World Politics

Page 399 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
A lil political obstructionism is a far cry, however, from lying to the nation and to the world about weapons of mass destruction to then start an ideological war for oil and give your corporate friends all the sweet rebuilding deals after you've blown the place to smithereens.

Modern conservatism at its finest.

Once again you have no sense of proportion and measure, while such things happen all the time in party politics, such leverage comes with being in power. It doesn't make it honorable, but let's not sensationalize out of baseness now shall we.
Of course. Liberals are holy and everyone else is evil. Libya? Righteous.

And we now have members of the congressional black caucus declaring the Tea Party can "go straight to hell" (Rep. Waters) and wants to see African Americans "hanging on a tree" (Rep. Carson). But you are correct, liberals can be as baseless and vile as they wish to be and those that are accused better not say a word. Did I get that right?

BTW, anybody ever accuse you of being a racist?

I understand completely why someone who considers himself enlightened would see nothing wrong with this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
How can you keep reading this BS in this thread? I can only take it in very small doses.

I am sure scott will be along shortly with some link to a wingnut website stating the opposite or what rhubarb wrote.
Yep. That's generally how debates go these days. There is one wingnut debating a bunch of completely normal people.

Time for a break.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yep. That's generally how debates go these days. There is one wingnut debating a bunch of completely normal people.

Time for a break.
Who said rhubarb was "normal"? I give crap to him and red and whoever else as much as I give to you (that is, when I feel compelled to) when they write something stupid and/or unworkable. If you don't believe me, look up my posts on this thread.

Have fun on your break. Hopefully you are doing it for your sanity, and not for a pitty-party like last time.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
Who said rhubarb was "normal"? I give crap to him and red and whoever else as much as I give to you (that is, when I feel compelled to) when they write something stupid and/or unworkable. If you don't believe me, look up my posts on this thread.

Have fun on your break. Hopefully you are doing it for your sanity, and not for a pitty-party like last time.
This is off topic but how does one throw themselves a pity party on a internet forum, especially someone who's considered wingnut by the enlightened?:confused:
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
3/4 of US Business have no employees

""In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates.The lastest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers), as the most recent data show there were about 18,311 large businesses in 2007.""

http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24
 
redtreviso said:
3/4 of US Business have no employees

""In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates.The lastest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers), as the most recent data show there were about 18,311 large businesses in 2007.""

http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24
Does that figure mean that they're "ghost companies" set up as financial or legal vehicles? Or is it because people set themselves up in business but as directors they don't count as employees for the purposes of stats?
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
L'arriviste said:
Does that figure mean that they're "ghost companies" set up as financial or legal vehicles? Or is it because people set themselves up in business but as directors they don't count as employees for the purposes of stats?
I dunno....kind of shoots holes in the theory that small business in general is owed tax relief for their contribution of providing jobs. The numbers probably are inflated due to shell company post office box/tax sheltering schemes.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Of course. Liberals are holy and everyone else is evil. Libya? Righteous.

And we now have members of the congressional black caucus declaring the Tea Party can "go straight to hell" (Rep. Waters) and wants to see African Americans "hanging on a tree" (Rep. Carson). But you are correct, liberals can be as baseless and vile as they wish to be and those that are accused better not say a word. Did I get that right?

BTW, anybody ever accuse you of being a racist?

I understand completely why someone who considers himself enlightened would see nothing wrong with this.
I have no problem with sending people to hell, as long as they are the right ones.

Accusing me of racism would be rather hard, though, in strictly racist terms.
 
redtreviso said:
I dunno....kind of shoots holes in the theory that small business in general is owed tax relief for their contribution of providing jobs. The numbers probably are inflated due to shell company post office box/tax sheltering schemes.
I acknowledge the generality of your post, but anyway it's a pretty sore point for me. Having run a couple of small businesses and having done the mountains of paperwork and paid out all the high taxes demanded by the spendthrift, big-business-only UK Labour government of the time, I would have been happy to get any sort of break. I still think that everyone should run a company at least once though. It's an improving experience. And give me a million small businesses over an unwieldy, competition-hating corporation any day. :)
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
L'arriviste said:
I acknowledge the generality of your post, but anyway it's a pretty sore point for me. Having run a couple of small businesses and having done the mountains of paperwork and paid out all the high taxes demanded by the spendthrift, big-business-only UK Labour government of the time, I would have been happy to get any sort of break. I still think that everyone should run a company at least once though. It's an improving experience. And give me a million small businesses over an unwieldy, competition-hating corporation any day. :)
Well here in the US the small business owner who is really just self employed screams bloody murder over the taxes the Exxon corporation is supposed to pay, like they are brothers in arms...In many cases the self employed are unemployable otherwise..They tried working one time but after 6 months they weren't offered a seat on the board of directors....
 
redtreviso said:
Well here in the US the small business owner who is really just self employed screams bloody murder over the taxes the Exxon corporation is supposed to pay, like they are brothers in arms...In many cases the self employed are unemployable otherwise..They tried working one time but after 6 months they weren't offered a seat on the board of directors....
Wow, that's a very different perception. :cool: In the UK, starting a company was about taking back the power (and of course accepting all the concomitant risks). We had nothing in common with the corporations. We started up because we didn't like the way our (bigger) employers ran things. We figured we knew better and we could do it better. And we did, but the Labour government and its agencies sure knew how to make things tough for us. :)
 
Scott SoCal said:
Of course. Liberals are holy and everyone else is evil. Libya? Righteous...
To compare Libya to what I said about Iraq is a rather insipid and instrumental tactic to obfuscate a terrible issue with a misplaced analysis. Because even if the strategic and economic interests were the same, there was one glaring difference: namely a groundswell of local initiative to oust a ferocious dictator, whereas the other made use of an crass ideological expedient to justify a bald and brazen act of imperialism.

While it once again demonstrates that you will refrain from no baseness.

PS: And isn't that anyway what you guys so zealously began and pursued with utmost enthusiasm: to bring democracy to the Middle East. Have you already gotten bored of its tediousness?
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
L'arriviste said:
Wow, that's a very different perception. :cool: In the UK, starting a company was about taking back the power (and of course accepting all the concomitant risks). We had nothing in common with the corporations. We started up because we didn't like the way our (bigger) employers ran things. We figured we knew better and we could do it better. And we did, but the Labour government and its agencies sure knew how to make things tough for us. :)
We certainly don't have a Labor government or a Labor Party.. We sure have an anti-labor party and a mass media which denounces any kind of worker collective..The supposed hardships put upon large corporations and small businesses here have nothing to do with pro labor mentalities..Large corporations are out to eliminate competition and if this includes monopolizing most business capital they will promote the environment that helps them, at the expense of everyone else.. Meanwhile they will get the small business owners and self employed to do their bidding as if they share a common cause.. There's a commercial on tv right now with a young woman who sells cosmetics door to door and she says "I'm the CEO of my own company"..She likely thinks she should be having lunch with fellow CEOs of Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase..
 
L'arriviste said:
Wow, that's a very different perception. :cool: In the UK, starting a company was about taking back the power (and of course accepting all the concomitant risks). We had nothing in common with the corporations. We started up because we didn't like the way our (bigger) employers ran things. We figured we knew better and we could do it better. And we did, but the Labour government and its agencies sure knew how to make things tough for us. :)
Which just goes to show you that new labor, like Tony Blair = neo-con. ;)
 
Meanwhile, the austerity measures and debt restrictions are working. There was zero job creation in August, the stock market fell another 2.2%, Treasury yields are off, and gold is up.

One other "liberal" problem has also been eliminated when Gumby, I mean Obama caved into Tea Party demands that EPA regulations be loosened. He went as far as overruling the EPA and it's recommendations from an independent panel of scientists in order to allow more smog.

When he's finally gone it's going to be an interesting debate as to who is the worst president in modern history. Bush, or Obama, as they are basically the same. I'm old enough to remember Carter and Nixon, and I'd instantly take either of those two over, as I believe red called him, the "Black Bush".
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Meanwhile, the austerity measures and debt restrictions are working. There was zero job creation in August, the stock market fell another 2.2%, Treasury yields are off, and gold is up.

One other "liberal" problem has also been eliminated when Gumby, I mean Obama caved into Tea Party demands that EPA regulations be loosened. He went as far as overruling the EPA and it's recommendations from an independent panel of scientists in order to allow more smog.

When he's finally gone it's going to be an interesting debate as to who is the worst president in modern history. Bush, or Obama, as they are basically the same. I'm old enough to remember Carter and Nixon, and I'd instantly take either of those two over, as I believe red called him, the "Black Bush".
Twernt me.................................................

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Meanwhile, the austerity measures and debt restrictions are working. There was zero job creation in August, the stock market fell another 2.2%, Treasury yields are off, and gold is up.

One other "liberal" problem has also been eliminated when Gumby, I mean Obama caved into Tea Party demands that EPA regulations be loosened. He went as far as overruling the EPA and it's recommendations from an independent panel of scientists in order to allow more smog. When he's finally gone it's going to be an interesting debate as to who is the worst president in modern history. Bush, or Obama, as they are basically the same. I'm old enough to remember Carter and Nixon, and I'd instantly take either of those two over, as I believe red called him, the "Black Bush".
profiles in courage, eh? worst call by the president since gitmo, imo.
 
L'arriviste said:
...
For me, Obama proved that 'change' is a word. I work in government communications and I've seen at first-hand how, in difficult times, our office has jettisoned the policymaking and gotten very busy with message-making. This is bailing out the ship, not sailing it. Management around here is a byword for scared, hopeless, hanging-in-there boomers. I don't believe these people have what it will take to change anything. I don't believe they even know what it will take to change anything.

So what else can we do but start with ourselves and the choices we make?
Well what do you expect in this commercial-consumer driven world, for which even the political rhetoric is a type of brand advertizing: Change, Yes We Can.

This is what I meant by in our system that everything is bargained for and everyone gets defrauded. There's no substance, or deeper, underlying meaning to the message: it just has to have a nice ring to people's ears, look attractive in its package.

The cheap quality of the actual substance should have been perceived, however, to the consumer/voter by the daftness of the message.

The state of affairs hasn't gotten bad enough yet, which is telling, for any significant change to take place and this is because the colossal business apparatus that's really running the show, forget about the politicians, they don't count at all, doesn't want change. And they've got the nation by the balls.

Yet with just a quick glance around the globe, we can see that something is a brewing in the cauldron: between outright revolutions, what may be called protests of the indignados and violent clashes.

The Revolutions:

Libya: Opposition forces since February have begun to take control of the country and oust the Gaddafi regime, which has been in power since 1969.

Tunisia: The country since 17 December has led the way toward the Arab "spring". On January President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, in power for 23 years, was forced into exile into Saudi Arabia. The first elections should be held in October.

Egypt: Following the Tunisian example, the egyptians began to protest on 25 January and 11 February obtained the resignation of Hosini Mubarak the father-master of the state.

Syria:
The ongoing struggle began on 26 January, but the protesters have been severely repressed by the regime, especially in the cities of Daraa, Homs and Hama

Bahrain: The strongly US backed Sunnite minority regime has been pressured toward conceding greater liberty and power to the Sunnite majority. On February 17 the protest was violently repressed, at which point it was open revolt against the regime.

Protests of the Idignados:

Portugal: "Indignados" in action since the beginning of June, also at Lisbon, at the eve of hurried-up elections on the initiative of the movement Democracia Verdadiera Ja!

Spain: On 15 May, just a few days before the local elections, peaceful youth movement protests broke out in 58 Spanish cities. Subsequently called "idignados" or "15-M," these youth groups occupied the plazas to demand a better future.

Morocco: King Mohammed VI has promised constitutional reforms in the near future to acquiesce to the demands of thousands of moroccans who have been protesting publicly since February.

Algeria: Protest marches that began on 28 December brought about an end to the emergency state, which had endured for 19 years.

France: Spain's example also inspired the youth marches of Paris in France on 29 May, that wound up at the Bastille to demand more opportunity and "democrasie reale".

Albania:
Mass demonstrations on 21 January against the corruption of the Berisha government.

Sudan: President Bashir, in power since 1989 and accused of crimes against humanity, responded to the protests by promising to not run for reelection.

Belorussia: Thousands of opposers between May and July challenged the state repression and asked for the resignation of the dictator Alexander Lukashenko.

Israel: 300,000 on the streets in August to demand social justice and protest against the price hikes.

Saudi Arabia: More democracy, liberty and better working conditions were the protester's requests. Then women between April and May demanded the right to be able to vote and drive.

Iraq: Repeated protests, which weren't even placated when president Nouri ai-Maliki announced in February that he wouldn't run for reelection.

Oman: Following the protests Sultan Qaboos actuated certain reforms and expelled several of his corrupt ministers from the government.

Chile: In May Chilean students descended upon the streets for a more equitable school system, which since the Pinochet era was largely in the hands of the private sector to be better controlled by the regime. This resulted in a dive in popularity of President Pinera and the visibility of the beautiful and enchanting movement leader, Camila Vallejo Downing - Compagna Camila.

Violent Clashes:

Great Britain: Between 6 and 10 August sacks, vandalism and clashes took place in London and other cities. Everything was sparked by the murder of 29 year-old Mark Duggen, who was killed in the capital during a police operation. Rising university costs and government cuts in welfare spending contributed to the youth social backlash.

Greece: In late May thousands of youth protested against the austerity measures proposed by the government. Here again the protests continued through August, with harsh clashes with the police.

Nigeria: At least 70 were killed in the disorder that exploded between the political factions before last April's elections. Hundreds of victims also after the vote.

India: Two policemen and two citizens were killed in clashes that in may had set the village of Uttar Pradesh ablaze, where locals had opposed the forced nationalization for corporate exploitation of the land on the part of the government.

China: In 2011 there have been many local revolts. The most clamorous of them took place in August in the county of Qianxi, in the province of Guizhou: thousands of citizens attacked the police which had maltreated a man simply because he had parked his car incorrectly.
 
rhubroma said:
...
Finally I have already stressed the need for 'happy downsizing'. We all need to learn to live with less and embrace our own mortality, to stop cynically treating the world and our fellow man as merely instrumental resources, both natural and human, to be used up and exploited at will to satisfy men's every material appetite, or at least the strong among them over the weak. Thus the folly of eternal economic growth at the markets will have to be fundamentally rethought and reassessed. All of this means that we must willingly give up the empire to ensure more stability at home, while having any hope of promoting a more ethical world abroad. This is what is meant by leadership and leading by example, and not the spurious kind of administrating regime currently practiced in which the madness of global competition among states that's fanatically promoted means that everything is bargained for and everyone gets defrauded.

While I realize these measures may not be workable in the real world, because they aren't compatible with homo rapiens, they seem to me nonetheless to be the only rational and principled ones to prevent a more rapid extinction and are thus worth noting.
Even though I defend the "capitalist" society as the only known system capable of creating the overall wealth that we are now experiencing, I agee with rhubroma that the excesses of the capitalistic way have to be restrained. Speculation for the sake of speculation is no longer acceptable.

What I am really starting to believe in though is the necessity for downsizing as the only way to save the planet (and mankind) in the long run. Unfortunately this represents such a monumental shift for the majority of humans that I don't see it happening and thus the eventual demise of the world. While we (and therefore the politicians) are stuck in the myth of perpetual growth as the saviour to all problems, it is this same infinite growth that will do us in. Although I understand the reasoning of Scott Socal, I think he has trouble seeing outside of the box to the bigger picture, and is defending a system that has admittedly proven its worth in taking us to unimagined levels of material well being, but is at the end of its useful life. In France, like apparently is happening in the US, there is a lot of debate on what expenses to cut or what taxes to increases. This is all well and good, but is only window dressing and is not the debate we should be having to ensure the future of our children.

The relevance to cycling forums is that the bicycle is one way to reduce the garbage output and move towards a truly sustainable way of life. Unfortunately the fact that the bicycle is seen more as an inconvience on the roads than something positive is a telling metaphor for the perveted priorities of the majority of our compatriots.

rhubroma, you are a bit on the extreme edge with some of your reasoning (a touch dogmatic perhaps) but you present a lot of points that I tend to agree with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS