• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

World Politics

Page 400 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
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?
This is also true in business. I have had many recent experiences in companies where the "managers" don't manage anything other than their own well being and spend most of their time selling themselves. Their bosses, who are playing the same game, are only too complicit. Woe be it to those who dare exclaim that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. This has led to a degradation of the work environment and the promotion of a class of manager that is narcissic, self serving and for the most part incompetent as in all cases the income statement reflects the quality of those in charge. Unfortunately it is the workers that often pay the price.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44358964/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

This is interesting, and one of the things in a broader term that I bash on at times.

Going back to last week, mergers by two entities that are stable by themselves is bad for the consumer and the worker, which I hit on around the edges with ATT and TM. ATT and TM have no business merging; if one has a better infrastructure than the other then capitalistic theory should take over, and I call the bluff on any "threat" made by either.

On this subject, when all of big oil merged in the 90's, under Clinton's "watch", it cut the competition roughly in half and cut down the amount of investment in infrastructure of existing refineries and capital investment in new projects. I don't believe one minute that Mobil would have folded, or Phillips, or Conoco, etc. if these mergers had not happened.

"Hey, we really need to retrofit that CC unit at the Mobil plant, but let's just run it in the ground cuz we've got Exxon refining capabilities to back it up. Plus, when it goes down gas prices will go up! Win-win! Hey, look over there, a missing white chick!"

And, it increases the likelihood of collusion between less players in the market. We can all see that the price of oil is not the big player here with gas prices. It's all BS, magic 8 ball BS conjuring up a new "excuse" consumers and American workers are getting gouged. Also I don't believe one bit the randomly tossed around "fact" that environmental laws are restricting expansion. There has been little movement on the industry emmission front the last 15 years, with Clinton triangulation and the Bush debacle, and now this train wreck called Obama. We are just seeing a direct result of the narrowing of the supplier side players.

So couple that with the latest slobbering rim job Obama gave the GOP and the oil industry this week:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-halts-controversial-epa-regulation-143731156.html

So, this will cost the industry $? Where will that $ go? Off into space or up Obama's azz? It will go to the worker and the industry that makes emmission reduction equipment and to the companies and people that engineer and install these retrofits. Yes, some of this cost may be passed to the consumer but the impact of that would be lessened if there was more competition. What a coincidence. Funny how this just spins around in one big incestuous circle. Now I actually prefer Bush over Obama; at least he was blunt about being a *****; Obama tries to trick you into thinking he is the innocent girl next door, but in reality he is screwing barnyard animals in his room.....

So, this is all BS. Some of the cost may be passed to the consumer as I say, but gas in my area has swung a $1/gallon over the last year over BS reasons, so don't come to me with the "gas or $/kwh will go up 5 cents if this happens" shyt. When one of the talking industry heads farts or some other conjured up BS happens energy prices swing wildly. The consumer would see little effect from enacting the regulations, and what little effect it would have would be wiped out if the fed chairman was seen driving a hybrid around town by our corporate media. The avg. American voter is too stupid to realize this.

The companies just don't want to spend the money; it makes their stock price look better, and they don't have to because the guy down the street isn't. The smaller the pool of players, the more likelihood of collusion. The western oil industry right now is spending next to nothing on new capital projects or retrofits in the US.

Which meanders to the other point that is a hot topic in here; IMO the whole corporate tax issue is nothing more than a ploy to increase liquid on hand, while holding the American worker hostage with the threat to move industry overseas where labor laws are non-existent. Or, threaten to shut down plants etc. which is all BS; they will do no such thing. The American market is still an important one, but not as important as in the past. This is all about the bottom line, a balancing act on how much the American worker can be screwed. Check your morals at the door concerning the middle class American.

I want the tax code structured in such a way to promote business. But, idealistic tax cuts for either corporations or wealthy individuals, do not create jobs if there is no demand. And, the middle class American worker is the one that creates that demand and right now they are getting hammered. The large companies know this elementary fact, but the sympathy is not there for the previous fuel for their well being (the American worker), since other markets are emerging.

This is what it all boils down to, in a nutshell. The American worker is needed less to fuel profitability of this smaller group of companies, with emerging cheap labor and demand markets due to globalization, coupled with friendly tax policy.

Investment in infrastructure that increased revenue from sensible tax policies would create would go a long way to fixing this problem in the economy, but as we all know the two political parties in this country have no incentive to work for the public when the pubic keeps condoning their actions by voting for these prix. Plus, it is hard to undo what has been done the last 20-30 years, so even my suggestion of infrastructure investment would just be a bandaid. That is until wages and other emerging markets equalize with the modern ones, which I doubt will happen in my lifetime.

Sorry for the long thread. Reading all of this shyt this morning stirred me up a bit. I will go drink beer now.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
ChrisE said:
Also I don't believe one bit the randomly tossed around "fact" that environmental laws are restricting expansion. There has been little movement on the industry emmission front the last 15 years, with Clinton triangulation and the Bush debacle, and now this train wreck called Obama. We are just seeing a direct result of the narrowing of the supplier side players.
The rage from many in the oil business that tree huggers are keeping US oil companies from drilling for oil that would make the US less dependent on foreign imports is pure bunk.. There is lots of oil in the us under private control. What the oil companies want is to drill on federal lands and federal coastal offshore areas virtually ROYALTY FREE..Republican whiskey tangoes almost start actually crying about liberals being the environmentalists or supportive of the environmenalists who cause the country to be victimized by foreign oil producers when it is only about money.. If they can only drill in Yellowstone or the Everglades royalty free they'd have nothing to say.

btw Chris...step away from FOXNEWS.. I know it is hard to avoid in your DFistan area but............................................
 
frenchfry said:
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.

Well as I see it french-fry we either have to somehow limit population growth, or else curb our exigencies, which seem to know no reasonable or sane limits.

I once read a statistic that said that the native American of XIX century pre-US expansionism used something like just 30 things in his teepee. The average US household today has something like 10,000 objects in it, most of which are useless stuff we could easily learn to live without.

Now I realize that access to the market-consumer driven culture of today, which you indirectly state has raised living standards to unprecedented levels of affluence and wealth, accounts for the numerical difference.

Still 30 against 10,000 has made me wonder about our state of mental health. Especially in a world driven by a belief that material accumulation and eternal growth at the markets are both exemplary of and tantamount to a virtuous historical "progress".

As I've said before with exponential population growth beckoning over the horizon, coupled with depletion of every type of vital and non-vital natural resource for human health and that of our economy as it is presently conceived and promoted, due to humankind's insatiable and voracious appetite; there can be but two scenarios: a return to enlightenment or else to barbarism.

Obviously I hope for the former, but human society's past record leaves little reason for us to be very optimistic.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
redtreviso said:
The rage from many in the oil business that tree huggers are keeping US oil companies from drilling for oil that would make the US less dependent on foreign imports is pure bunk.. There is lots of oil in the us under private control. What the oil companies want is to drill on federal lands and federal coastal offshore areas virtually ROYALTY FREE..Republican whiskey tangoes almost start actually crying about liberals being the environmentalists or supportive of the environmenalists who cause the country to be victimized by foreign oil producers when it is only about money.. If they can only drill in Yellowstone or the Everglades royalty free they'd have nothing to say.

btw Chris...step away from FOXNEWS.. I know it is hard to avoid in your DFistan area but............................................
WTF are you talking about? I rarely watch any of the news on TV, especially foxnews. Why you ever got that impression about me, especially after reading my last post and the shyt I give scotty-boy, is beyond baffling.

Maybe it is tongue in cheek, like my Mein Kampf reference to rhubarb that threw the minions into a toilet bowl of confusion.....then again, if you think my thoughts should align with yours on a variety of issues since I don't watch this crap you are sorely mistaken. I don't perceive things through a binary filter, unlike you, rhubarb, and scott.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
frenchfry said:
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.
I pretty much entirely agree with rhubroma. His arguments only seem extreme if seen within the context of the current level/standard/content of political debate in the US. To me, a lifelong 'progressive';) living in Europe, they seem entirely reasonable and thoroughly sane. Sadly though, unless there is some sort of fundamental revolution in the way Americans view themselves, their role in the world at large, and their consumer expectations (which I don't see happening in my lifetime,) our hopes will remain utopian.

