Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 340
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlismPage 8 of 44    (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
^^^^^I agree. If some Islamists burned copies of the Bible or the Torah, you wouldn't have Christians or Jews inciting everyone else to kill them for it. And yet we need to be lectured about tolerating almost anything members of the most intolerant religion there is choose to do.

It's sickening to see any American defend the right of a bunch of Islamist lice from the Muslim Brotherhood, a notorious jihadist organization, to spit on the graves of almost three thousand people their fellow lice murdered. And that's exactly what they mean to do, by building their nest practically on top of where the particles of those poor souls fell to earth.

These people are as thoroughly evil as Bin Laden himself, and they are dedicated to subverting this country. But by all means, let these Jew-hating, Nazi-like enemies of civilization build their conspiracy center. How could it possibly be dangerous to kiss the feet of people who believe everyone else is filth that Allah wants them to cleanse from his kingdom?

Let these dirty SOB's do whatever they please, then--but watch out for some guy with a total following of fifty people. He could be the next Hitler. Maybe it's time we stopped wringing our hands about what could happen if we make the world's Muslims angry, and give *them* reason to start worrying about making *us* angry.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 342
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/14/2010 12:55:37 AM
I really like your tell-it-like-it-is reality posts.


Skoochie, Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you liked the post. A professor named Laurie Mylroie has written a book about Iraq's connection with the 1993 WTC bombing. She speculates way too much about it, but she also brings out a lot of troubling facts. I'll just note one set of these facts out of many.

In September, 1992, a man named Abdul Yasin left Iraq and arrived at the apartment house in Jersey City where his brother lived. Within about ten days, Yousef arrived at JFK from Pakistan and went to live at the same address. The two rented a house nearby, where Yasin helped Yousef make the 1,200-lb. bomb.

Yasin returned to Iraq after the bombing, and there is good evidence he was one of the many agents of Hussein's regime. It's clear someone was directing both men, apparently with at least the approval of that regime.

I don't buy the conclusion Mylroie reaches from all her evidence, which is that Iraq was behind the first Trade Center bombing. That's going too far. But she seems to have persuaded several of President Bush's closest foreign policy advisers of it, including Mr. Cheney. I suspect her research--when considered together with Hussein's known history of cooperating with terrorists--had a lot to do with the decision to destroy his regime after the second and fatal attack on the Trade Center on 9/11.

The anthrax mailings a few weeks after 9/11 must have made the administration's inner circle even more suspicious that Iraq was involved. As they knew, after the U.S. and the USSR agreed to end their bioweapons programs in the early '70's, Iraq had developed the world's most advanced "weaponized" anthrax program. And there was no way to be sure it hadn't restarted it during the four years since Hussein had kicked out the last international weapons inspectors.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 346
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/15/2010 12:51:59 PM
As we all can see, to our dismay, the Islamophobia that Time magazine alerted the country to recently is spiraling out of control. It's now started to infect even some Muslims, apparently.

I think these people are themselves victims of the rabid hatred your typical Neanderthal American has for everything that's not bright-white and Christian--what some scientists have called the irrational fear of the "other." These Muslims probably think that if they only "Uncle Tom" enough, the nativist haters won't persecute them.

Whatever their reason, these little teacher's pets are busy telling more lies about the government of Iran. You'd think after The Barry had had so many friendly talks with Mr. Ahmedinejad and the mullahs, we'd finally realize that all that nuclear talk was just more scare tactics by far-right wingnuts. But hey, never underestimate the denseness of the all-American dodo. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Here's a truly laughable article by two Iranian suck-ups, once again spreading the lie that Iran's trying to get nuclear weapons. There are photos, too, but they don't prove anything. For all we know, we're looking at big wine cellars. In that harsh climate, what would be so strange about storing very valuable wines under 300 feet of soil and reinforced concrete, and guarding them with missiles? Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Here's their little propaganda piece--have a good laugh.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2010/iran-100909-spc01.htm


And here are the satellite images (no doubt Photoshopped like crazy.)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/qazvin_se_ugf-imagery.htm
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 347
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/15/2010 3:58:15 PM

Wilson was possibly worse than Obama and that is saying plenty.


