BS: And the next US President will be

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 06:08 PM

"I should have said "I disagree". But talk of abolishing capitalism is just a pipedream of the Left."


             It might seem like a pipedream now, but it doesn't hurt to strive for perfection.


                   Of course public employees unions are growing. Reaganomics favored public employees above all others. It's hard to export the local fire department or the public schools to India.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 06:00 PM

I should have said "I disagree". But talk of abolishing capitalism is just a pipedream of the Left.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 05:57 PM

Rig--

Wrong.

1) You mention public employees unions. They are growing.

2) Any growing employee group--in which the workers are in an area which needs more staffing--can form a union. An obvious area is health care--which will be growing for the foreseeable future.

3) Your dream of abolishing capitalism is just that. Capitalism obviously needs restriction--which it's not been getting under the Bush maladministration. But pure socialism is also not the answer. Look at Scandanavia--supposedly a Socialist model. Actually it has huge elements of capitalism. Nowhere in the world is there pure Socialism. Nor will there be--since it wouldn't work. It is always necessary to appeal to self-interest--your own betterment, not just the betterment of the group. Sorry, that's human nature. Good luck trying to change it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 04:43 PM

"By banding together, as I explained earlier. That's the origin of unions--and why they're still needed."


                Ron - Egomaniacs in control of huge gobs of amalgamated capital have so many tools at their disposal today that can be used for the purpose of breaking unions, the proposition that a powerful one can exist anyplace on the planet for any length of time is almost laughable.

                      The only ones in America who have any authority at all are the public employees unions. And the one(s) you refer to in China are functioning because they have a strong central government that supports them.

                      It looks like the demise of capitalism is probably the best bet for the future.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 01:23 PM

You betcha.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 01:21 PM

Yeah, I wonder if there's a requirement for firms to have provision to serve people with rotary phones. And if the business community can put pressure on to have this requirement eliminated. (And just how many rotary phones are still in use?)

If they try, I'll sure as hell write my Senators and Congressmen--and tell them the other use of "rotary callers please remain on the line". We've got to keep every option we have to avoid being trapped in "customer service" automated limbo.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 01:06 PM

Yeah, I do stuff like that too, Ron. Thank God for those few surviving rotary phones, eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 01:03 PM

LH--

I totally agree it's harder to actually reach a person now to resolve a problem--but I always insist on doing so. I refuse to push any button ("press 2 if....")--and eventually you get "rotary callers, remain on the line". Then when I get somebody, I insist on getting a last name, ID number, or extension number. If I don't get the answer I need, I ask to speak to a supervisor. If still no satisfaction, I tell them I'll report them to the BBB. That is the last resort--and usually, long before that, I have the answer I need. It does take persistence--and being organized to know exactly the questions you need answered.

We are not pawns--and don't have to accept that status.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 12:46 PM

I'm just as concerned about international banking houses as I am about industrialists, Ron. Making money is a game that very wealthy people play (while for the rest of us it's a matter of survival), and it's essentially an artificial game which works within its own rulebook. You win simply by making more of the stuff, regardless of how you do it. That makes it a dangerous game.

It's been going on for a long time, but I think that with the advent of the digital age and electronic money that can be created out of thin air and moved across the world in the blink of an eye, we have bigger problems with the abuses of financial power (and the fallout from that abuse) than we used to.

It's also much harder to contact any real living person now, and discuss it with them. Have you noticed that when attempting to phone any large financial organization lately? Then too, when you do manage to reach a real person, all they can usually do is read to you from a prepared script, from the sound of it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 12:30 PM

Rig--


By banding together, as I explained earlier. That's the origin of unions--and why they're still needed. Also interest groups, like environmental groups for instance, through numbers--and financial support--can and do have impact.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 12:26 PM

Of course, anyone who is control of a government, like Chairman Mao for instance, has control of huge amounts of capital.

                How does that help the average guy in the street?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 12:04 PM

Point is: industrial titans are not the only ones to have access to large amounts of capital--and other factors can outweigh capital--as in the China case.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 11:56 AM

Ron - I suppose what you're saying is basically correct. The counter to that, however, is that without substantial amounts of capital, it's almost impossible to have any political impact at all.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 10:29 AM

Rig-

What did I want to say about "immense financial forces"?   That sometimes they drive the agenda--and sometimes they don't.

Many firms are now trying to deal with man-made global warming--how they can turn programs against it to their financial advantage. Virtually all of them fought the idea to start with--some still do. But the more astute have realized they can't win with just opposition--and that there is money to be made going with the flow.

They did not "control the ongoing agenda". They were forced to react.

Similarly Walmart would not have wanted their stores in China unionized.. But now they must deal with one. And Macroslop certainly did not want the EC fining them heavily---and possibly forcing them to change their way of doing business.

That's my point--to say that immense financial forces "control the ongoing agenda" is simplistic.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes not.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 06:55 PM

I've been an enthusiastic pyromaniac since about age 7. Simply love building and tending fires. I've managed to reach age 58 without it leading to any problematical situations.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 06:27 PM

Jus' a little insight in the burnin' bans... In our community we have a volunteer fire department... Most of the firmen have regular jobs, like at the door plant, the hardward store or the auto parts joint... We have times of the years when fires are most dangersous and there is a ban on fires before 4:00 pm... This makes sense to me... This way, employers won't have to suffer from the loose of an employee when someone's fire gets outta control...

Jus' my 2 cents worth...

Not that LH ain't a responsible pyrotechincan, 'er nuthin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 05:48 PM

:)

About burning bans, however, in most communities they are instated during dry periods of weather and are lifted whenever moisture comes in or in the summer months when so many forest and brush and grass fires flare. Or sometimes it is in a period of temperature inversions. That happens in Juneau-in-the-vally which is mountain bound; downtown Juneau, where I live, is scoured by the funnel created between the mainland and an island with the ocean between.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 04:52 PM

I'm not quite clear on how long the ban extends, Ebbie. It may be an all-year ban, it may not.

I'll have to look into that.

And, yeah, sure I could have come up with better examples. Any number of them. My lamentable lack of patience was probably responsible for my not doing so. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 04:26 PM

This summer Scalia asked in response to the phrase 'in the privacy of their own bedroom'
"What freedoms do you propose people may have in the privacy of their own bedrooms? May they be free to use heroin recreationally, may they be free to build bombs..."

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 04:19 PM

Little Hawk, I think your example of your lack of freedom, the right to do what you want, is not a good one.

You say: "For instance, I can't build a fire on my own back property in order to dispose of deadwood, because there is presently a total ban on burning outdoors in my jurisdiction. This, despite the fact that I am quite capable of safely doing so, without causing a disaster to occur. The reason for the ban is that some people are not very careful how or where they build a fire, and they do end up causing a disaster. So the local government has decided to play it safe and ban ALL people from doing it.

"This pisses me off. I am powerless in the face of their ban, and I don't like that. But I accept it, because I am not interested in either being fined or leading a Quixotic (and doomed) crusade to oppose their ban.

"I will find other solutions for cleaning up the brush and deadwood on my property. They will be more time-consuming and difficult solutions, but I will find them."

Just wait to clear the deadwood until the summer is over and the hazards of wild fire recede, Little Hawk.

You disappoint me. Being the philosopher you are, I should have thought that patience for you would come easy. :) I don't call myself that and yet I have no problem with considering and incorporating the concept of the greater good.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 04:05 PM

"Please remember that when talking of "immense financial forces". I'll be monitoring."


          Ron - What did you want to say about immense financial forces?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 03:59 PM

Yup. Humor is a danger not only to maintaining polarization, but also to establishing authoritarian rule, either in a country or on a website. Humor is highly subversive, because it does not spare sacred cows.

If, therefore, you make fun of the excesses and hypocrisies of both the Left AND the Right in the USA...expect to take some flak for it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 03:33 PM

Dear Mike Miller
You claim that today the left is a group of humorless true belivers.
I am the embodiment of the parody you say no longer exists.

Yup and I have my banishment from the Democratic Underground and removal of my 10 old website to prove it.

Doncha know that humor is a danger to polarization?
Heck, people who heal the devisevness with a sense of humor are often the first to get the axe.

Like Bill Mahre we keep comin back until we become the new mainstream in 20 years.

The right may have court decisions to support their bald faced lies on the news shows but the left has truth which will outlive the web of lies.


Wall Street may have no choice in the next minister for their affairs this time around.
We might actually elect a populist president this time.












As a result if our war macherinery is then slowed a good man or woman will be either slimed or shot

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 03:27 PM

Ah well, Ron, all those WSSBA courses I've taken over the past few years tend to emphasize the cultivation of a rather dramatic style of oration. Some might characterize it as....stentorian? Ahem. Well, yes. Perhaps. ;-)

I do read my own posts, as a matter of fact. I review them and reread them with satisfaction and delight. ("Oh, well said! Oh, you nailed 'em that time! More! More!") I bet you do that too...(with your own posts, I mean)... ;-D

My guess is that almost everyone here does that, specially on the political threads.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 03:02 PM

LH--

All you have to do is change your own rather stentorian declarations- from- Olympus style and you would get the desired result. Perhaps, being the author, you haven't noticed. Try reading a few of your own postings. And, you might note, I'm not the only one to have observed this. Remember what Ebbie said earlier. And as I said then, it was what you needed to hear--but I knew it wouldn 't change anything..

I have a lot of respect for your historical knowledge--not so much for your view of the world economy.

Anybody who sets himself up as an authority need not be surprised when others may not agree--and the other posters may show it. And I've read a lot of your views on many topics.

I gather you don't particularly like my debate style. Fair enough. But you should understand my main goal may not be to please you all the time. As you've noted yourself--you can't always get what you waaaant.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 02:45 PM

Ron, good will is an important component in any conversation. If you were to post with a bit less of a snide and condescending tone dripping from your comments, it would help.

I do not "admit" that we are not powerless, I assert it. My belief that the Republican and Democratic parties are both pretty useless to vote for does not change that one iota.

One of the standard techniques used by people when they argue in an unfair fashion is the setting up of straw men on the following basis: they act as if the person they're arguing with is speaking in absolutes. You've been assuming that about me ever since this conversation began. It is not the case.

I respect your right to be the way you are, and I say that that's okay. You do not seem much inclined to accord me the same courtesy. Your style of talking in a debate is nasty, Ron. It sounds superficially rather polite while it fairly drips with sarcasm and comtemptuous dismissal. You wouldn't like it if you got that coming back the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:48 PM

LH--

Glad to hear you now admit we are not powerless. It's the first time I recall you doing so. Please remember that when talking of "immense financial forces". I'll be monitoring.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:46 PM

I am not speaking in absolutes, Ron. I am neither saying we are categorically "powerless" (as you seem to want me to) nor am I saying the reverse of that. I am saying that life involves compromise. There are some things we can change by individual action, some things we can change by group action, and some things we cannot change.

I think there was something in Desiderata about that... ;-)

Like I said, do whatever it is you want to do in life, and I'll do the same. I wouldn't call you "wrong" for being different than me, I'd just call you different, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:45 PM

Actually, LH, you are completely correct... We aren't collectively powerless... Jus' mis-informed...

This is why Tom Jefferson warned that in order for democracy to work am infomed electorate would be needed...

The avergae Joe on the street only can regurgitate what he has been fed and most of what we/he are being fed by the media is propaganda... And that's where average Joe gets his information/dis-information...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:38 PM

LH--

Sorry, you're still off-base. We are not powerless even as individuals precisely since we can band together. Environmental groups are doing precisely that--and the WSJ editorials are forever inveighing against the terrible power of "Big Green". (If you can believe that)

Also what do you suppose the origin of unions was?--and proof that they are still needed.

To say we are powerless--in any capacity-- is an absurd self-defeating attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:29 PM

"Well, yeah... Okay... To some degree we have lost our sense of humor..."


          Not entirely, Bobert, I still laugh at George W. Bush every time I see him.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:22 PM

Good point, Ron...

It does seem that the current crop of Repubs are in lockstep with Bush on Iraq... This is going to have to change at some point with whomever gets the nod... And then the Dems will pounce on the guy as a "flip flopper"...

Somethings never change...

As fir the left not having a sense of humor???

Well, yeah... Okay... To some degree we have lost our sense of humor... Something about seein' our leaders gunned down by people with no apparent motives will kinda takes the "haha" outta ya'...

But, inspite of brutal assasinations which has crippled our movement, I would argue that the left cannot be thrown into a heap of collective generalizations... During the mad-dask-to-Iraqmire I attended most of the major anti-war demonstrations in Washington, D.C. and found the 20 somethin' kids to not only posess a great amount of creativity but also well developed senses of humor...

Jus' MO...

Bobert

p.s... I think the Iraq war has also taken the "haha" outta us...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:00 AM

I fully agree, Ron, that they are not monolithic. Hardly. They are out to cut each other's throats in a great variety of ways. It's the irresistible force of their general money-driven agenda that worries me...and its overpowering influence on the political institutions in our societies.

"Re: Calvinism: this relates to your mantra of the "immense financial forces" having all the power--we therefore predestined to powerlessness and exploitation. This seems to be what you strongly believe. I disagree."

Well....it depends how you look at it. On the one hand, any one individual is subject to immense systems all around him in a modern society, and he is essentially powerless in the face of them, to all intents and purposes, because he is one and they are many. Yet on the other hand, we all find ways of living our lives in such a way that we manage not to arouse those systems against us...hopefully, and still get to do some stuff we want to do. So we are both empowered (individually) and powerless (in another sense).

For instance, I can't build a fire on my own back property in order to dispose of deadwood, because there is presently a total ban on burning outdoors in my jurisdiction. This, despite the fact that I am quite capable of safely doing so, without causing a disaster to occur. The reason for the ban is that some people are not very careful how or where they build a fire, and they do end up causing a disaster. So the local government has decided to play it safe and ban ALL people from doing it.

This pisses me off. I am powerless in the face of their ban, and I don't like that. But I accept it, because I am not interested in either being fined or leading a Quixotic (and doomed) crusade to oppose their ban.

I will find other solutions for cleaning up the brush and deadwood on my property. They will be more time-consuming and difficult solutions, but I will find them.

So I don't have as much freedom on my own property as I would like, but I still have a lot.

Life is always a compromise between what you would like to do...and what the systems around you will let you do.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:32 PM

Guest--

Get a handle---maybe then you'll be worth my time. (But it doesn't look likely).



LH--

My point is that the 'immense financial forces" are neither monolithic nor omnipotent. As long as you concede this, we're in the same book, if not on the same page.

By the way, as a registered Republican, I'm not likely to do much campaigning for the Democratic party. But sure as hell not for Bush or like-minded Neanderthals either.

As I've mentioned, my kind of Republican is Lugar--recognizing reality in Iraq, and being pilloried by Bushites for it, or Chafee in RI-- on the environment (which after all goes back to TR in the GOP.

An endangered species now, maybe, but perhaps not forever.

Re: Calvinism: this relates to your mantra of the "immense financial forces" having all the power--we therefore predestined to powerlessness and exploitation. This seems to be what you strongly believe. I disagree.



pdq--

Ah, pdq, the old faithful.

"Clinton could have stopped these mergers anytime he wanted". As usual, your ignorance shines through, "just like a ray of sun", as the song goes. The best things in life don't change.

Sure hope your musical expertise is superior to your political savvy. I trust that it is--or I'm afraid no one would want to hear you.

You're of course going to tell us that there's a cause-effect relationship between Clinton's elections and the oil patch mergers. Evidence please.

And by the way, somehow you left out what happened in 1994. And a person named Monica a bit later. Wonder why you didn't mention that.

You might want to learn about a concept called "political capital".   I'm sure any 8th-grade civics textbook-- (or whatever they call civics these days)-- can help you out.

Actually you might want to start a little earlier, with a source which explains to you the difference between an absolute monarchy and a representative democracy. You seem to have a hard time telling the difference. I assure you there is a difference.

Please do just a bit of research next time. It really won't hurt you. Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:14 PM

Yes, pdq, I do understand. I am making an honest effort to understand you, at any rate. I see no point in being perpetually hostile to another person just because I have disagreed with them frequently in the past on certain political matters. I hope you don't either.

As for facts, well, everbody is absolutely besotted with looking up and quoting various facts, as long as those facts appear to support their normal opinions. If not...then the facts can be reinterpreted in some fashion that seems more favorable. ;-) Or they can be discounted as being not particularly relevant or important facts to the matter at hand. Or they can be diluted in their impact by a deluge of other facts. (grin) You know how it works...right?

Anyone with a career in politics knows how to turn facts to his advantage, while poo-pooing or ignoring other facts. It's standard procedure. Carefully chosen facts have been used to aid and promote every cause in history.

And, yeah...both sides suck. Unquestionably.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:13 PM

The significance of the "imbalance" of the views in Mudcat doesn't lie in the labels. It's true that I, for one, support more Democrat candidates and causes than I do Republican candidates and causes but I am not a registered Democrat nor have ever been. Early in my kneejerk youth I thought I was a Republican but for years I have been unflinchingly Non-Partisan. I have almost given up hope that I will ever find another Republican to vote for but I still study the positions and record of the person, not the party. Or the gender. Or the color.

So don't blame it on the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 09:54 PM

Actually, there are a few pat answers out there that are simply maddening to rational thinking people.

                One of them is: conspiracy theory. Everytime one points out the obvious to somebody who has ingested the Kool-Aid, that Kool-Aid drinker comes back with, "That's just a conspiracy theory."

                Another one is: racist. If one is to point out that a constantly growing human population is a threat to the survival of the planet, and that human migration is part of the problem, the Kool-Aid drinker comes back with, "You're just a racist."

                There are a million of them.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 04:12 PM

Actually, Birdfeathers, that is not exactly what I meant. I was saying that what I do is give evidence supporting your opinion that both sides suck. That is where the "half my argument" part fits in.

What I am usually doing is giving facts and evidence meant to debunk a particular piece if bullshit. The fact that doing so always sounds aimed at one side comes from the fact that that side is the one invariably giving out with the bullshit. I simply deal in facts with a clear line between them and opinion. It is more likely that I will post something where the line is blurred between humor and fact, not between fact-debunking and opinion.

I'm sure you understand.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 03:46 PM

Yes, pdq, you are right about that. I have noticed it. The Democrats are normally over-represented around here.

I do appreciate your making sure the other side is heard too, so by all means, keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:15 PM

"his partisan nature is serving to support at least half of my argument"

If you have not noticed, the other half is over represented. I do my best to preserveve a semblance of balance.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 01:55 PM

Yes, Ron, they (the immense financial forces) do indeed compete with one another...ruthlessly and without pity....just as do thieves in a gang of thieves. You think there isn't competition within the Mafia? ;-)

In the same fashion, the Republicans and Democrats compete with each other ruthlessly and without pity. That's how the game is set up, and they all play essentially for one purpose, to win the game. Those who win receive the greater rewards. Those who lose receive lesser rewards and watch for their next chance to cut down the ones who are presently on top.

As such, they act in a fashion detrimental to the general public good, and detrimental to the world at large, and that is why I find it objectionable.

Interestingly enough, pdq keeps helping to find evidence to support my proposition...as long as it is evidence that is condemnatory of the Democrats! LOL! Well, his partisan nature is serving to support at least half of my argument.

Look, Ron, do I think I am empowered to alter the way this entire friggin' society works, shackled to the power of the mighty dollar? Hell, no. But I'll tell you what I am empowered to do...I am empowered to live my own life in exactly the fashion I choose, to do what I enjoy and find meaningful, and that's what I'm doing. I would recommend to others that this is their direct route to personal freedom and self-realization in what will always be an imperfect world.

If your choice is to campaign in some way on behalf of the Democratic Party, because you believe in it...then I say, "Great! Go for it, and I hope you have a jolly good time doing what you believe in, because that is what you're obviously here to do."

I do not expect everyone to be the same or to have the same dreams and interests, Ron, and I think it would be a poor world if we did.

(I do not get your references to Calvinism at all. It appears to be philosophically opposed to just about everything I believe in.)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 01:02 PM

"Whether you want to admit it or not, competition between the "immense financial forces" exists."


                I take from this statement that you are not now, nor have you ever been in business for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:46 AM

"...give just one instance in the last 30 years in which your 'immense financial forces' have been happier with Democrats than Republicans."

At the the begining of the Clinton abomination, we (the US) had 9 (nine) major oil companies and they were involved in healthy competition. Their products were (usually) available at a resonable price.

After Clinton received piles of campaign money from these companies, merger mania began. The result was (4) four (I believe that is correct) major oil companies in the US, with Atlantic Richfield being bought and operated by British Petromeum. BP also owns much of our Alaska reserves.

Clinton could have stopped these mergers anytime he wanted, by direct action of perhaps just by publically objecting to them

Big Business now knows the they can pay-off Democrats, often very cheaply. Those pesky Republican are more likely to stand on principle and block such mergers.

So, when you hear about Exon-Mobile and other abusive giants, think "Worthless Willie" Clinton, they are his handiwork.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:03 AM

LH--

1) Please give just one instance in the last 30 years in which your "immense financial forces" have been happier with Democrats than Republicans.

2) Your mantra of "immense financial forces" needs a bit of work. You say it as if the "immense financial forces" were a monolithic omnipotent being. They are none of the above. GE owns NBC. Do you think they're fine with it if ABC, owned by Disney, beats them in the ratings consistently? NBC (and the others) already feel under pressure from other claims on viewers' time--including i-Pods and MySpace. Is there no competition between Macroslop (my affectionate? term, don't you know) and Apple? And so on.

Whether you want to admit it or not, competition between the "immense financial forces" exists. Also, the Bush maladministration is doing its best to aid the big boys and gut antitrust, but they have not been having much luck lately. And in Europe, even Macroslop has been heavily fined--and may have to change the way it does business--since Europe takes antitrust seriously. In China, Walmart now has to deal with a union--not a standard Western-style union, but one which can and does influence working conditions.

So. as I say, the "immense financial forces" are neither monolithic nor omnipotent. As a result, it's absurd to say they "drive the agenda forward"--as if nothing can stop them. Certain companies would like to " drive the agenda"--but they have competition in their own industries, and have powerful forces opposing them.

I note with interest that you have not found time to address any of the several issues I have observed are frustrating the bible of your "immense financial forces"--and, you can bet, frustrating your "forces" themselves.

Your talk of "immense financial forces" "driving the agenda" --strongly implying that nobody else has any power---sounds perilously close, as I mentioned before, to your own form of predestination--your own Calvinism.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 02:38 PM

Oh, now. That is clever.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,ib0
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 01:59 PM

arnold sweatshisnickers

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 08:46 AM

"It's interesting that you mention brainwashing--Mr. Tancredo seems to have done a creditable job on you."


                  He's got a ways to go, though, I still believ in evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 12:13 AM

Shit!!! I meant "Ron", not "Don" fer chrissake!

I don't know why, Ron, but I get you and Don Firth mixed up all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 12:11 AM

I think they're normally happy with either party, Don, because they control both of them. I also think they are normally happiER with one of those parties than the other...at any given juncture...for a great variety of reasons. Sometimes its the Dems, sometimes it's the Reps..depends on the mood of the country. When one party becomes unviable with the public, as usually happens after a term or so of misrule and scandal, then the other one is ready to step forward into the breach like a noble knight errant, and everyone cheers...yippee! One could write about it all night and never finish. The point is, they use those 2 parties to bounce the public back and forth between choosing the "lenient cop"/protective Mother figure (Democrats) and the "tough cop"/stern Father figure (Republicans) and keep them thinking (or at least hoping) they have a real voice in Washington every time the curtains on the White House get changed.

The "tough cop/Father figure" is normally a little easier to market in the USA, due to John Wayne/Clint Eastwood prevalent psychology stereotypes that have been imprinted on the consciousness of Americans ever since who knows when? But there are times when "Dad" fucks up so totally that he loses all credibility for awhile! Then "Mom" is ready to run the White House for a bit...but it's all the same family plan. Mom just has a slightly different style from Dad, and frankly, I prefer Mom's style in this case if I really must choose between them. That's why I would vote Democratic, but I don't call it much of a choice.

That's how the Wizard keeps Oz in line, and no one ever looks at the little man behind the screen.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Aug 07 - 11:09 PM

Rig--

As you know, I have already noted that Murdoch's takeover of the WSJ is in my opinion a disaster of the first order for anybody who wants objective news--or at least honest news, the honest opinion of the reporter. However my attitude towards the WSJ editorial page should be already obvious to you, since we've discussed it before in another thread. If the editorial stance starts infecting the news coverage, I will simply look elsewhere for news--the Economist is a good source, for instance. It's interesting that you mention brainwashing--Mr. Tancredo seems to have done a creditable job on you.

Also, you have precisely zero evidence that Dean would have done better than Kerry. He may well have done considerably worse. It took some doing to caricature a war hero as a surrender monkey--with Dean it would have been no problem. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Not that that will keep you from your "what if's". After all, it's so much fun--though a classic waste of time.