Very, very disappointed with yet another Obama cave-in to the loonies. He now looks set to go down as the neutered President.:(
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
ChrisE said:
WTF are you talking about? I rarely watch any of the news on TV, especially foxnews. Why you ever got that impression about me, especially after reading my last post and the shyt I give scotty-boy, is beyond baffling.

Maybe it is tongue in cheek, like my Mein Kampf reference to rhubarb that threw the minions into a toilet bowl of confusion.....then again, if you think my thoughts should align with yours on a variety of issues since I don't watch this crap you are sorely mistaken. I don't perceive things through a binary filter, unlike you, rhubarb, and scott.
You seem to be echoing the right wing's reporting of the left wing's dissatisfaction with Obama..Like I said.. I understand why you might do that living where you do..It probably soaks into you by osmosis in TRAFFIC...
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
redtreviso said:
You seem to be echoing the right wing's reporting of the left wing's dissatisfaction with Obama..Like I said.. I understand why you might do that living where you do..It probably soaks into you by osmosis in TRAFFIC...
:confused:

You are making zero sense. You are better at putting up pictures and insulting scott instead of trying to figure me out.
 
redtreviso said:
You seem to be echoing the right wing's reporting of the left wing's dissatisfaction with Obama..Like I said.. I understand why you might do that living where you do..It probably soaks into you by osmosis in TRAFFIC...
Uh, did you even read his post, and the link he gave? The link is to the same story I referred to yesterday about Bush, I mean Obama, overriding the EPA?

He's not that mysterious.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Uh, did you even read his post, and the link he gave? The link is to the same story I referred to yesterday about Bush, I mean Obama, overriding the EPA?

He's not that mysterious.
I commented on the part I bolded from his post.. did you even notice? I addressed oil companies and their poodles' false poutrage against environmentalists stopping drilling..and I wouldn't say the EPA is just a GOVMENT arm of environmentist tree huggers.. but fox and rush and scott would.. Doesn't sound like Alpe and Chris would do anything but go along to get along..
 
I'm still puzzled. He says Obama is a crook who overruled the EPA's panel of independent scientists. You say the oil industry is bad and corrupts the government. Okay, seems fairly on the same page there. Then you say he should get his news from places other than Fox and that he's echoing the right wing, which I didn't gather at all from reading the length of his post.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm still puzzled. He says Obama is a crook who overruled the EPA's panel of independent scientists. You say the oil industry is bad and corrupts the government. Okay, seems fairly on the same page there. Then you say he should get his news from places other than Fox and that he's echoing the right wing, which I didn't gather at all from reading the length of his post.
What I wrote was a little big deeper than "Obama is a crook", but I digress.

Easy on red, he has issues.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
ChrisE said:
What I wrote was a little big deeper than "Obama is a crook", but I digress.

Easy on red, he has issues.
Look ... Bush spent 8 years dismantling the EPA.. Each region thinks it answers to its local congressman or the governor..The EPA could not enforce ozone regs during Bush and now doesn't even think it has the authority.. Backing away from new standards is almost senseless.. Chris you should know this.. Look up Joe Barton and Rick Perry vs EPA and see for yourself..

ps..did some for you

http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USEOPWHPO/2011/09/02/file_attachments/56091/Letter.pdf

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/03/texas-leaders-vow-to-fight-epa.html
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm still puzzled. He says Obama is a crook who overruled the EPA's panel of independent scientists. You say the oil industry is bad and corrupts the government. Okay, seems fairly on the same page there. Then you say he should get his news from places other than Fox and that he's echoing the right wing, which I didn't gather at all from reading the length of his post.
The right wing is making hay of democratic disappointment more than there is there. "even your own sister doesn't like you" Hannity says..
Point is the bush crippled EPA does not enforce the wishes of environmentalists..and Industry getting one up on the EPA is not a victory against tree huggers.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
<snipped for brevity>

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".
IMO George W is the worst. His presidency put neo-liberalism on steroids. I still hope he gets tried for crimes against humanity for the invasion of Iraq. Obama is the most disappointing.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Spare Tyre said:
IMO George W is the worst. His presidency put neo-liberalism on steroids. I still hope he gets tried for crimes against humanity for the invasion of Iraq. Obama is the most disappointing.
This President Obama is the worst ever. His wars against Iraq and Afghanistan are a crime against humanity. Also his torture chambers in Gitmo are international crimes.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
This President Obama is the worst ever. His wars against Iraq and Afghanistan are a crime against humanity. Also his torture chambers in Gitmo are international crimes.
Is there a sarcasm icon you left off?:confused: lozzaalbitatoday?
 
Amsterhammer said:
...Very, very disappointed with yet another Obama cave-in to the loonies. He now looks set to go down as the neutered President.:(

I read an article the other day by Ben Keller in Italian translation in the la Repubblica daily I usually take in over cappuccino in Rome, called: The Right to Know Which God is Running for the White House, which was originally published in The New York Times.

There's an unusual number, even for America, of bigots on the republican ticket running for the presidency (although the dems, while less extreme in this regard, aren't really secular as you and I understand it).

In any case Mitt Romney and John Huntsman are both mormons and, as such, believe that ancient American profecies were inscribed on golden tablets by an angle and are now buried in Upstate New York.

Others on the GOP ticket such as Rick Perry, Michele Bachman and Rick Santorum are enthusiastic supporters of evangelical-Christian sects and, as such, leave one perplexed about their concept of a separation of church and state.

It would be interesting to know from Perry, for example, the real nature of his relationship with David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, that preaches that America needs to have a government founded not on constitutional precepts, but "deeply rooted in the principles of the Bible" and that the book should offer explicit advice on how to govern. Does this include an "eye for an eye"?

And what should we make of John Hagee, the Texan evangelic who condemned Catholicism (not that I mean to defend the Roman Catholic Church, but merely to pass on useful info.) as a religion "without a God of revenge." And "a theology privy of a God of scorn." Hagee has also described the Holocaust as having entered within God's grand plan to send the Jews to Palestine. I'd like to know what Perry thinks of this?

Or what Bachman thinks about a group known today as Truth in Action Ministries, which believes in the idea that all money destined to social welfare should come from voluntary donations and not the government. Is this what is meant by conservative humanitarianism? And, thus, would this be one of his objectives if ascending to the presidency?

Finally I'd like to know how many Americans, when they become aware of such worldviews, drop their arms and exhale in sheer exasperation and disbelief, the way even practically all European conservatives, to say nothing of the gauche, do?
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I pretty much entirely agree with rhubroma. His arguments only seem extreme if seen within the context of the current level/standard/content of political debate in the US. To me, a lifelong 'progressive';) living in Europe, they seem entirely reasonable and thoroughly sane. Sadly though, unless there is some sort of fundamental revolution in the way Americans view themselves, their role in the world at large, and their consumer expectations (which I don't see happening in my lifetime,) our hopes will remain utopian.)
This was exactly my point (that admittedly I didn't make clear). Seen from the context of the current mainstream debate, the stark reality of the situation appears to be inconceivable. It will be interesting to see the reaction of those who cling to the entitlement of possession when their world is turned upside down and there isn't any oil left to fuel their vanity SUVs.

I am not sure Europeans are as progressive as you believe, my neighbors still take their cars 200m to get their bread in the morning.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
rhubroma said:
Well as I see it french-fry we either have to somehow limit population growth, or else curb our exigencies, which seem to know no reasonable or sane limits.

I once read a statistic that said that the native American of XIX century pre-US expansionism used something like just 30 things in his teepee. The average US household today has something like 10,000 objects in it, most of which are useless stuff we could easily learn to live without.

Now I realize that access to the market-consumer driven culture of today, which you indirectly state has raised living standards to unprecedented levels of affluence and wealth, accounts for the numerical difference.

Still 30 against 10,000 has made me wonder about our state of mental health. Especially in a world driven by a belief that material accumulation and eternal growth at the markets are both exemplary of and tantamount to a virtuous historical "progress".
As I've said before with exponential population growth beckoning over the horizon, coupled with depletion of every type of vital and non-vital natural resource for human health and that of our economy as it is presently conceived and promoted, due to humankind's insatiable and voracious appetite; there can be but two scenarios: a return to enlightenment or else to barbarism.

Obviously I hope for the former, but human society's past record leaves little reason for us to be very optimistic.
The environmental footprint of modern society is totally shocking. I just don't see how people can accept mindlessly the cycle of consume/dispose. My favourite film is "The Gods Must be Crazy", which is an excellent commentary on how objects distort our existence rather than aid our well being.

When cycle touring I must have had little more than 30 objects, and the simplicity of that life led to a feeling of well being that I have not experienced since. Unfortunately it is difficult to exist in a "have" nation without sharing some of the bad habits, especially with children. There is a lot that can be done though, at the risk of being treated as a whacko.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
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".
I'm also old enough to remember Alpe, and I have to say that your view that the current President is "worse" than Nixon shocks and distresses me. I thought you were a reasonable man, even though your views are far removed from mine. This opinion totally destroys your credibility in my eyes - it's a truly shameful thing to even compare Obama to Nixon, never mind expressing a preference for the latter as being 'less bad'. It's also a shameful thing to compare this President, whose best intentions have been thwarted at every turn by a truly demented opposition, to the war-mongering Chaney-Rove puppet idiot who preceded him, and who was able to get away with murder under the guise of national security lies:eek:


Spare Tyre said:
IMO George W is the worst. His presidency put neo-liberalism on steroids. I still hope he gets tried for crimes against humanity for the invasion of Iraq. Obama is the most disappointing.
And this, for those of you in the US who might not realize it, is the view pretty much shared across the political spectrum by the rest of the civilized world.

Glenn_Wilson said:
This President Obama is the worst ever. His wars against Iraq and Afghanistan are a crime against humanity. Also his torture chambers in Gitmo are international crimes.
I can only assume that this particular poster from Texas misguidedly thought that this reply was either witty or amusing, in which case a smilie would not have gone amiss. Words fail me if Glenn actually believes this sh!t.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/...y-20-2009.html

Thanks for posting this link, red - it certainly opened my eyes on my Sunday morning - should be required reading. Obama's very public cavings to Hun wing pressure are, nevertheless, still very disappointing. Anything positive or (heaven forbid) 'progressive' is evidently not newsworthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn44sXhLwAM

Also thanks for this link, which demonstrates why so many 'Republicans' can't fathom Ron Paul, and why Paul will never win a nomination.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I'm also old enough to remember Alpe, and I have to say that your view that the current President is "worse" than Nixon shocks and distresses me. I thought you were a reasonable man, even though your views are far removed from mine. This opinion totally destroys your credibility in my eyes - it's a truly shameful thing to even compare Obama to Nixon, never mind expressing a preference for the latter as being 'less bad'. It's also a shameful thing to compare this President, whose best intentions have been thwarted at every turn by a truly demented opposition, to the war-mongering Chaney-Rove puppet idiot who preceded him, and who was able to get away with murder under the guise of national security lies:eek:




And this, for those of you in the US who might not realize it, is the view pretty much shared across the political spectrum by the rest of the civilized world.



I can only assume that this particular poster from Texas misguidedly thought that this reply was either witty or amusing, in which case a smilie would not have gone amiss. Words fail me if Glenn actually believes this sh!t.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/...y-20-2009.html

Thanks for posting this link, red - it certainly opened my eyes on my Sunday morning - should be required reading. Obama's very public cavings to Hun wing pressure are, nevertheless, still very disappointing. Anything positive or (heaven forbid) 'progressive' is evidently not newsworthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn44sXhLwAM

Also thanks for this link, which demonstrates why so many 'Republicans' can't fathom Ron Paul, and why Paul will never win a nomination.
But he didn't close that torture chamber, did he? Glenn may have been joking but like a lot of humor there is an element of truth in it.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Off Topic DIscussions 12
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS