 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » If GW was an idiot......... |
|
Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| David Staup... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"spud" <midnight at (no spam) theoasis.com> wrote in message
news:4kdne5tjobhgm91j597sonelo4hlg5knvu at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]
So, I'd like to hear a rational argument that the Maoist advance
society (progressive/liberal ideals) launched China to world economic
dominance within the last decade after 50 years of abject oppression
and squalor implementing the working mans utopia? Maybe Stalin or
Castro are better examples? Just the wrong guys running the show, eh?
China is a better argument supporting " a society that has been
advanced by regressive/conservatives. " principles that it has by
leftist theology. History is litter with the garbage "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his need ". To deny
human nature is folly. Until this race of human animals is replaced
with a race that isn't motivated by self, so called progressive ideals
will always fail. If that race emerges (unlikely) it will fall to ANY
animal even slightly more gregarious.
The problem is the thinking by the brainwashed is upside down. The
highest ideal is individual sovereignty and yes, all the
accountability and consequences that go with it. Governments' roll
then is simply to reconcile conflict. Any more is oppression of
sovereign people. Here's an example of current leftist backward
theology. Obama says the Feds subsidizes individual health insurance
by not taxing employer provided benefits! The Feds assume they have
a RIGHT to ALL of my being! A progressive mind would see Obama is
subsidized by the fruits of (our so called) sovereign peoples labor.
How does he justify THAT extortion other that the point of a gun?
So what is a liberal, who is progressive? Some one that adheres to
Marxist theology or one that seeks to advance personal sovereignty?
If one insists on calling the later a regressive, then fine you are
only fooling yourself.
Steve
Oregon
[/quote]
very well stated...
but if you're expecting a logical argument from a progressive/liberal well
good luck..likely they're just going to call you names... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:53:26 -0700, spud <midnight at (no spam) theoasis.com> wrote:
[quote]So, I’d like to hear a rational argument that the Maoist advance
society (progressive/liberal ideals)
[/quote]
There was nothing "progressive" or "liberal" about the Maoists, at least
as most Western progressives would use those terms.
[quote]China is a better argument supporting " a society that has been
advanced by regressive/conservatives. " principles that it has by
leftist theology.
[/quote]
You make an assumption that Chinese society has been advanced, or
perhaps you consider it to have been advanced because it has a strong
economy. IMO China is a deeply damaged society, regardless of the
strength of its economy. It was damaged by its Maoist government, and it
continues to be damaged by its regressive capitalist government.
Economic strength is a lousy indicator of the health or quality of a
society. But it is commonly used by conservative thinkers.
[quote]The problem is the thinking by the brainwashed is upside down. The
highest ideal is individual sovereignty and yes, all the
accountability and consequences that go with it.
[/quote]
In your opinion. There's plenty of anthropological evidence to suggest
otherwise.
[quote]So what is a liberal, who is progressive? Some one that adheres to
Marxist theology or one that seeks to advance personal sovereignty?
[/quote]
I know quite a few liberals (who generally consider themselves
"progressive"); I consider myself a conservative, but also a
"progressive". I certainly don't agree with the Marxist philosophy, and
neither do the liberals I know. Marxism has nothing to do with modern
progressive thinking. I think you are confusing Marxism and socialism,
which are very different things.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| spud... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
[quote]There was nothing "progressive" or "liberal" about the Maoists, at least
as most Western progressives would use those terms.
[/quote]
Using China or Russia or Cuba as a proxy for leftist theology is quite
more valid that Davoud’s questionable list of Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Afghanistan, North Korea as stand ins for so called
conservative/regressive ideas. 3 of those nations are theocracies
and one, my friend, is a socialist nation. But alas, the wrong guy is
running it. Maybe progressives would prefer Germany and Italy of the
30’s and 40’s or Venezuela as better examples of the implementation of
socialism? No oppression there right?
What about Norway instead. Norway has been chosen for several years
as the best place in the world to live. Even the Prime Minister of
Norway a few years back called his flock a bunch of whiners that
wanted goods and services without earning them, you know benefits and
entitlements.
When a person’s efforts are extorted from them by gov’t and
redistributed in either a socialist or Marxist construct human nature
will reduced the individual to the lowest common denominator.
Remember the Russian farmer? His collective land produced half the
crop of his family allocation because he personally could keep his
family allocation. Human nature…
[quote]I certainly don't agree with the Marxist philosophy, and
neither do the liberals I know.
[/quote]
That is an astounding statement and one in my experience is upside
down. With very few exceptions liberals I know believe Marxism the
culmination of the social being, the true objective of society (read
gov’t). Socialism is simply a step toward that goal. I think you
could make a case socialism is even more oppressive to sovereign
individuals than THEORETICAL Marxism. Of course in practice both are
utter failures and are by nature void of respect for personal liberty
and by it‘s nature responsibility and accountability.
[quote]Marxism has nothing to do with modern
progressive thinking. I think you are confusing Marxism and socialism,
which are very different things.
[/quote]
WTF? Marxism is the ROOT of modern progressive thinking.
Re-packaging and softening it up to look like socialism so as to be
more sellable to resistance is just a ploy.
Unless gov’t recognizes and respects human nature, which capitalism
does, they are destined to oppression of the individual and failure.
The only aspect of human nature recognized by the progressives is that
some individuals refuse to carry their weight and forces the balance
to pack their bacon by the point of a gun. No consequences, no
accountability. Which I reiterate ultimately reduces the individual
to the lowest common denominator.
Steve
The Peoples Rebuplik of Oregon
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:12:31 -0600, Chris L Peterson
<clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:53:26 -0700, spud <midnight at (no spam) theoasis.com> wrote:
So, I’d like to hear a rational argument that the Maoist advance
society (progressive/liberal ideals)
There was nothing "progressive" or "liberal" about the Maoists, at least
as most Western progressives would use those terms.
China is a better argument supporting " a society that has been
advanced by regressive/conservatives. " principles that it has by
leftist theology.
You make an assumption that Chinese society has been advanced, or
perhaps you consider it to have been advanced because it has a strong
economy. IMO China is a deeply damaged society, regardless of the
strength of its economy. It was damaged by its Maoist government, and it
continues to be damaged by its regressive capitalist government.
Economic strength is a lousy indicator of the health or quality of a
society. But it is commonly used by conservative thinkers.
The problem is the thinking by the brainwashed is upside down. The
highest ideal is individual sovereignty and yes, all the
accountability and consequences that go with it.
In your opinion. There's plenty of anthropological evidence to suggest
otherwise.
So what is a liberal, who is progressive? Some one that adheres to
Marxist theology or one that seeks to advance personal sovereignty?
I know quite a few liberals (who generally consider themselves
"progressive"); I consider myself a conservative, but also a
"progressive". I certainly don't agree with the Marxist philosophy, and
neither do the liberals I know. Marxism has nothing to do with modern
progressive thinking. I think you are confusing Marxism and socialism,
which are very different things.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:10:21 -0700, spud <midnight at (no spam) theoasis.com> wrote:
[quote]WTF? Marxism is the ROOT of modern progressive thinking.
Re-packaging and softening it up to look like socialism so as to be
more sellable to resistance is just a ploy.
[/quote]
IMO your understanding of politics, economics, history, and human nature
is severely limited.
Socialism and Marxism have little in common. Every human government that
has ever existed has had socialist components; few have been Marxist.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| spud... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:21:38 -0600, Chris L Peterson
<clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
[quote]Socialism and Marxism have little in common. Every human government that
has ever existed has had socialist components; few have been Marxist.
[/quote]
To say there’s little in common is disingenuous. Read Hugo Chaves
speeches and tell us the difference between his words and Lenin?
Chaves is implementing socialism in his country, his rhetoric or means
to persuade is Marxist. Of course his goal isn’t Marxism! Marxism
would require the power structure to ulimately surrender it's grip on
liberty to the people. Clearly THAT is not within a socialist
objective. Which is why an argument can be made that socialism is
more oppressive than theoretical Marxism. That damn human nature
again…
Steve
Oregon
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:21:38 -0600, Chris L Peterson
<clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:10:21 -0700, spud <midnight at (no spam) theoasis.com> wrote:
WTF? Marxism is the ROOT of modern progressive thinking.
Re-packaging and softening it up to look like socialism so as to be
more sellable to resistance is just a ploy.
IMO your understanding of politics, economics, history, and human nature
is severely limited.
Socialism and Marxism have little in common. Every human government that
has ever existed has had socialist components; few have been Marxist.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:58:42 -0700, spud <midnight at (no spam) theoasis.com> wrote:
[quote]To say there’s little in common is disingenuous.
[/quote]
Not at all. "Socialism" in the sense it is generally used by modern
western democracies has nothing to do with Marxism. The former is a
system where some resources are shared by all, but still in a completely
democratic government and fundamentally capitalist economy. In fact, it
is little different from what every government does: tax its citizens
and use the money for its own purposes. Modern social democracies tend
to favor using taxes for broadly social purposes, like guaranteeing
housing and health care and a certain minimum quality lifestyle. Other
types of governments may prefer militarization or subsidizing industry.
All that is different is how the money is spent, not how it is extracted
from the citizens.
[quote]Read Hugo Chaves
speeches and tell us the difference between his words and Lenin?
Chaves is implementing socialism in his country, his rhetoric or means
to persuade is Marxist.
[/quote]
He's implementing something that he chooses to call "socialism", but
that doesn't make it so. There is no way you can compare the programs
implemented by a dictator with programs voluntarily chosen by a
democratic society.
Marxism is a failed philosophy. It is founded on fundamentally incorrect
(or untested) ideas about conflict between social classes, it is
fundamentally hostile to capitalism (and in fact presents itself as an
alternative to capitalism), and advocates public ownership of the
mechanisms of production. None of these things are remotely advocated by
modern western democratic socialism.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Thad Floryan... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 10/31/2009 10:23 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
[quote][...]
Marxism is a failed philosophy. It is founded on fundamentally incorrect
(or untested) ideas about conflict between social classes, it is
fundamentally hostile to capitalism (and in fact presents itself as an
alternative to capitalism), and advocates public ownership of the
mechanisms of production. None of these things are remotely advocated by
modern western democratic socialism.
[/quote]
So, control of financial institutions, automakers, healthcare, and who knows
what else in the future by the present USA administration along with increasing
USA job loss is an illusion?
I don't think so. Just look around. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| yourmommycalled... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 4:11 pm, "David Staup" <dst... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]"yourmommycalled" <mommycal... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:03a108a4-e256-437f-b314-a3ac80b7cc8f at (no spam) 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 8:52 am, "David Staup" <dst... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"spud" <midni... at (no spam) theoasis.com> wrote in message
news:4kdne5tjobhgm91j597sonelo4hlg5knvu at (no spam) 4ax.com...
So, I'd like to hear a rational argument that the Maoist advance
society (progressive/liberal ideals) launched China to world economic
dominance within the last decade after 50 years of abject oppression
and squalor implementing the working mans utopia? Maybe Stalin or
Castro are better examples? Just the wrong guys running the show, eh?
China is a better argument supporting " a society that has been
advanced by regressive/conservatives. " principles that it has by
leftist theology. History is litter with the garbage "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his need ". To deny
human nature is folly. Until this race of human animals is replaced
with a race that isn't motivated by self, so called progressive ideals
will always fail. If that race emerges (unlikely) it will fall to ANY
animal even slightly more gregarious.
The problem is the thinking by the brainwashed is upside down. The
highest ideal is individual sovereignty and yes, all the
accountability and consequences that go with it. Governments' roll
then is simply to reconcile conflict. Any more is oppression of
sovereign people. Here's an example of current leftist backward
theology. Obama says the Feds subsidizes individual health insurance
by not taxing employer provided benefits! The Feds assume they have
a RIGHT to ALL of my being! A progressive mind would see Obama is
subsidized by the fruits of (our so called) sovereign peoples labor.
How does he justify THAT extortion other that the point of a gun?
So what is a liberal, who is progressive? Some one that adheres to
Marxist theology or one that seeks to advance personal sovereignty?
If one insists on calling the later a regressive, then fine you are
only fooling yourself.
Steve
Oregon
very well stated...
but if you're expecting a logical argument from a progressive/liberal well
good luck..likely they're just going to call you names...
We certainly have seen anything logical or based on facts in any of
your posts yet. Try reading a newspaper rather than just parroting
Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/O'Rielly. Also please don't try the "I don't
listen to them I think for myself" canard as you posts are nearly cut
and paste from their websites
chuckle....
and what newspaper do you get your facts from?
they are all doing so well that they must be factual...
as far as cut and paste from the websites you mention ...huh?
don't know about that... if you can find any that talk about puppeteers and
kzin let me know...
as far as you thinking for yourself ....therein lies the problem...chuckle
try reading some history....try talking to someone who has been there done
that...
I have friends from Shanghai, China...friends from Taiwan, from Viet Nam,
from Russia, and from Checkoslovacia and my wife is from the former East
German republic, we have many friends from there....I've been to England,
Scotland, Belgium, France,the Netherlands, Taiwan, Korea, Canada, and
Germany..almost everyone I've delt with holds a much different opinion of
the USA and of the present administration than you might think from their
press...of course they are all professionals and business leaders
(capitalists) themselves....hmmm pity is the most common theme from
them...I on the other hand assure them that this too shall pass and america
will eventually emerge only stronger and more conservative than
before....what do you think?
my opinions are based on facts from direct sources .... I'd offer to link
you up with them but THEY don't enjoy debating fools...I find it
amusing...chuckle
[/quote]
I'm willing to bet you know a Black and a Hispanic too.
But on to something you missed entirely the post was not in response
to you but to spud.
Claiming to know all about a society because you paid a visit is pure
bovine excrement. I would believe you more had you worked in mainland
China and Taiwan for several years. As to "pity is the most common
theme from them...I on the other hand assure them that this too shall
pass and america will eventually emerge only stronger and more
conservative than before....what do you think?" Strange when I visit
with friends scientists, students and families from Europe and Asia
(primarily Taiwan and mainland China), their response is that with the
change from Bush to Obama there is no hope that the US will return to
greatness. Quoting "We see a remarkable shift in transatlantic opinion
from the previous administration," Further from the BBC "European
support for Barack Obama's foreign policy is four times greater than
that given to his predecessor George W Bush" A full 92 percent of
Germans approve of Obama's handling of international affairs compared
to just 12 percent who supported Bush. Similar trends were confirmed
in Italy, France and the UK where support for US foreign policies
soared between 64 and 77 percent to 91, 88 and 82 percent
respectively.
Yes trying to carry on a conversation with is fairly hopeless, you
cann't even read. On the other hand as a teacher I keep trying to hope
that even the most uneducated can be help. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:00:23 -0700, Thad Floryan <thad at (no spam) thadlabs.com>
wrote:
[quote]So, control of financial institutions, automakers, healthcare, and who knows
what else in the future by the present USA administration along with increasing
USA job loss is an illusion?
[/quote]
If by "control of financial institutions" you mean regulation, I don't
think that is remotely similar to Marxist control of industry. What
government system doesn't regulate its monetary system? I see no
indication that the government has the slightest interest in controlling
automakers, except to temporarily exert influence as any investor would,
while those automakers are _voluntarily_ living off the public dole.
Neither do I see any indication that the government is interested in
controlling the private side of healthcare, only providing a system so
it is accessible to everybody.
If that's the best you can come up with to somehow equate the current
policies with Marxism, you need to go back to school!
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Staup... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"yourmommycalled" <mommycalled at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:03a108a4-e256-437f-b314-a3ac80b7cc8f at (no spam) 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 8:52 am, "David Staup" <dst... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]"spud" <midni... at (no spam) theoasis.com> wrote in message
news:4kdne5tjobhgm91j597sonelo4hlg5knvu at (no spam) 4ax.com...
So, I'd like to hear a rational argument that the Maoist advance
society (progressive/liberal ideals) launched China to world economic
dominance within the last decade after 50 years of abject oppression
and squalor implementing the working mans utopia? Maybe Stalin or
Castro are better examples? Just the wrong guys running the show, eh?
China is a better argument supporting " a society that has been
advanced by regressive/conservatives. " principles that it has by
leftist theology. History is litter with the garbage "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his need ". To deny
human nature is folly. Until this race of human animals is replaced
with a race that isn't motivated by self, so called progressive ideals
will always fail. If that race emerges (unlikely) it will fall to ANY
animal even slightly more gregarious.
The problem is the thinking by the brainwashed is upside down. The
highest ideal is individual sovereignty and yes, all the
accountability and consequences that go with it. Governments' roll
then is simply to reconcile conflict. Any more is oppression of
sovereign people. Here's an example of current leftist backward
theology. Obama says the Feds subsidizes individual health insurance
by not taxing employer provided benefits! The Feds assume they have
a RIGHT to ALL of my being! A progressive mind would see Obama is
subsidized by the fruits of (our so called) sovereign peoples labor.
How does he justify THAT extortion other that the point of a gun?
So what is a liberal, who is progressive? Some one that adheres to
Marxist theology or one that seeks to advance personal sovereignty?
If one insists on calling the later a regressive, then fine you are
only fooling yourself.
Steve
Oregon
very well stated...
but if you're expecting a logical argument from a progressive/liberal well
good luck..likely they're just going to call you names...
[/quote]
We certainly have seen anything logical or based on facts in any of
your posts yet. Try reading a newspaper rather than just parroting
Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/O'Rielly. Also please don't try the "I don't
listen to them I think for myself" canard as you posts are nearly cut
and paste from their websites
chuckle....
and what newspaper do you get your facts from?
they are all doing so well that they must be factual...
as far as cut and paste from the websites you mention ...huh?
don't know about that... if you can find any that talk about puppeteers and
kzin let me know...
as far as you thinking for yourself ....therein lies the problem...chuckle
try reading some history....try talking to someone who has been there done
that...
I have friends from Shanghai, China...friends from Taiwan, from Viet Nam,
from Russia, and from Checkoslovacia and my wife is from the former East
German republic, we have many friends from there....I've been to England,
Scotland, Belgium, France,the Netherlands, Taiwan, Korea, Canada, and
Germany..almost everyone I've delt with holds a much different opinion of
the USA and of the present administration than you might think from their
press...of course they are all professionals and business leaders
(capitalists) themselves....hmmm pity is the most common theme from
them...I on the other hand assure them that this too shall pass and america
will eventually emerge only stronger and more conservative than
before....what do you think?
my opinions are based on facts from direct sources .... I'd offer to link
you up with them but THEY don't enjoy debating fools...I find it
amusing...chuckle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Thad Floryan... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 10/31/2009 1:49 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:00:23 -0700, Thad Floryan <thad at (no spam) thadlabs.com
wrote:
So, control of financial institutions, automakers, healthcare, and who knows
what else in the future by the present USA administration along with increasing
USA job loss is an illusion?
If by "control of financial institutions" you mean regulation, I don't
think that is remotely similar to Marxist control of industry. What
government system doesn't regulate its monetary system?
[/quote]
Huh? I suppose you don't follow the news. Right now the Fed is actively
deciding salaries and bonuses for most major financial institutions --
the US government is directly altering the salaries, etc. of BofA's
and other institutions' executive officers.
Here is just one (of many) articles discussing this:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/30/national/w181558D03.DTL>
and another:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/22/BUD61A8FSN.DTL>
The government is actively interfering with financial institutions -- this
is NOT regulation of the monetary system.
[quote]I see no
indication that the government has the slightest interest in controlling
automakers, except to temporarily exert influence as any investor would,
while those automakers are _voluntarily_ living off the public dole.
Neither do I see any indication that the government is interested in
controlling the private side of healthcare, only providing a system so
it is accessible to everybody.
[/quote]
Dream on.
[quote]If that's the best you can come up with to somehow equate the current
policies with Marxism, you need to go back to school!
[/quote]
No need -- I'm now retired and sitting back watching the USA be destroyed
from within; it's interesting. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:04:34 -0700, Thad Floryan <thad at (no spam) thadlabs.com>
wrote:
[quote]Huh? I suppose you don't follow the news. Right now the Fed is actively
deciding salaries and bonuses for most major financial institutions --
the US government is directly altering the salaries, etc. of BofA's
and other institutions' executive officers.
[/quote]
Yes. Financial institutions that operate essentially under contract with
the Fed. These are not, and never have been, completely private. They
play with other people's money, and are required to follow rules. It is
important to remember that these are institutions that don't create any
real value; they are not the inventors of technology or the
manufacturers of products. And they increasingly work _against_ the
creation of real value.
BTW, your article does not say that the Fed is determining salaries; it
says something very different:
"Under a plan recently put forward by the Fed, the central bank would
review — and could veto — pay policies that could cause too much
risk-taking by bank executives, traders or loan officers. It would not
actually set the compensation."
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris.B... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
No matter how many or how few. No matter how intelligent, educated or
articulate. No two will ever agree on politics. Except on one point:
"Burning" Bush was a corrupt, retarded, immoral puppet. One who
brought America to its knees in the eyes of even its most loyal
friends. All further discussion of his successors is completely
redundant until the long term damage has-been repaired. That's the
problem with white trash. They always leave a terrible mess on the
Lawn for the next occupants to clean up. Until the rusting gas
guzzlers, overgrown poisonous weeds and piles of half-burnt books can
be cleared away any passing sightseer will think the white trash are
still living there. It takes a lot of time and effort to make it look
as if the new occupants really care about the property. Many fondly
wished they'd knocked the old place down and started from scratch with
something modern, green and transparent. All glass sides so you could
actually see what was going on inside. Others simply longed for a
repaint to hide the Arabic graffiti, oily hand prints and dirty tide-
mark all over the once-pristine walls. The upside down cross on the
roof was once the world's most efficient lightning conductor but
nobody could reach it for the last eight years to tear it down. The
new occupants have great plans but need time, money and the world's
patience and indulgence to make the place properly habitable by decent
people. Until then they need all the encouragement they can get . Not
to mention a strong and loyal team of gardeners and repairmen who wont
fleece them for every penny. Then hide their tax-free, ill-gotten
gains offshore... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| spud... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Let's not forget the Cap and Trade wet dream. Yet another proof you
will just excuse away...
One easy to understand example in that pathetic destruction of
personal liberty: Progressives think they have the RIGHT for their
goose stepping mercenaries to invade your private property without a
warrant and decide if you are allowed to SELL YOUR HOME! Surely you
can see oppression and corruption when it’s staring you in the face?
Steve
Oregon
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:36:47 -0600, Chris L Peterson
<clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:04:34 -0700, Thad Floryan <thad at (no spam) thadlabs.com
wrote:
Huh? I suppose you don't follow the news. Right now the Fed is actively
deciding salaries and bonuses for most major financial institutions --
the US government is directly altering the salaries, etc. of BofA's
and other institutions' executive officers.
Yes. Financial institutions that operate essentially under contract with
the Fed. These are not, and never have been, completely private. They
play with other people's money, and are required to follow rules. It is
important to remember that these are institutions that don't create any
real value; they are not the inventors of technology or the
manufacturers of products. And they increasingly work _against_ the
creation of real value.
BTW, your article does not say that the Fed is determining salaries; it
says something very different:
"Under a plan recently put forward by the Fed, the central bank would
review — and could veto — pay policies that could cause too much
risk-taking by bank executives, traders or loan officers. It would not
actually set the compensation."
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris.B... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 5:31 pm, spud <midni... at (no spam) theoasis.com> wrote:
[quote]Sunday Sermon?
[/quote]
Good god, no! I can be tediously boring on any day of the week. And
frequently am. Harmless, pointless fun which keeps my few remaining
brain cells jostling for attention. Dementia beckons with increasing
urgency. I weave words, as spells, to keep her at bay. I'm not much of
a magician. Not even with words. She grows ever stronger and slips
effortlessly between thought and deed. Soon there will be just random
thoughts and almost no deeds. So I pedal furiously into the sunset of
my life with my lance ever ready to slay windmills. My bag of words is
very worn at the seams and leaks more words onto barren soil than I
can safely afford to lose. The internet came just in time to offer the
endless rehearsals of the clever quips I rarely managed in life. Now
the words themselves hide behind my back. Teasing me with glimpses.
Like old, bashful friends seen dancing with the wrong partner at a
party in dim light. Should we mourn the loss of an intellect which
never flowered because it was crushed in childhood? Or mourn those who
enjoy a whole crown of mindskills but use them for lies or evil. Or to
put down the weak. There lies a sprawling waste of latent talent our
senseless race can ill afford to lose.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:04 pm
|
|