Nothing new there, but the simple issue 'abortion' or 'environment', etc. that the two groups report is ofgreat interest appear IMO, to have different meanings to each group. ..as in 'fer' or 'agin'.
Hmm. ya got me wondering. Could it have anything to do with education? Or perhaps it has more to do with... retention faculties?Could account for different realities.But whadda I know?
The problem is that the politicians live in a third world.
Jerry....I used to live in a third world...and then I moved on to a five,sixth and now I hope to just to be 'other worldly'........I do live in the hope that Dems and Repubs can still find room in the same world some day. Not a lotta hope, mind you, but some.
In the mean time, OKJimm, Skynet or whatever you call it will take over...
A definite must read book.
Amongst the e-geeks, they call it the 'singularity':"About 10 percent of AI researchers believe the first machine with human-level intelligence will arrive in the next 10 years. Fifty percent think it will be developed by the middle of this century, and nearly all think it will be accomplished by century's end. Since the new AI will likely have the ability to improve its own algorithms, the explosion to superintelligence could then happen in days, hours, or even seconds. The resulting entity, Bostrom asserts, will be "smart in the sense that an average human being is smart compared with a beetle or a worm"In that view, humans will no longer be the most intelligent 'species'.Guess we could pull the plug on the robot cyber smarties....
We could BB Idaho, and maybe we should. Somehow I just don't see super artificially intelligent robots as having a good ending.
Maybe just maybe, 2016 might get interesting....I know this is of interest to dmarks....http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/politics/sanders-dubuque-2016/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Tao: It's the same old story, in some ways. I don't think Bernie will get anywhere closer to being as realistic candidate than Pat Buchanan did when he ran. He'll rile up a furiously supportive but pretty small base, but it won't go much beyond that.Also, his age works against him. Isn't he older than John McCain campaigned as a doddering old fool in 2008?I think the only effect a strong candidacy by Sanders will have will be to drain the coffers of Democratic opponents.I could be wrong about all of this. Except about his chances of winning.
It could Tao. But I must say I think it unlikely. Most probably it will be more of the same old same old. Probably third party for me again.Now I'll check out the link.
The way I see it, when the GOP butters their toast, the leave the buttered side face down on the plate. Then along comes a Democrat who sees a slice of unbuttered toast and butters the top side. That explains why you can never eat a slice of bipartisan toast without getting your fingers all greasy ... unless you handle it around the edges. Same goes for eggs: sunny side up will always be served over easy. Meanwhile they pile too much old hash on your plate.
Did you just wake up or something? You seem quite hungry for breakfast... at 6:30 at night. But truth be told this actually made me crave toast.
Interesting way of expressing it (O)CT(O)PUS.I alway buttered my bread on both sides when making grilled chese sandwiches.
Gwilled cheese.....Les might like this short video clip
Which explains why you should never trust a cucumber ...
When seafood disses rabbit food... tonight on "Crossfire!"
I just continue to be amazed at the hubris of these politicians who somehow think that they can solve all of these problems via central planning and with zero unintended consequences. I mean, it's almost like a disease with these clowns.
Hubris... or their job. Better to try rather than allow the plutocrats to manipulate everything to their advantage. Sure, some people think that is just dandy (Libertarians and Conservatives), but many others do not.
It is largely through government that corporations secure their power (Goldman Sachs, GE and a truckload of other companies feeding at the green energy trough, Halliburton, GM, H&R Block, Google, Philip Morris, insurance companies that we're now forced to buy products from, etc.) and it is only by limiting government and limiting favors that we can level the playing field (according to the Small Business Administration, small businesses pay 40% more per employee for compliance and we can thank idiot plutocrats like Elizabeth Warren for that).
And their "job" is to keep the peace, protect us from foreign invaders, and make certain that contracts are legal and binding, not to hold a gun to our heads through draconian taxation and bafflingly moronic regulation.
More hubris Will?
Mixed with naivete.
And it isn't better to try when what you try is moronic (the left's war on poverty and the right's war on drugs, for instance) and makes things worse. It's worse in fact.
Will...And under Obama, the Left has taken the War in Drugs as its own, and made it worse than under Bush.
The problem is not the trying, but not recognizing the parts that are not working and trying to correct them. All big programs need midstream corrections.
You are correct, dmarks, in that there were more busts of medical marijuana facilities in Obama's first 4 years than in Bush's entire 8.............Jerry, a thoughtful, reasonable, and measured statement, per usual.
Well said Will. It is true that government has been a mechanism used my businesses (corporations) to gain favor, as in awards of contracts, subsidies, and other special considerations from the government that is run by the politicians whose campaigns they heavily contribute heavily to and lobby. Which is why we need to end lobbyists access to the political system, reverse Citizens United, and finally effect REAL campaign financing reform.And yes you are correct the war on drugd has been an abject failure and the war on poverty has had only marginal success at GREAT cost.
RN: Ok your argument on free speech and money has convinced me. I will sign on to your Citizens United reversal plan. I hope it is different from that of "Move to Amend", but... I won't dismiss out of hand if it is the same.
Will is correct and RN is correct. Both are correct in identifying what the problem is. And RN is correct regarding what needs to be done to fix the problem. But then - and this is what I do not understand - after fixing the problem and returning government to The People - Libertarians think we should dismantle it, thereby taking the power of The People away. They think that the plutocrats ONLY method of controlling the economy for their own gain is through government - and without government the MAGIC of the free market would force all corporations to compete fairly and the result would be a capitalist utopia. But the wealthy only use government and bribe our politicians because it is what works. If the Libertarians had their way and shrunk government, that would not stop the plutocrats from using the many other methods of controlling our economy for their benefit. Job destroying outsourcing, subsistence wages for those who could find work (and dangerous working conditions for those people) 3rd-world-style poverty (including an increase in disease and death among the poor), more pollution, and wealth concentrating in the hands of a few at an even faster rate are what we'd get under Libertarian rule. Libertarians are extremely naive in this regard. And the naiviety is an act - at least with some of them - I believe. They WANT The People to have no power so the rich can rule (directly, without bribing our politicians). The war on poverty, BTW, was hugely successful... while it lasted. What we should do is drop the drug war and restart the war on poverty.
The black family was largely intact for hundreds of years and the black poverty rate was going down precipitously and it was only when the Great Society started that the illegitimacy rate skyrocketed and the poverty rate leveled off. Liberal policies destroyed the black family and to continue to go down that statist and fascist road would be disastrous.
And the implication that social and entitlement spending has been shrinking is patently false. According to the historical tables from the Office of Management and Budget, federal social spending has increased markedly from 2000 to 2010. Here are the respective increases (adjusted for inflation) from specific areas; Medicaid and SCHIP 87%, Veteran's benefits 107%, Welfare and other income security programs 91%, Education 155%, Health resources and regulation 69%, Natural resources and the environment 47%, Unemployment compensation 559%, Medicare 81%, Housing assistance 108%, Food assistance 139%, WIC 52%, Child nutrition 47%, Child tax credit payments 2,155%, and the Earned Income Tax Credit 48%.............And the evidence is overwhelming. All throughout history and all throughout the world, societies that have had a high degree of economic freedom do significantly better than those that do not, Hong Kong versus India in the years after WW2, Botswana versus Zimbabwe today, West Germany versus East Germany during the Cold War, Sweden in the early 20th Century (when it was the third richest country in the world and had an income disparity gap that was going away on its own) versus Sweden when it was a Socialist nightmare in the 1970s (it had fallen all the way to 17th by the '70s!), etc., etc..
And the evidence is very strong that outsourcing actually creates more jobs than it destroys. Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Dartmouth have both shown that, while, yes, you obviously do lose some lower skilled jobs, you end up creating more at various other stages in the process; design, marketing, advertising, management, tech, warehouse, transportation, security, etc.. I mean, I know that statists are generally incapable of recognizing the nonstatic elements of an economy (wealth and income being two other examples; the fact that these categories are constantly changing from year to year/decade to decade) but they do in fact exist.
The war on poverty, BTW, was hugely successful... while it lasted. What we should do is drop the drug war and restart the war on poverty. Will is correct and RN is correct. Both are correct in identifying what the problem is. And RN is correct regarding what needs to be done to fix the problem. Why yes Dervish we certainly are right. Absolutely and completely. But then - and this is what I do not understand - after fixing the problem and returning government to The People - Libertarians think we should dismantle it, thereby taking the power of The People away. You don’t understand because the convoluted and extremely biased thought process you are engaged in just confuses you. And of course this is where you start to run off the rails. They think that the plutocrats ONLY method of controlling the economy for their own gain is through government - and without government the MAGIC of the free market would force all corporations to compete fairly and the result would be a capitalist utopia. Gibberish Dervish, plain and simple gibberish. Government does have a valid purpose with respect to business. Its place should be in insuring safety in the workplace, insuring contracts are honored, insuring corporations, indeed all businesses big or small conduct business in an ethically and morally proper manner. Government should not allow for lobbyists and special interest monies to interfere with or influence decisions with respect to regulating business, it should not provide taxpayer funded subsidies to keep failing businesses afloat, it should award government contracts to the most efficient and lowest cost provider with the safest workplace experience.
But the wealthy only use government and bribe our politicians because it is what works. If the Libertarians had their way and shrunk government, that would not stop the plutocrats from using the many other methods of controlling our economy for their benefit. More gibberish fueled by your Marian utopian BS, IMO. Government has a purpose and business has a purpose. Government’s purpose is to be a watchdog. The purpose of business is to make money and turn a profit. The thinkng individual realizes that a) corporations cannot be allowed to run unbridled with random abandon screwing the very people that produce the products they sell, and b) government in a global and competitive world cannot regulate and tax business until is strangles economic activity.The most successful models are those with government and business working separately but with a common purpose of making the country they govern and provide jobs in very competitive so all benefit.. Job destroying outsourcing, subsistence wages for those who could find work (and dangerous working conditions for those people) 3rd-world-style poverty (including an increase in disease and death among the poor), more pollution, and wealth concentrating in the hands of a few at an even faster rate are what we'd get under Libertarian rule. Libertarians are extremely naive in this regard. And the naiviety is an act - at least with some of them - I believe. They WANT The People to have no power so the rich can rule (directly, without bribing our politicians). There is some truth to this section and outsourcing has been a big bugaboo of mine for a while. For the record, while I do not believe the government should have a role in establishing wages I also have no real problem with the minimum wage for entry level unskilled work being increased to the $10.00/hr level. For full time work, ie: 40/hours per week. The war on poverty, BTW, was hugely successful... while it lasted. What we should do is drop the drug war and restart the war on povertyI agree we should stop the ineffective war on drugs. I disagree we should start the war on poverty as it was framed by LBJ. Note the valid statement made by Will.In closing Dervish, I have given you the courtesy to comment here and have taken the time to reply. If you wish to respond with new data for consideration of your premises fine, they will be posted. On the other hand revisiting the same arguments, or “knowing on old bones” for the simple sake of argument will not be posted. Further points to clarify a prior point you have made will be considered for posting. My decision, and only my decision, will be final.
As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.Thank you for your understanding... The management.