Let's see . . . physical health, advantage Barry; arrogant elitism, about even; fascist, dictatorial tendencies, about even; contempt for the Constitution, about even; racial prejudice, about even; grasp of world affairs, advantage Woody; ignorance of basic economics, advantage Barry; bald-faced lying ability, advantage Barry; loathing of America, advantage Barry . . .

Sorry, PH, but I think Obama's even worse. And just because Wilson recognized that government power is at odds with liberty doesn't mean he thought that was a bad thing. For him, the main reason to understand the Constitution was, just as it is for Obama, to figure out how best to get around it.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 349
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/15/2010 6:56:33 PM

Wilson = Income tax
Wilson = Federal Reserve Bank
Wilson = League of Nations


I can't argue that, but Mr. Obama's right in the running and still has two years to go.

The income tax was sold to the chumps just like Social Security was later, a very minor expense that would achieve something noble, fair, and in all ways wonderful. They both started out very small--but so do polar bears.

Wilson's League of Nations was reborn with good intentions as the United Nations. What had put paid to it in 1935 was its impotence in the face of Mussolini's threat to invade Ethiopia. That episode reminds me *a lot* of the complete lack of will, today, to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

Churchill said wryly that the measures the League imposed on Italy, however serious and thorough they sounded, were "not real sanctions to paralyze the aggressor, but merely such halfhearted sanctions as the aggressor would tolerate . . . The League of Nations therefore proceeded to the rescue of Abyssinia on the basis that nothing must be done to hamper the invading Italian armies."
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 350
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/15/2010 8:10:34 PM

I heard the most extraordinary interview today regarding his soon to be released book and recent article on Obama.


GC, I read that article, and I agree 100%--D'Souza hit a home run with that one. Maureen Dowd begs to differ. But the most interesting thing about her nasty hit piece is how she makes up things he never even implied.

Every time Mark Levin mentions Miss Dowd, he calls her "that *whorish-looking* woman at the New York Slimes--what's her name?" And he's right to disrespect her--she's an idiot who gets paid a small fortune to write lies the few thousand readers of that once-great newspaper like to hear. "Whorish-*looking*" is too mild.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 353
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 10/20/2010 10:29:25 AM
It will be so wonderful if we get to have Governor "Moonbeam" Brown one more time. His father Pat was a pretty decent governor, but I don't know what happened to Jerry. Maybe Linda Ronstadt's singing permanently affected his mind.

He paved the way for the financial mess we're in now by doing all he could to give public employees' unions more power. He also appointed a Chief Justice, Rose Bird, that the people finally recalled for reversing almost every death penalty case that came her way. And who can forget his "medfly" fiasco, when by refusing to let farmers spray the little buggers when they first appeared, he let them spread all over and ended up costing the state a fortune.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 360
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 10/29/2010 4:58:01 PM
golfcoast

Do me a favor and go back a little furthur in history for Cuba. Check out who Castro overthrew, and the corruption that existed before him.

I thin as the United States we acted in behalf of the money changers in the USA and not the people of Cuba.

Cuba is no threat to us and the USA( government) is behaving like little spoiled children and we should have open trade with them years ago. We did so in Vietnam and I've talked with many people who visted Nam and even if the government is Communist, its not yet a corrupted Communist country.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 363
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 10/30/2010 9:41:55 AM
well Paul,

Isn't the USA acting like Cuba with its US citizens, by not allowing trade with Cuba. In fact don't we imprision US citizens who trade with Cuba (underground economy).

Then why trade with China. Do you thing their rights are better than of those in Cuba. In fact I would bet if Washington lifted the embargo, most US citizens would rush to tour and visit Cuba, and within a few years full trade would be restored. Now if the American people thought Cuba as an evil terrible unsafe country embago or not they would avoid Cuba much like whats happening in Mexico.
 HereN916
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 364
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/1/2010 9:10:57 PM
Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.......part of an article he wrote....


Lost Opportunities for Americans

Cuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products, especially farm goods.

In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 allows cash-only sales to Cuba of U.S. farm products and medical supplies. The results of this opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $380 million last year. From dead last in U.S. farm export markets, Cuba ranked 25th last year out of 228 countries in total purchases of U.S. farm products. Cuba is now the fifth largest export market in Latin America for U.S. farm exports. American farmers sold more to Cuba last year than to Brazil. Our leading exports to Cuba are meat and poultry, rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans.

The American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could eventually become a $1 billion agricultural export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers. The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms a total of $700 million to $1.2 billion per year. Farmers in Texas and neighboring states are among the biggest potential winners. One study by Texas A&M University estimated that Texas ranks fifth among states in potential farm exports to Cuba, with rice, poultry, beef and fertilizer the top exports.

Compounding our Failures

Despite the success of our farm exports, U.S. policy toward Cuba has if anything been sliding backwards. In 1996, Congress mistakenly raised the embargo to a new level with passage of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Known as the Helms-Burton act, it threatens to punish foreign-based companies that allegedly engage in the "wrongful trafficking in property confiscated by the Castro regime." The law is legally flawed because it allows U.S. courts to rule on actions of parties who were not U.S. citizens and were not in the United States when the alleged offense took place. As a foreign-policy tool, the law perversely punishes, not the Castro regime itself, but some of our closest commercial allies such as Canada and the European Union.

Double Standard on Sanctions

Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy.

President Bush seems to understand this powerful connection between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president noted that trade was about more than raising incomes. "Trade creates the habits of freedom," the president said, and those habits begin "to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about values and believe in values--not just American values, but universal values that promote human dignity--trade is a good way to do that."

The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its poor human rights record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has the Cuban government. And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castro's pathetic little workers' paradise. Yet China has become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush understands that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba.

In fact, the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez is doing more to undermine America's national interest today than either Cuba or China. Chavez shares Castro's hatred for democratic capitalism, but unlike Castro he has the resources and money to spread his influence in the hemisphere. Chavez is not only bankrolling Cuba with discounted oil but he is also supporting anti-Americans movements in Nicaragua and other countries in our neighborhood. Yet we buy billions of dollars of oil a year from Venezuela's state oil company, we allow huge Venezuelan investments in our own energy sector, and Americans--last time I checked--can travel freely to Venezuela. The one big difference between Venezuela and Cuba is that we don't have half a million politically active Venezuelan exiles living in a swing state like Ohio.

This is not an argument for an embargo against Venezuela, but for greater coherence in U.S. foreign policy. In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly and oppressive regimes, there is simply nothing special about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a total embargo.

Cuban-American Politics

For all those reasons, pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. In the past five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted to lift the travel ban to Cuba, and also to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether. Yet each time efforts in Congress to ease the embargo have been thwarted by the administration and the Republican leadership. Support for the embargo certainly does not come from the general American public, but from a group of Cuban-American activists concentrated in southern Florida. By a fluke of the electoral college, Republican presidents feel obligated to please this small special interest at the expense of our broader national interest.

It's ironic that many of those very same Cuban-Americans who support the embargo also routinely and massively violate the spirit if not the letter of the law. Each year, Cuban Americans send hundreds of millions in hard-dollar remittances to their friends and families back in Cuba. Another 100,000 or so Cuban Americans actually visit their homeland each year. These are supposed to be so-called "emergency" visits, although a disproportionate number of the emergencies for some strange reason occur around the Christmas holiday. In the name of politics, Cuban American leaders want to restrict the freedom of other Americans to visit
Cuba while retaining that freedom for themselves.

