World Politics

Page 430 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Well, to hear the conservatives talk, they'd say Reagan's debt was Carter's fault, and Clinton benefited from sound policies by Reagan and Bush, etc.

But this can of course be flipped. I mean, how much of the current economic situation is Obama or Bush's fault? Depends on who you ask.


January 31, 2009 The US National Debt was $10.632 Trillion

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2009/opds012009.pdf

September 30, 2011 The US National Debt was $14.790 Trillion

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opds092011.pdf

Adding 4.1T to an existing 10.6T adds up to more than twice the 16% listed... but don't let facts get in the way of the narrative.
 
Adding 4.1T to an existing 10.6T adds up to more than twice the 16% listed... but don't let facts get in the way of the narrative.
right, and so while you're holding on to your position of rhetorical bulllying anytime that facts get inconvenient (which, of course, is not exclusive to this thread in the forum) maybe you want to drop the ideological stance and hypothesize how things would be different had the or a right taken office? specifically, do you believe that things would be better had mccain been elected?
i don't believe you do? your command of the realities (re. gore and the copenhagen sham) would be more impressive if you didn't fall back on hectoring the obvious gushing democrat points anytime you're not willing to advance arguments beyond terminal "corruption."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aphronesis said:
right, and so while you're holding on to your position of rhetorical bulllying anytime that facts get inconvenient (which, of course, is not exclusive to this thread in the forum) maybe you want to drop the ideological stance and hypothesize how things would be different had the or a right taken office? specifically, do you believe that things would be better had mccain been elected?
i don't believe you do? your command of the realities (re. gore and the copenhagen sham) would be more impressive if you didn't fall back on hectoring the obvious gushing democrat points anytime you're not willing to advance arguments beyond terminal "corruption."
your position of rhetorical bulllying anytime that facts get inconvenient
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here... but you"ve got to be ****ing kidding me.

hypothesize how things would be different had the or a right taken office? specifically, do you believe that things would be better had mccain been elected?
And what would the point of this be? If it's ok with you I'll deal with what is and let someone else deal with what might have been.

your command of the realities (re. gore and the copenhagen sham) would be more impressive if you didn't fall back on hectoring the obvious gushing democrat points anytime you're not willing to advance arguments beyond terminal "corruption."
Not sure what to say here. If you don't like the tone, tenor and body of my posts then don't read them. It's as simple as that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
blutto said:
...yeah I'm being lazy and shoulda written something along these lines but this is very well done( and saves me mucho trouble scribbling )...hope everyone enjoys it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_X5NiGJBys

Cheers

blutto

Here's another difference between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St...

".......shocking pictures show one demonstrator defecating on a POLICE CAR"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html

He didn't even have the courage to hop up on the hood before he dropped trou.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Meanwhile, in my hometown at least, the protesters are turning into exactly what Shawn was saying. They have turned into this strange, occupying group, sans the violence, of ppl. We have homeless people hanging out with hipsters and skateboarders, hanging out with liberals, unions, conspiracy people. All with community people now stepping in getting them together to do things like support tomorrow's marathon in town, followed by group efforts to pick up trash, dog crap, needles, of which some people don't want to participate (duh). It's like they're becoming the bureaucracy they have been railing against.

Continuing what I stated before, these protests are likely to have zero effect on legislation or political/economic change, zip, none.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Agree to disagree.



Depends on what data you are looking at. I've said it before, if you bring the WHO study into this argument then be prepared to defend their methodology.



Your opinion and very debatable. Rationing, end of life, cancer, cost containment... there are challenges with every system. USA is where it's at if you are ever diagnosed with cancer.



Untrue. There's a fair amount of socialized housing in this country today. Section 8 housing provides for more than 2 million households right now.

For the fourth time... If this were proposed (which no doubt it will be at some point) will you defend the idea of socialized housing (as a basic right) the way you are defending socialized medicine?



Yes he does. And he sell the **** out of them too. Made hundreds of millions of dollars creating a false solution to a problem that may not exist (in the way he portrays it).

Al Gore is a capitalist in the finest tradition of the most wildly successful snake oil salesman. And he's a D-Bag to boot, just ask Tipper.



It's real and no one knows for certain what's what (just yet). But assuming you are correct, what of the vast Asian rice fields, Chinese economic expansion (pollution), the Indian economic expansion (pollution), vast cattle farms... I mean, it's methane that's the real problem, right?

I'm sure you are familiar with the opposition to your declaration above so I'm going to side with the idea that, to the extent it's possible, we should diverge from fossil fuels when it's possible to do so.



You mean the $9,000,000 villa in Montecito?





I think we are doing that now. See Solyndra.

Look, I'm a "all the above" guy, but cap and trade is a fraud and will have zero effect on the global situation even if you are right. It is crippling our economy with no global benefit. Sheer brilliance (for the Al Gore's of the world).



No, it's not for the next couple of decades, the lifestyle of the 1990's is over right now. That much is clear.
Keep your head in the sand, dude.
 
Scott SoCal said:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here... but you"ve got to be ****ing kidding me.



And what would the point of this be? If it's ok with you I'll deal with what is and let someone else deal with what might have been.



Not sure what to say here. If you don't like the tone, tenor and body of my posts then don't read them. It's as simple as that.


Actually, i'm not kidding you. nor **** kidding. Whatever that means. But for the sake of economy first (which you value) I didn't ask you to actually deal with what might have been. It was a simple yes/no question- at most-one that you ducked. Tellingly. And I know you've answered it before to some extent, but much the the in way that you've been hammering on about socialized housing for for two or three days, I asked you to state one basic position before taking cheap shots. And you didn't. And haven't. Why not keep your arguments clean if they're only about an "economy" and not of the political stereotypes that you claim to abhor.

To the rest: what is the difference between tone and tenor in your posts--or anywhere? Obviously, I don't have issue with the body at all times. (Pretty clear I said that, something else you chose to overlook.)

Yes, I could choose to ignore what you say and presume to advocate, and basically accept that the positions you take can be passed off to many as one-time, immediate and permanent indicators of value, conviction, faith, etc. with no real concern for their long-term and cumulative consequences , or, alternatively, to rail against them in knee-jerk fashion, but then wouldn't that just keep things going as they are? With no appreciable difference? And perpetuate the corruption that you're happy to name but mostly unwilling (it seems) to dislodge in daily practice?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aphronesis said:
Actually, i'm not kidding you. nor **** kidding. whatever that means. But for the sake of economy first (which you value) I didn't ask you to actually deal with what might have been. It was a simple yes/no question- at most-one that you ducked. Tellingly. And I know you've answered it before to some extent, but much the in way that you've been hammering on about socialized housing for for two or three days, I asked you to state one basic position. And you didn't. And haven't. Why not keep your arguments clean if they're only about an "economy" and not of the political stereotypes that you claim to abhor.

To the rest: what is the difference between tone and tenor in your posts--or anywhere? Obviously, I don't have issue with the body at all times. (pretty clear I said that, something else you chose to overlook.)

Yes, I could choose to ignore what you say and stand for or, alternatively, to rail against it in knee-jerk fashion, but then wouldn't that just keep things going as they are? With no appreciable difference? And perpetuate the corruption that you're happy to name but mostly unwilling (it seems) to dislodge in daily practice?
It was a simple yes/no question- at most-one that you ducked. Tellingly.
Well, to your question, there's no way to know. My guess is there are several things that would not have happened (Obamacare, defato cap and trade by EPA fiat) and to that end I believe we would be further down the road of jobs recovery. But I was not a McCain fan and I have no idea what policies he would or wouldn't have been able to get passed with an opposing House and Senate.

Why don't you take a stab at your own question? Or, since we are playing "what if", how about if Hillary was Prez? Do you think things would be different?

And I know you've answered it before to some extent, but much the in way that you've been hammering on about socialized housing for for two or three days
It was one question asked four times of one poster who never answered the question while claiming he did.

Why not keep your arguments clean if they're only about an "economy" and not of the political stereotypes that you claim to abhor.
You know, I really have disdain for passive/agressive behavior. It really bugs me.

Yes, I could choose to ignore what you say and stand for or, alternatively, to rail against it in knee-jerk fashion, but then wouldn't that just keep things going as they are? With no appreciable difference? And perpetuate the corruption that you're happy to name but mostly unwilling (it seems) to dislodge in daily practice?
There are two or three regulars on this thread that will dicuss ideas/problems/solutions. It's not hard to figure out who they are.

Which will you be?
 
"You know, I really have disdain for passive/aggressive behavior. It really bugs me."

As do I, which is why I responded initially when you were bullying with posturing and rhetoric rather than just shifting registers altogether.

I'm not playing what if with you. And you've ducked this twice now. The point and my question to you was to ask why bother going low on the Obama narrative--who's at the helm of the ship-- when it's not at the crux of matters as you even present them.

As to your question (and it wasn't mine, ever, I have on interest in what ifs): impossible to say re. Hillary. The relation of this country to the structural condition of the world economy would not be significantly altered.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aphronesis said:
"You know, I really have disdain for passive/aggressive behavior. It really bugs me."

As do I, which is why I responded initially when you were bullying with posturing and rhetoric rather than just shifting registers altogether.

I'm not playing what if with you. And you've ducked this twice now. The point and my question to you was to ask why bother going low on the Obama narrative--who's at the helm of the ship-- when it's not at the crux of matters as you even present them.

As to your question (and it wasn't mine, ever, I have on interest in what ifs): impossible to say re. Hillary. The relation of this country to the structural condition of the world economy would not be significantly altered.
when you were bullying with posturing and rhetoric
This is amusing. I'd ask you to read the last 7 or 8 hundred pages and then come back and talk about bullying, but I get the feeling it probalably wouldn't change this view so I will go ahead and accept that I'm the bully here.

The point and my question to you was to ask why bother going low on the Obama narrative--who's at the helm of the ship-- when it's not at the crux of matters as you even present them.
That wasn't your original question. This was;

maybe you want to drop the ideological stance and hypothesize how things would be different had the or a right taken office? specifically, do you believe that things would be better had mccain been elected?
When you say "things" I assume (in the context of the above) you were talking about the US "things" (economy, foreign policy, etc).

McCain having been elected (or Hillary) would not have changed the global economic situation much. But don't forget, the US market is still vital (for now at least). And to that end I believe our situation might be different economically. Would that have changed the situation with Greece and the Eurozone? Probably not.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
...youse guys may find this interesting...

Even our evolutionary kin, the great apes, understand fairness. Research published in 2010 in the journal Current Biology indicates that bonobos always share, while chimps are stingy. The chimps actually show a similar progression as humans as they grow older: Young chimps are more willing to share, while older animals are greedy, some even using violence to keep their food out of the hands of others.

...from...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/babies-young-15-months-grasp-fairness-134603377.html

Cheers

blutto
 
Scott SoCal said:
This is amusing. I'd ask you to read the last 7 or 8 hundred pages and then come back and talk about bullying, but I get the feeling it probalably wouldn't change this view so I will go ahead and accept that I'm the bully here.



That wasn't your original question. This was;



When you say "things" I assume (in the context of the above) you were talking about the US "things" (economy, foreign policy, etc).

McCain having been elected (or Hillary) would not have changed the global economic situation much. But don't forget, the US market is still vital (for now at least). And to that end I believe our situation might be different economically. Would that have changed the situation with Greece and the Eurozone? Probably not.
no, my question to you was the entire post. not the sentences you highlighted. this isn't a single issue ballot.

you say this to people a lot. i have read (most) of this entire thread, which, again, is why i responded to you.

i didn't say you were "the" bully here. i said your tactics were bullying. there is a huge difference. if you would like some validation, i don't condone much of what is leveled against you, but it's not much clear that you are interested in evading it anyway.

to your point: i don't forget that that the us market is vital and will be for some short time at least. sheer numbers combined with accumulated inertia still hold the balance. all arguments for the passing of hegemonies notwithstanding. however, it's easy to argue that the american people are not particularly vital anymore--relevant sure--and that, for me at least, much of what you argue is based in an outlook that believes they are.

and, on the one hand, it could be said that california as its own independent economy is entitled to that stance. but then there are countless ways in which (as in the superficial gloss of that vanity fair article) it is more fundamentally inoperative.

so there's a split in your arguments: why hold to the normative model of a healthy patient when you don't locate it anywhere? and task others for doing the same.
 
Feb 16, 2011
1,457
0
0
America is broken. Would socialized-anything actually make it any worse these days?

I say let her crumble - just deserts. God's not on her side.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aphronesis said:
no, my question to you was the entire post. not the sentences you highlighted. this isn't a single issue ballot.

you say this to people a lot. i have read (most) of this entire thread, which, again, is why i responded to you.

i didn't say you were "the" bully here. i said your tactics were bullying. there is a huge difference. if you would like some validation, i don't condone much of what is leveled against you, but it's not much clear that you are interested in evading it anyway.

to your point: i don't forget that that the us market is vital and will be for some short time at least. sheer numbers combined with accumulated inertia still hold the balance. all arguments for the passing of hegemonies notwithstanding. however, it's easy to argue that the american people are not particularly vital anymore--relevant sure--and that, for me at least, much of what you argue is based in an outlook that believes they are.

and, on the one hand, it could be said that california as its own independent economy is entitled to that stance. but then there are countless ways in which (as in the superficial gloss of that vanity fair article) it is more fundamentally inoperative.

so there's a split in your arguments: why hold to the normative model of a healthy patient when you don't locate it anywhere? and task others for doing the same.
no, my question to you was the entire post. not the sentences you highlighted. this isn't a single issue ballot.
Well, at least you knew what you were aking.

but it's not much clear that you are interested in evading it anyway.
Probably true. I'm alternately entertained and disgusted with this thread.

it's easy to argue that the american people are not particularly vital anymore
This has always been true. It's an easy argument to make. There is a difference between an easy argument and an accurate one. America has been on it's ass before.

so there's a split in your arguments: why hold to the normative model of a healthy patient when you don't locate it anywhere?
So I guess pointing out problems in policy direction equals a belief in systematic failure? California has monumental problems. Are they terminal? You tell me.
 
More protests today in Rome against the superpower of finance. They use spanish to identify themselves, idignados. They write in english to communicate their message: Save schools, not banks! Their targets are interconnected: ratings agencies, stock exchanges, investment banks, international financial institutions. If the Arab spring has taken down decrepit tyrants, the West's autumn is weighed against the anonymity of another faltering tyranny: an economic dogma that's incapable of equitably distributing prosperity.

It's all too easy to accuse them of whimsicalness, seeing as how the movement has even encircled the Wall Street sanctuary. Not even the most nostalgic of marxists would have dared to predict a similar historic event. The ghost of anti-capitalism moves about the United States of America? Relax, individualism and the “soul of enterprise” remain in the nature of America. Never before, however, have the voices of protest besieged the citadel of capital, where a good deal of the planet's wealth is amassed and allotted according to Byzantine criteria that's incomprehensible to mere mortals. Right down to building that absurd pyramid of social injustice, which even its beneficiaries daren't justify any longer.

The Great Depression that's by now been underway since four years ago, had initially caused a diffuse proliferation of anti-élitism both on the right and left, which has now unleashed an unedited heretical protest against the shackles of the free market economy. When it appeared evident that the imbalanced wealth of a few corresponded to the impoverishment of whole nations, the indignados launched a revolt against the untouchables.

These youth expect (delude themselves?) to make a direct strike against the speculative players who gamble at the house of casino finance. They denounce the consequences of a debt that these protagonists continually raise ad infinitem, which is exclusively to their advantage, but hostile to society. And they find support in technocrats and economic professors, who are convinced that the only way to leave the recession behind is to support the struggling masses.

The simultaneousness of the youth protest movements, which have exploded at every latitude, have broken all conventions of the old Third World scheme. Today it is in the heart of Western capitalism where the social antagonism gets generated and is personified by new subjects like the laborers of conscience. Even the traditional terminology of an empire surrounded by the “unconsidered masses” has become outdated. For a US movement that is self-defined “Occupy Wall Street” expresses a level of exasperation that's rather more telling than the periphery global protests. Athens, Tel Aviv, Madrid, Santiago are thus no longer so distant from New York, which is as sensational as it is unedited. If anything it is the West itself that begins to feel the effects of its own eclipse. It ceases to believe in the fable of a renewal just around the corner that's brought about by apposite governmental maneuvers dictated from above. It is skeptical about the efficacy of the ever more onerous plans to bring down the debt. And the protesters ask themselves if a civilization that has a minimum wage, shouldn't begin to contemplate also having a maximum salary cap in the interest of sustainability and decency?

Politics, including the politics of the left, shuns them. They therefore find citizenship, in the literal sense of the word, in asking the questions and demanding the actions that so scandalize the establishment. For this reason they are considered naive and ingenuous. But what do the indignados, today, in Rome, really want? In short they don't want to be forced to pay for a debt that they did not accumulate and therefore refuse to accept the untouchable dogmas of finance and the banks having to do with the balancing of the budget, what's in the interests of the financial markets, privatization, public spending cuts, precariousness on the job and in life and so forth. To these things the indignatos reply: “It's not true that these are obligatory choices. We ask the political class that has been elected to represent society to exercise counter-measures against the global financial superpower, to even vindicate a 'right to insolvency'.” They have even theorized a type of agreed upon “selective default”that seeks to protect the weakest social strata, as well as tapping the chasm of the most heavily indebted countries like Greece, which risks being despoiled.

Naturally the idea of gathering the states withing an onerous refinancing of their banks is totally unacceptable, especially when there are no plans to effect greater social justice. “Save Schools, Not Banks,” precisely. Is this pure folly? Certainly it is according to the logic of financial capitalism, its dogmas and praxis. What's happening, though, is that on both sides of the Atlantic a common enemy has been recognized. Perhaps it has been reduced in the dailies to a simplistic caricature of young protesters who defile the financial seats and occupy the offices of the ratings agencies, however, one is dealing with a totally comprehensible reaction before an economy that's been transformed into ideology. Two professors of Bocconi (economic university of Milan), Massimo Amato and Luca Fantacci, in The End of Finance (Fine della finanza) have denounced the fetish of a solipsistic financial system in which it had seemed that the tabs are never closed and the debts don't ever have to be paid down. All the way to making an “eternal expedient” of creating debt that's not payable by lending money to those who will never be capable of making repayment.

It's not possible to therefore expect the indignados – Italians, Spanish, Greeks, Islanders, Americans whoever they may be – to continue believing in a creative financial apparatus that has written off their futures. Creative finance, if it ever was admirable, has now become merely detestable. And, please, let's not call it social envy.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
This is amusing. I'd ask you to read the last 7 or 8 hundred pages and then come back and talk about bullying, but I get the feeling it probalably wouldn't change this view so I will go ahead and accept that I'm the bully here.



That wasn't your original question. This was;



When you say "things" I assume (in the context of the above) you were talking about the US "things" (economy, foreign policy, etc).

McCain having been elected (or Hillary) would not have changed the global economic situation much. But don't forget, the US market is still vital (for now at least). And to that end I believe our situation might be different economically. Would that have changed the situation with Greece and the Eurozone? Probably not.
You know, part of the reason I respect you so much is your ability to let most of the crap just roll off your back with a smirk on your face. It shows character that some of the people who attack you don't ever show.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
You know, part of the reason I respect you so much is your ability to let most of the crap just roll off your back with a smirk on your face. It shows character that some of the people who attack you don't ever show.
bwahhaaaaaaaaa.......................................................
 
Thoughtforfood said:
You know, part of the reason I respect you so much is your ability to let most of the crap just roll off your back with a smirk on your face. It shows character that some of the people who attack you don't ever show.
Not to be glad-handing here, and it's not like we don't disagree on some key issues, but he's probably one of the most pragmatic conservatives you'll come across. Strip away the push and shove, jab and parry debates here dealing with extreme positions taken elsewhere in society, and look at what he earnestly believes and proposes, and you'll find what you say is true.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Not to be glad-handing here, and it's not like we don't disagree on some key issues, but he's probably one of the most pragmatic conservatives you'll come across. Strip away the push and shove, jab and parry debates here dealing with extreme positions taken elsewhere in society, and look at what he earnestly believes and proposes, and you'll find what you say is true.
Not to be glad-handing here.........................Strip away the push and shove and pure bs and he is just another loudmouthed whiskey tango republican longing for unique consideration for himself. (and his horse)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS