salaries that eventually would price them out of the market, or that the unions never adapted to change and prepared for the future by reforming some of their more arcane rules. Which brings me back to what's really bothering the Writers Guild about Jay Leno. You see, even writing his own material, Leno drew more viewers than Letterman. The problem isn't that Leno broke the rules and wrote his own material, with or without permission. The real problem is that he was successful doing it. The union can't let that stand or people might ask: Do we really need writers to pen jokes for late-night hosts? And, if not, do we really need a union to represent the writers we don't need? me@rescam.org ID: 698776 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
The big lie from both parties ROBERT J. SAMUELSON NEWSWEEK January 9, 2008 The big lie of campaign 2008 – so far – is that the presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, will take care of our children. Listening to these politicians, you might think they will. Doing well by children has now passed Motherhood and Apple Pie as an idol that all candidates must worship. “We will do whatever it takes to make America a better country, to give our kids a better future,†says Mike Huckabee, winner of the Republican Iowa caucuses. “We will deliver for our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren,†claims Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic winner. “We're going to reclaim the future for our children,†says Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton. Actually, these are throwaway lines, completely disconnected from reality. Our children face a future of rising taxes, squeezed – and perhaps falling – public services, and aging – perhaps deteriorating – public infrastructure (roads, sewers, transit systems). Today's young workers and children are about to be engulfed by a massive income transfer from young to old that will perversely make it harder for them to afford their own children. No major candidate of either party proposes to do much about this, even though the facts are well-known. Spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – three programs that go overwhelmingly to older Americans – already represents more than 40 percent of federal spending. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office projects these programs could equal about 70 percent of the current budget by 2030. Without implausibly large budget deficits, the only way to preserve most other government programs would be huge tax increases (about 40 percent from today's levels). Avoiding the tax increases would require Draconian cuts in other programs (about 60 percent). Workers and young families, not retirees, would bear the brunt of either higher taxes or degraded public services. Similar pressures, though less ferocious, exist at the state and local levels. Schools, police, libraries and parks will be squeezed by the need to pay benefits for retired government workers. A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that states have promised retired workers $2.7 trillion in pension, health care and other benefits during the next three decades. Only about $2 trillion has been set aside; the rest would come from annual budgets. Medicaid, a joint federal-state program with states paying about 40 percent of the costs, represents another drain; about two-thirds of its spending stems from the aged and disabled. Roads, water and mass transit might also be shortchanged. States and localities pay about three-quarters of their costs. But facing these facts would expose candidates to three daunting problems. First: Lightening the burden on the young requires cutting retirement benefits for the old – raising eligibility ages, being less generous to richer retirees and making beneficiaries pay more for Medicare. Simply increasing taxes or cutting other programs won't work. The problem is not just closing the budget deficit. Second: We can't wait. Ideally, prospective retirees would have received several decades' warning; but we've delayed too long. We need to cut benefits for baby boomers and even some existing retirees. They are the source of mounting costs. Third: Even if retirement benefits were cut, pressures for higher taxes and lower public services would not disappear. Social Security and Medicare are part of the nation's social fabric. Although individuals' benefits can be responsibly trimmed, the growth in the elderly population (a doubling by 2030) and rapidly rising health costs would still expand total spending. The increases would simply be smaller. A moral cloud hangs over our candidates. Just how much today's federal policies, favoring the old over the young and the past over the future, should be altered ought to be a central issue of the campaign. But knowing the unpopular political implications, our candidates have lapsed into calculated quiet. They pay lip service to children but ignore the actual programs that will shape their future. The hypocrisy is especially striking in Obama. He courts the young, promises “straight talk†and offers himself as the agent of “change.†But his conspicuous omissions constitute “crooked talk†and silently endorse the status quo. The insidious nature of this problem is that because the spending increases for the elderly occur gradually, the pressures on taxes and other government programs will also intensify gradually. A crucial moment to clarify the stakes and compel politicians to make choices probably won't occur until it's too late. The longer we delay – and we've done so now for several decades, because the strains created by an aging society have been obvious that long – the more likely that eventual “solutions†will be unfair to both young and old. To acknowledge that and to come to grips with it would constitute genuine “change.†me@rescam.org ID: 698777 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
 ID: 699521 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
 ID: 700320 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
 ID: 703157 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
 me@rescam.org ID: 703404 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
DAVID IGNATIUS - THE WASHINGTON POST Some signs of hope in Pakistan Although in the printed version of the Union Tribune the title was Some signs of hope in Pakinstan. That's pretty sloppy. me@rescam.org ID: 703864 · |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.