Expanding Our Influence in Cuba

Instead of the embargo, Congress and the administration should take concrete steps to expand America's economic and political influence in Cuba. First, the travel ban should be lifted. According to U.S. law, citizens can travel more or less freely to such "axis of evil" countries as Iran and North Korea. But if Americans want to visit Cuba legally, they need to be a former president or some other well-connected VIP or a Cuban American.

Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on Cuba, argues that American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmer's markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.

Second, restrictions on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances would fuel the private sector, encourage Cuba's modest economic reforms, and promote independence from the government.

Third, American farmers and medical suppliers should be allowed to sell their products to Cuba with financing arranged by private commercial lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most international trade is financed by temporary credit, and private banks, not taxpayers, would bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba through agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose banning the use of private commercial credit.

Finally, the Helms-Burton law should be allowed to expire. The law, like every other aspect of the embargo, has failed to achieve its stated objectives and has, in fact, undermined American influence in Cuba and alienated our allies.

Lifting or modifying the embargo would not be a victory for Fidel Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue acknowledgement that the four-and-a-half decade embargo has failed, and that commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should continue to criticize the Cuban government's abuse of human rights in the U.N. and elsewhere, while allowing expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castro's authority from below.

We should apply the president's sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba. The most powerful force for change in Cuba will not be more sanctions, but more daily interaction with free people bearing dollars and new ideas.

How many decades does the U.S. government need to bang its head against a wall before it changes a failed policy?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 365
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/1/2010 10:07:37 PM
^^^^I think that's another example of a policy that makes no sense. The U.S. should forget about Castro as a threat and focus on subverting Chavez's regime in Venezuela. His cooperation with the thugs in Tehran is a very bad thing, and the U.S. should have reacted much more strongly to it.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 372
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/12/2010 8:46:35 AM

Today, the Federal Register is over 80,000 pages long.


I remember searching through those volumes in the library to find out just what some federal agency had said in one regulation or another. Anyone who occasionally has trouble falling asleep should just copy a few pages of the Fed. Reg. and keep it next to the bed. Chances are you won't get past the first page of fine print before the sandman pays you a visit.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 375
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/15/2010 9:07:32 PM
^^^^Here's another idea. Amend the 2001 law which authorizes the tuition break for non-residents to make clear it excludes illegal aliens. If that would save California $200 million a year, our esteemed state legislators might not find it easy to vote against it--however much they sympathize with illegal aliens.

The ones who dared vote against an amendment like that would get to explain to the state's legal residents why they believed saving them $200 million a year, when the state's economy is in worse shape than at any time since the Great Depression, was less important than kissing the backsides of aliens who have no legal right even to be in the U.S.

If several million of these invading termites had not been hollowing out the foundations of this once-great state for the past thirty years, its legislature wouldn't be so full of corrupt slobs to begin with. We wouldn't have sent an absolute idiot to the U.S. Senate for her umpteenth dismal year, either.

Nor would our governor's mansion be occupied by Medfly Brown--a nutty tool of the public employee unions who began the state's gradual slide toward bankruptcy, during his earlier failed stint as governor, by pushing for their unjustifiably high salaries. (He has good company in the mayor of L.A., who's done the same thing.) The inmates are running the asylum, and it may be time to move.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 380
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/21/2010 5:25:46 PM
fz, This defendant lost in federal district court and then lost on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. He then tried to have the Supreme Court review the decision, but it denied certiorari-- which it does with about 99% of the petitions filed with it. He's out about $400,000--his life savings, apparently--so it's understandable that he's upset.

Now he's filed several mandamus petitions, which ask the Court formally to order the lower court to do certain things. The article's got a couple errors here. I'm not sure exactly what Windsor's asking the Court to do--but I'm sure it's not to declare that federal judges may void the Constitution.

Also, the Supreme Court's rules didn't require it to grant his petitions for mandamus, which is one of the "extraordinary" writs:


Rule 20. Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ
1. Issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ authorized
by 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a) is not a matter of right, but of discretion sparingly exercised. To justify the granting of any such writ, the petition must show that the writ will be in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court.


He must have been able to show all those things, which is a good sign for him. After all, the Court had already declined to hear his appeal; but now it's decided it *will* look into what he's claiming. And it's obvious you have to give it very good reason to do that. If something funny really is going on in the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court wants to know about it.

I don't know if it made any difference here, but the 11th Circuit is not one of the more prestigious ones in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. It's newer--it was created some years ago because the Fifth Circuit got too big. Because it includes Florida, it was involved in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 election. And that may still be a little bit of a taint on it, in the view of some of the justices. Interesting case--someone's lying, and something tells me it's not the guy who filed these petitions.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 381
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/21/2010 10:21:37 PM

filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation


I wish I worked with those guys--unfortunately, 99.44% of us don't have the chops. Their arguments usually have a lot to like. However-----

PH, what I think you (and they) fail to recognize--blinded as you are by your typical, dead-white-men-in-powdered-wigs concern with the property right of humans, rather than the transcendent rights of Gaia--is that the delta smelt is a living, breathing biological organism just like you and me.

Can you really prove that some rainy winter, when the delta floods, one of these adorable little fish might not swim across to another stream that eventually had a hydrologic connection to a "water of the United States," which would bring it within the scope of the Clean Water Act? And if it did migrate to another state, it wouldn't be the first time a fish native to one place started being found someplace else, now would it?

We really are "all one," as idiot savants like Tim Leary and Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore and Baba Rammed A s s have pointed out. Just relax, and our federal agencies take care of these things. All this states' rights stuff should be left where it belongs: in the past. Come on, dude.

To be serious for a moment, read about the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly. It's a federally-protected insect whose only home is a patch of a few acres in the Mojave desert, near the I-10. They had to relocate a hospital, at the cost of tens of millions, to keep from disrupting these little buggers' habitat.

One of the arguments against taking these vermin off the protected list that the federal court bought was that a couple of them might inadvertently hitch a ride on a passing semi, as it buzzed across the interstate. And when they ended up in Utah, or wherever, they would affect the local ecosystem there. So these flies were an invaluable thread in the web of life, and must be preserved. (Imagine how much quicker and cheaper it would have been just to use a few cans of Raid on the ugly things one dark night, and be done with it!)
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 382
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/21/2010 10:49:28 PM
^^^^I only read the PLF's opening brief, but it is very, very well argued. It would be hard to find a better explanation of the big Commerce Clause cases on this issue involving activities which have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

The PLF's exactly right that even non-economic activities may do this, but *only* if the statute which applies was mainly directed at economic effects. In Wickard v. Filburn, this was the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and in Gonzalez v. Raich it was the Controlled Substances Act.

But here, taking these smelt isn't an economic activity, AND the Endangered Species Act is not primarily an economic law. So taking the smelt can't have the "substantial effect" on interstate commerce needed for the Commerce Clause to authorize shutting off the pumps to protect them. Very strong point.
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 383
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/22/2010 5:33:39 AM
Yeah, lately I'm concerned that the Supremes keep extending the same rights to Corporations as citizens!

Hot on the heels of the Roberts court decision that the First Amendment allows corporations to pump as much money as they want into political campaigns (aka "money = free speech"), now they're deciding whether Corporations should also have the same privacy rights as people! Let's see, Huge Political Contributions + Secrecy.... what's wrong with that picture?!!
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 385
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/22/2010 6:56:45 AM
Mateo the government has become the place where you argue for power, therefore it's natural unions, charities, foreign entities (Israel, Korea, etc.), and yes business of necessity seek access and power..... The effectiveness of access is clear cut.


Well "GC", your argument kinda reminds me of Willie Sutton's excuse for robbing banks, "because that's where the money is!" But it sure doesn't mean it's right.

And even if you're gonna take a "libertarian" point of view, then in fairness, why not support equal access for all, whether they be conservative corporations, or "Marxist America hater leftists and unions". BTW, what is it with 'wingers and this addiction to all the "over the top" rhetoric? It always kinda reminds me of Saddam Hussein's famously bombastic "the Mother of All Battles"!
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 387
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/22/2010 7:35:54 AM
I made exactly that argument, while holding my nose. It's you who hinted the evil mover was big business.


From the sound of your rhetoric, you weren't just "holding your nose", it's like you had to surgically remove your olfactory glands (LOL)!

BTW, ironically you might have seen where the first to take advantage of the new ruling were the Alaskan Tribes, by making contributions to Murkowski's campaign, that have also been credited with the imminent loss by the Republican Tea Party candidate, Mitch McConnell. "What's good for the goose...!"
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 390
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/22/2010 10:09:34 AM
Democracy and Capitalism ain't necessarily the same thing. Just look at China (unless of course, that's the new Free Market Ideal we should all be striving for).

And BTW, since when should business be some sort of "sacred cow" (aka, "let the Market be FREE!"), that should be exempt from regulations, anymore than anyone else? In fact the current financial meltdown occurred during the 2nd least-regulated financial market in our history. And the only other time it was any less regulated was just before the Great Depression (gee, what a coincidence...)!
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 391
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/22/2010 10:39:51 AM
Oh, and JackDiamond, speaking of "sacred cows", I just heard they're gonna start making Harleys in India now.... so looks like there might be a "KrishnaGlide" in your future (LOL)!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 392
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/22/2010 11:34:31 AM

by making contributions to Murkowski's campaign, that have also been credited with the imminent loss by the Republican Tea Party candidate, Mitch McConnell.


The man's name is Joe Wilson.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 393
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/22/2010 11:51:50 AM

Hot on the heels of the Roberts court decision that the First Amendment allows corporations to pump as much money as they want into political campaigns (aka "money = free speech")


It sounds to me like you don't think much of free speech. You don't seem to know that corporations have been recognized as legal "persons" for many decades now. And I didn't notice you objecting to huge political contributions by labor unions.

I also doubt you understand Citizens United very well. If you'd read it, you'd know it reviews the Court's other decisions on corporate contributions. These decisions, in other contexts, have recognized corporate contributions as protected political speech for a long time. That was nothing that just started with the Roberts Court.

You ignore the fact corporations are all finally owned by individual people--their shareholders. Why should those people not be allowed to influence government policy in whatever direction they like? Don't union members get to do that? Anyone who disagrees with this decision is in favor of censoring books. The government admitted in oral argument before the Court that that would have been a necessary result if the Court had decided the case the other way.
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 395
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/22/2010 12:55:32 PM
Sorry, I'm unclear... are you advocating the "unregulated roughshod capitlalism of G. Bush", or suggesting some "alternative" (and if so, what)?
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 397
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 11/22/2010 6:28:40 PM
@PaulK.... no offense, but it seems like many of you folks here of the "conservative" persuasion keep tossing around a lot of "ideology" and semantic mumbo-jumbo, while being kinda stingy with specifics and facts to back any of it up. For example here's just a couple that could stand some 'splaining.

Are y'all now claiming that Bush was actually some kind of "liberal", or that he wasn't even a Republican President... who put him in there and propped him up the whole time, Democrats?.... the tooth fairy?!!

And BTW, what do the insider-trading scandals, and short-selling of subprime mortgage-backed securities (and California bonds), by Goldman-Sachs (among others), have to do with "malregulation", when in fact GS operated with virtually NO oversight ("mal-" or otherwise). And their shenanigans have since become the poster child for the infamously unregulated instruments known as Credit Default Swaps, where investors actually colluded on bets that the investment would default! Now THAT'S "Crony Capitalism" (and don't even get me started about all the investment companies that were so over-leveraged, they made sub-prime homeowners look like frugal tightwads)!
Show ALL Forums  > California  >