|
25 Apr 10 - 10:49 AM (#2893984) Subject: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Since the other thread has been closed, but Sarah is still (unfortunately) with us, a bit of clarification. I only have two points to make. Both should be unassailable. 1) Sarah is a real danger, not just a target for Mudcatters' bons mots. 2) Only tangentially related, but since "socialism" is one of Sarah's scare words, we should all be clear, that for instance Sweden is not a 'socialist" country. It has elements of both socialism and capitalism. And in large part it is capitalism, much despised on Mudcat, which makes the socialist aspects of Sweden financially possible. |
|
25 Apr 10 - 10:58 AM (#2893991) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos Ron: Ahem. A good many of us make our livings in the capitalist system, so I think you should frame your accusations more precisely. Capitalism is disliked by some here, I suppose, but I think it is a great system for creating jobs and sharing profits. Of course, like any system it is open to extreme abuse, which is really where the rancor comes from. A |
|
25 Apr 10 - 01:43 PM (#2894053) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger Whether Sweden is a socialist country or not depends on one's definition of "socialism." If it is somewhere between laissez-faire capitalism and communism, and is moving in a communist direction, it would be socialist by most definitions. |
|
25 Apr 10 - 01:51 PM (#2894056) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos Rig, The definition of socialism is not all that watery. political theory advocating state ownership of industry an economic system based on state ownership of capital There ya go. You'll find that private enterprise is alive and well in Sweden. A |
|
25 Apr 10 - 01:57 PM (#2894060) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Yes, Amos..but for that to happen here, there are just too many people who are not about ready to abandon our Constitution....willingly. So it is, being shredded piece by piece, and being made to non-effect. This is certainly pissing more and more people off, I may add....and both the left and right tend to disregard whatever part of it, that gets in their respective agendas way!....I think an honest observation would bring you to the same conclusion.....Meanwhile,... ...Stick to music! GfS |
|
25 Apr 10 - 02:02 PM (#2894065) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger Amos - I think what you describe is communism, socialism isn't there yet. |
|
25 Apr 10 - 02:17 PM (#2894078) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie Why do I get the distinct feeling that I'd trust Amos's knowledge more than that of Rig? "so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles." "Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. It is difficult to discern the true differences between socialism and communism, as various societies have tried different types of both systems in myriad forms, and many ideologues with different agendas have defined both systems in biased terms. Some general points distinguishing the two concepts, however, can still be identified." http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-socialism-and-communism.htm |
|
25 Apr 10 - 02:57 PM (#2894097) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Q (Frank Staplin) A new thread supposed to be about dear Sarah, but unfortunately left open to all that socialism-capitalist-communist stuff. Forget it. |
|
25 Apr 10 - 03:20 PM (#2894108) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""So it is, being shredded piece by piece, and being made to non-effect."" Now let me see, somebody has no respect for the United States Constitution. Who could that be, I wonder? "Don't tell me about the Constitution, it's only a Godamm piece of paper......." George Walker Bush. Can you say:- "The Patriot Act" "Homeland Security" "Illegal wiretaps" "Illegal Surveillance" And to cap it off? "Lying to Congress" "Lying to the Senate" "Lying to the citizens of the USA" All to have an excuse for an illegal WAR! Now, what were you saying about Obama, and the US Constitution? Don T |
|
25 Apr 10 - 03:25 PM (#2894110) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger "Why do I get the distinct feeling that I'd trust Amos's knowledge more than that of Rig?" You need to check your pulse, and then read your own posted definitions. |
|
25 Apr 10 - 03:29 PM (#2894113) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Q (Frank Staplin) "Don't tell me about the Constitution, it's only a Goddamn piece of paper" - George Walker Bush UNTRUE Shitass poster! |
|
25 Apr 10 - 06:19 PM (#2894227) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief Easy to say. You got a website I can look at? |
|
25 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM (#2894252) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie The claimed Constitution remark has little or no credibility. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 01:47 AM (#2894397) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: The Fooles Troupe "Palin's current thread" Is she unravelling? |
|
26 Apr 10 - 03:17 AM (#2894420) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Joe Offer Now, waitaminit before you all take this thread back to Sarah. Isn't a member-owned collective a socialist enterprise? Isn't a kibbutz a socialist entity that is not state-owned? Isn't employee ownership a socialist concept? [Although I did work for a so-called "employee-owned" corporation where employees had no say-so, and I thought it was a sham]. -Joe- |
|
26 Apr 10 - 06:50 AM (#2894479) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: The Fooles Troupe Joe.... perhaps you need an Aspirin, a nice hot cup of tea, ad a good lie down? |
|
26 Apr 10 - 07:33 AM (#2894492) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: kendall Neither socialism, communism or capitalism by themselves will work. There must be a combination. We have that combination but it is weighed heavily on the side of capitalism. Some greed is necessary because it is human nature to want to "Get ahead" of the others. But, that same greed is what leads to such financial breakdowns of our system. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 07:52 AM (#2894498) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Theodore Roosevelt had this all figured out in 1900- and the majority of the Republican Party - according to Georgie Bush "The party of the Haves and Have Mores" has been fighting it ever since- |
|
26 Apr 10 - 09:03 AM (#2894535) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Uncle_DaveO Isn't employee ownership a socialist concept? No, it's a syndicalist concept. Dave Oesterreich |
|
26 Apr 10 - 10:34 AM (#2894593) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Little Hawk "I only have two points to make. Both should be unassailable." LOL! You're such a wit, Ron. ;-D Face it, man....EVERYTHING is assailable on Mudcat. Everything. Some intemperate bastard will assail it. You could state that water is made of H2O here or that chickens aren't elephants and someone would probably show up to argue with you about it. But is Palin dangerous? Well, yeah, probably. We can't be 100% sure she is...she might be what's called "a flash in the pan", but probably. And your comments about Sweden are quite apt. Every modern society combines elements of socialism and capitalism in order to function effectively. It is only in the USA that the word "socialism" is routinely used to scare people, and that appears to be because a lot of them simply don't understand what it means. It's used as a boogeyman to scare people who benefit from socialist institutions every day of their lives. I think it is an error to assume that people here "hate capitalism". It might apply to one or two people here, but certainly not most of us. I like small-scale traditional capitalism, for instance, and I also like socialism in combination with small-scale captalism....but I don't like inadequately regulated international capitalism on a mega-corporate scale, because it destroys the environment, destroys small-scale traditional capitalism, and starts wars. I am opposed to what might better be labelled "corporatism" than "capitalism". |
|
26 Apr 10 - 11:03 AM (#2894610) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Arkie The current use of Socialism is to scare people and also as a distraction from what is actually happening to the so called capitalism in the Unites States and worldwide. Right or wrong I have assumed that in our practice of capitalism the economy was based upon providing a product or service with competition as a control. Because of changes in regulations and laws, the economy is now based upon the manipulation of money and speculation and competition is a minute factor. Laws have been rewritten to provide federal protection to big companies when they guess wrong which takes personal risk out of speculation and shifts the risk to the government hence the people. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 11:47 AM (#2894630) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton It's all part of the EVOLUTION of Capitalism Arkie.....That is where I think the great Hawk is mistaken. Small scale Capitalism inevitably leads to Global Capitalism Slash and Burn!! Start again. Sarah will lead us to the Barricades! |
|
26 Apr 10 - 11:54 AM (#2894634) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Don(Wyziwyg)T """Don't tell me about the Constitution, it's only a Goddamn piece of paper" - George Walker Bush UNTRUE"" Even supposing you are right, that was only one part of the post. Shithead response from you Q! Don T. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 12:01 PM (#2894641) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I am opposed to what might better be labelled "corporatism" than "capitalism"."" Precisely LH, we've been in accord on that concept for a long time, and the more people who can be educated to recognise the difference, the sooner we'll all be fighting the same real enemy. The self employed local gardener, or plumber, is a capitalist, and I don't think there's much mileage in getting rid of him. Don T. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 02:05 PM (#2894705) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Little Hawk Righto. It's best to leave small local entrepreneurs such as the farmer, the grocer, and the guitar player (!) alone to pursue their small scale capitalism in their own unique way. It's when a group of incredibly rich financiers get together with lawyers and bankers and create unreal shell games to make even more money that capitalism goes totally berserk...and that's corporatism. I don't know if Sarah Palin understands the difference, but it's quite clear that people who are scared by the word "socialism" don't. Now, if it were possible to create a moneyless society here on Earth like that depicted on the Star Trek series....one where everyone's material needs were provided, where everyone got an excellent education, and where everyone got a decent job, and where hard work was rewared with a promotion (a more interesting job) rather than being given a bigger salary....well, that would be pure socialism with genuine social justice and equality, and I'd love to see a situation like that. But it's not going to happen. Not a chance. It's a dream that we will never see...at least not in our mortal lifetimes. There's no way the corporate ferengi presently running the show would ever allow that to happen. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 02:43 PM (#2894732) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Q (Frank Staplin) Quotation mark after quotation mark, all without meaning. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 03:06 PM (#2894745) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Ah, but IF we want a future free from slavery, we must unlearn all we have absorbed politically in the last three hundred years. Trading two thirds of our lives for the means to exist, will not be an option. "Social justice and equality" are simply words in this society. Encouraging us to fight for these these ephemeral concepts is a favourite diversionary tactic of the Capitalists....also remember the great "democracy scam" I think everyone should be getting wise to that by now. Equality never existed, never will exist on earth, any ideology which tries to persuade us that it can provide equality is knowingly lying. Nature provides life and the means to survive, it has never provided equality...our species contains, the strong, the weak, the intelligent,the stupid, the healthy, the sick, the best we can hope for, is a society which has the time and the selflessness to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. Capitalism has come to the end of the road, the people have all been exploited, the resources depleted, the planet poisoned. The primitive societies which lasted for thousands of years all absorbed or wiped out in the search for a "better life" The real problem is, that because of our greed and selfishness people everywhere expect an un sustainable standard of living, and because of the Capitalist system are foolishly convinced that such a lifestyle is both attainable and sustainable. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 03:07 PM (#2894747) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Q....lighten up....its only Don! |
|
26 Apr 10 - 05:37 PM (#2894834) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Palin is in no way a "danger" - she's a not-too-bright demagogue with delusions of grandeur. The danger is in the form of the mindless idiots who believe the lies, fairy-tales and misinformation she puts out, and may act on it. |
|
28 Apr 10 - 09:48 AM (#2895907) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies "Palin is in no way a 'danger'. " Right. Just like other masterful demagogues have not been threats. Yet again: it depends almost entirely on the economy. If US voters in general do not feel their personal economic position has improved from their current position--with about 9.7% unemployment--by the 2012 election, or even before---- she stands a good chance of winning that election. Especially since even when the unemployed are re-hired, the jobs lost are well-paying manufacturing jobs; the new jobs are poorer-paying service jobs. Unemployment statistics will not in themselves tell the whole story. There are also plenty of non-liberal women who feel it is time for a woman president. She already is in the strongest position of any potential Republican candidate for that party's nomination--as I have explained in detail elsewhere. If anybody does not agree, please give us the name of a stronger candidate--especially for the Iowa caucus and others where conservatives are likely to dominate. Clue: don't try Romney: as I pointed out in another thread, he will have the joy of trying desperately to differentiate "Romneycare" in Massachusetts from the "Obamacare" loathed by the Right. I wish Sarah were not in so strong a position--and I hope my predictions do not pan out. But so far all the opposing arguments boil down to wishful thinking--which has won remarkably few elections. |
|
28 Apr 10 - 09:49 AM (#2895908) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies "the new jobs are often poorer-paying service jobs." |
|
28 Apr 10 - 11:47 AM (#2896009) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. "Palin is in no way a 'danger'. " Right. Just like other masterful demagogues have not been threats. Read the second sentance, Simple Seeker. |
|
28 Apr 10 - 03:15 PM (#2896142) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies It takes two to tango. In this case a demagogue and his or her listeners. My argument stands and has not been addressed. By the way, it sure would be nice if somebody actually came up with a name more likely to get the Republican nomination than Sarah. If it's not too much trouble. So far none of my facts have been challenged and no other name than Sarah has been provided. |
|
28 Apr 10 - 06:16 PM (#2896249) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Quotation mark after quotation mark, all without meaning."" So for your benefit, I will explain. The quotation marks show where I am quoting your inanities. The bits not in quotes are my responses to them. If you are unable to extract the meanings, I could reduce them to words of two syllables or less, but I'm afraid I can't be arsed. The people here whose opinions I give a damn about seem to be able to understand me well enough. Don T. |
|
29 Apr 10 - 07:54 AM (#2896582) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: kendall Sigh |
|
29 Apr 10 - 03:52 PM (#2896823) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: John P The whole socialism scare, based on the health care overhaul, is really, really stupid. Saying that any enterprise we work on and fund collectively is by definition a socialist enterprise means that the police, the US Army, Congress, and the Republican Party (including Sarah Palin) are socialist. |
|
29 Apr 10 - 09:27 PM (#2897012) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies You're right, John, it is stupid. Unfortunately, there are an amazing number of people who respond to simplistic statements, scare words--and propaganda. The worst part is that a lot of them vote. And Sarah is a demagogue par excellence. That is why she is in fact a grave danger. Anybody who doesn't see this has evidently learned nothing from recent experience (e.g. Reagan and GWB). Separate statement entirely, not aimed at you whatsoever, John, since I think you realize the seriousness of the Palin threat.: I am always willing to admit error. If any poster can come up with a plausible candidate other than Sarah for the Republican 2012 nomination I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear. Of course the poster should have a cogent argument as to why his candidate will defeat Sarah in the primaries.. There is of course a chance that Sarah will choose not to run. But so far all the signs point in the opposite direction. So far to oppose all the indications she will run--and likely get the Republican nomination-- all we have is a classic ex cathedra statement, typically completely unsupported, that she is "in no way a danger". I'm sorry to have to say that, in politics, wishing does not make it so. Any poster who feels Sarah is not a danger is cordially invited to pull his head out of the sand. Doing so earlier rather than later would be advisable. If she does run and gets the Republican nomination for the 2012 election, that election will , as I've said before, turn largely on the economy. If the economy has not substantially recovered from the current 9.7% unemployment--and more importantly if voters don't see their personal position as better than it is now-- Sarah stands a good chance of being elected president. Unfortunately. |
|
29 Apr 10 - 09:29 PM (#2897014) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies "...2012 nomination, I'm sure..." |
|
29 Apr 10 - 10:53 PM (#2897035) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: kendall According to the Mayan calendar it is all over for the human race in 2012 anyway. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 12:18 AM (#2897072) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief Better that than Sarah Palin as president. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 06:49 PM (#2897614) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Stringsinger I see no problem with a partial socialism. I see no problem with a partial capitalism either. The U.S. has been a leading example of both of these before. Palin is a personality that appeals to jingoism and simplistic statements. As a result, this must be taken seriously. It really doesn't matter what she does or doesn't know. She is an extremist mouthpiece and a conduit for reactionary rage. She is Joe McCarthy in a dress. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 06:52 PM (#2897615) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""If any poster can come up with a plausible candidate other than Sarah for the Republican 2012 nomination I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear."" That is really scary. No more plausible candidate, and no less plausible candidate either. God help the USA. Don T. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 07:22 PM (#2897635) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger What goD? |
|
30 Apr 10 - 07:27 PM (#2897639) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief Ron Paul? I'm seeing his name in more and more places now. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 09:53 PM (#2897735) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Ron Paul is considered by many Republicans to be a loose cannon--and no Republican. Consider how he was lauded in the 2008 campaign here on Mudcat. That in itself should give you his chances to be Republican nominee. There is in fact a split between Libertarians and Republicans. Some overlap--but some stark differences. Consider also the two likely top issues in the Iowa caucus: abortion and gun rights. Do you think Ron Paul can best Sarah in both of these? Then there's the charisma factor: I'm sorry to say I'd have to put my money on Sarah. Look, there are even already women saying: "I have Sarah Palin values"---revolting as that might seem, it's a fact. How many voters would say something similar about Ron Paul? Check out reviews of her book, and check her website. People need to get off Mudcat and realize we are not the world. You need to know what the opposition is thinking--or at least regurgitating. These are true believers she has. And now she has money too. It is, bluntly, scary. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 09:59 PM (#2897742) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies One more thing. At one point it seemed she might be rejected by Tea Party firebrands who recoil at her support of Republicans. I checked her Boston tea party coverage carefully, but could not find evidence the Tea Partiers are turning away from her for this reason. In large part the Republican primaries may be dominated by Tea Partiers. Obviously that's speculation. But those are her people. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 10:34 PM (#2897765) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies One ray of hope in all this gloom. Obama has latched onto a winner in the current campaign against Wall St. That's the way to ride the same populist wave Sarah is riding. To the degree Obama successfully paints Republicans as in the thrall of Wall St, he will be able to limit Democratic losses in the fall--which he has to do to be able to get anything done in the next 2 years. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 11:21 PM (#2897788) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: CarolC Throughout its history, the United States has always had a blend of socialism and capitalism. That didn't start with Obama by any stretch of the imagination. These days we have a new kind of capitalist/socialist mix in which private corporations privatize profits and socialize risk. That didn't start with Obama, either. It started with Reagan. |
|
01 May 10 - 08:01 PM (#2898303) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger Carol - I certainly agree with out on that one. Whoever was running Ronald Reagan is at the root of most of the problems the US is experiencing today. |
|
02 May 10 - 06:00 AM (#2898464) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: kendall Well said, Carol. |
|
02 May 10 - 07:12 AM (#2898478) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: The Fooles Troupe "Whoever was running Ronald Reagan is at the root of most of the problems the US is experiencing today" Easy to say in hindsight. But those who had foresight were ridiculed, discredited, and so on. |
|
02 May 10 - 09:11 AM (#2898503) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger We sure were! |
|
02 May 10 - 04:43 PM (#2898724) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: 3refs "Whoever was running Ronald Reagan is at the root of most of the problems the US is experiencing today" Frank Sinatra? |
|
02 May 10 - 06:05 PM (#2898758) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger The Military-Industrial-Complex made a lot of money on that insane peacetime military buildup. You don't suppose... Naw! |
|
02 May 10 - 07:40 PM (#2898827) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies I'd appreciate some examples of socialist aspects of the US before FDR, particularly in the 19th century--aside from some failed utopian communities. On the face of it this appears to be a misleading statement. More support is needed. It also strikes me how Mudcatters struggle mightily to draw a distinction between small-scale operations e.g. the corner store and dread "world capitalism". I'm sorry, it is not just the corner store which finances Sweden's socialism, for instance, but largely their own multinationals, paid-up members in the infernal club of world capitalists---Ericsson and the like-- who have the large payrolls and pay in great part for the socialist aspects. I believe that much-maligned Wikipedia lists about 30 large firms in Sweden--all of which are heavily taxed, as are their employees--to pay for state programs. |
|
03 May 10 - 07:43 AM (#2899069) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. I'd appreciate some examples of socialist aspects of the US before FDR, There's plenty of examples,Ron, but to what end? You'll simply denigrate the examples & refuse to accept any proofs but your own. Pounding salt down a rat-hole would be more worthwhile. |
|
03 May 10 - 11:47 AM (#2899175) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Little Hawk Any institution or organization paid for by public funds (taxation) and whose employees receive their salary from the government IS a socialist institution. All societies must have them, including the USA long before FDR. You simply cannot run any modern society or any society that uses money without various socialist institutions being put in place first. The government itself is a huge socialist institution....although that naturally doesn't stop it pandering to corporate (large capitalist) lobbying and acting as their servant. You can easily have a situation where a major socialist institution (a government, its courts and legal system, its military, etc) are effectively RUN by large capitalist interests, and that is what we have in the West nowadays. We have governmental socialism primarily serving very large capitalist interests, rather than socialism primarily serving the genuine interests of the general public. And how is all that accomplished? Very simply. Those who have the most capital (money) determine what government policy shall be...through undue monetary influence upon elected officials. Bribery, in other words. They buy out the government by buying out most of its seated members. (it's not necessary to buy out all of them...just a clear majority of them) And they manipulate public opinion by owning the few major media outlets and determining what the public gets to hear on what is laughably called "the news". (again, it's not necessary to fool or distract ALL the people at any given time...just a clear majority of them). There's always a "Tiger Woods" scandal or some other total BS like that to pull out of the hat if you want to absorb a clear majority of the American public in some handy distraction that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that really matters. Just watch the swinging pendulum..........you are growing sleepy....verrrry sleeeeeeepy....... |
|
03 May 10 - 05:33 PM (#2899362) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Uncle_DaveO Little Hawk, you started out by saying: Any institution or organization paid for by public funds (taxation) and whose employees receive their salary from the government IS a socialist institution. All societies must have them, including the USA long before FDR. You simply cannot run any modern society or any society that uses money without various socialist institutions being put in place first. The government itself is a huge socialist institution... Before I comment further, I want to say that I am in general agreement with your overall sentiments. I don't have a big argument with you here, L.H. But that word and concept "socialist" or "socialism" is of historically recent times, and is highly "loaded", positively or negatively, as the onlooker applies it, and can be thought to support or to poison a public endeavor, just by applying the vague, loaded expression. To go back hundreds--nay, thousands--of years and apply those concepts retroactively to "any society that uses money" that a government pays (or paid) for is a misapplication of a set of terms that don't belong, and serves only to further controversy. Thus any established church--now or in say Roman times and before--and any organized postal system (they were there, and paid for by their respective governments), and any organized army, going back thousands of years, or say the great library of ancient Alexandria, in societies and under governments that cannot reasonably be called "socialist" or "socialism" as the present world understands those terms, or as those terms are meant to be understood. To apply those words SO broadly fuzzes up the meaning of those words, to the point that the societal ideas behind socialism are watered down, watered down and become almost meaningless so that they no longer mean what was included in those words when the philosophical theories identified with "socialism" were developed. Yes, public services run and paid for by a government "in a modern society", to use your expression, such as the armed forces, police and fire protection, libraries, established churches, etc., are compatible with the theory of a socialist society, but you are trying to apply the concepts in an improper context. Dave Oesterreich |
|
03 May 10 - 09:57 PM (#2899506) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies "plenty of examples". Of course. Since you say so. What more evidence could anybody want? QED |
|
03 May 10 - 10:43 PM (#2899527) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Since you say so. What more evidence could anybody want? I know, Simple Seeker - that approach is only appropriate for your own exalted self. |
|
04 May 10 - 07:55 AM (#2899703) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Interesting. Still no actual examples. The suspicion arises--can't understand how that happens-- that the poster has no evidence. When I raise an issue--e.g. the danger of Palin--I provide plenty of logic and examples. And I even invite countertheories. The poster in question appears capable of none of the above. |
|
04 May 10 - 08:32 AM (#2899725) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies To return to the actual topic of the thread, since the poster seems to not be able to help himself, let me try to help. We've now had two disasters, in rather quick succession. Perhaps with first the WV mining disaster and now the oil rig disaster, the pendulum in public opinion will now start swinging back towards more muscle in federal regulation, not less. This would not be good for the "Tea Party"--or dear Sarah. |
|
09 Jun 10 - 11:43 PM (#2924359) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Not much time now to say much.. But it seems clear that the big winner last night in the Republican primaries was Sarah. I thought that when I heard who had won--and by the end of the day I'd found two articles confirming my theory. Some she supported were Tea Party types, some regular Republicans. She is building up debts she will then be able to collect when she starts her run for the 2012 nomination. And anybody who thinks she is "in no way a danger" should wake up. Soon. And she will be no pushover--especially if the economy--especially employment-- doesn't start to pick up substantially. |
|
10 Jun 10 - 05:34 AM (#2924445) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton A danger......only if you want her to be! Try some positive thought, think of the positive issues Sarah supports. Since first hearing her speak, I have been convinced that she is the type of person who would have the ability to unite folks of all political persuasions on the big issues facing Western civilisation. She is not a politician.... They deal in what is "possible" wjthin well defined parameters, but rather a populist who deals in dreams and the "impossible".....and that is what we need in the West....the strength and moral courage to change our social/economic system for ever. I say that as probably the most radical member of this forum. You are right Don, to keep pointing out that Sarah is "a danger"....but IMO, a danger only to both wings of the one party system!! |
|
10 Jun 10 - 08:14 AM (#2924510) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,Riginslinger You're right, ake. How could she be worse than Obama? |
|
10 Jun 10 - 08:57 AM (#2924535) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Drill, Baby, Drill! How's that workin' out the people along the Gulf Coast? |
|
10 Jun 10 - 09:16 AM (#2924546) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton I was talkin' about the survival of our society...not a few fuckin' gannets! |
|
10 Jun 10 - 10:23 AM (#2924593) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,Riginslinger "Drill, Baby, Drill! How's that workin' out the people along the Gulf Coast?" It seemed to be working out quite well until Obama endorsed it. |
|
10 Jun 10 - 05:41 PM (#2924972) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. That's even more inane than your usual, Rig. |
|
10 Jun 10 - 05:52 PM (#2924985) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Ake... "... but rather a populist who deals in dreams..." Wet dreams. Ooooo what a babe. "... a few fuckin' gannets!" Hehehehee. Sometimes you crack me up. |
|
10 Jun 10 - 06:29 PM (#2925024) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie It didn't crack me up, gnu. I think I felt something break inside me. |
|
10 Jun 10 - 06:34 PM (#2925031) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Ebbie... yeah, me too. What cracked me up is that it is sooo typical for Ake The Troll to say such inane crap just to raise the blood pressure of any sane human and invoke a response. |
|
10 Jun 10 - 06:53 PM (#2925045) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Stringsinger There is no pure capitalist or socialist country. These systems are ideological or abstractions in that they are hypothetical and not found in the real world in totality. |
|
11 Jun 10 - 11:37 AM (#2925453) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie That's really very funny. In a macabre kind of way. |
|
11 Jun 10 - 01:24 PM (#2925517) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief Can't say we don't deserve it. |
|
11 Jun 10 - 10:59 PM (#2925988) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,Riginslinger In the meantime, most, if not all, of Palin's picks won the primary. Personally, I think the problem is the elites in both major parties have lost control of their respective constituencies. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 01:09 AM (#2926023) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,John This isn't the first time I have said this on Mudcat so most of you are probably tired of hearing it. Sarah Palin is not running for President. Maybe, sometime, if... Right now she is getting lots of press, drawing big crowds and supporting ideas and candidates that appeal to her. This is politics and she is a big-time player. Her ideas are simple, but they aren't stupid. Some Mudcatters have the habit of getting their Palin quotes from her bitterest critics and consequently don't see the danger. She is active, focused and effective at what she is doing now. Which is building a constituency for her views. If we continue to focus on a distant and probably mythical Presidential run (her Presidential credentials are weak), we miss the damage that she is doing to progressive consensus right now. She is no joke, and nobody who takes a hard look at the extent to which she (others too, but she is the most active outside of Congress) has fought the current administration to a near standstill would treat her as one. She is very dangerous. Not in 2012. In 2010. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 09:00 AM (#2926140) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,Riginslinger Agree she's not running for president, but what makes her dangerous. Luis Gutierrez, now he's dangerous. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 11:42 AM (#2926231) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,John She's only dangerous if you don't support her flavor of politics. If you are a libertarian leaning conservative, she's doing yeoman's work in taking that message out to potential supporters and voters. My comments are mainly addressed to Mudcatters on this and other Palin threads, who are strongly committed to government intervention to prevent the exploitation of the weaker players in the American Capitalist Economy. They tend to search desperately for evidence that their opponents are fools, knaves, racists, or religious extremists. They found other commentators who told them that Palin fit that bill and have missed her actual career to legitimate, big-time political status. The notion of recognizing your opponents good points and strong personal qualities is pretty foreign to politics anywhere. In Palin's case, progressives had better get active in promoting their own views. Contempt for Palin, like contempt for Limbaugh, or contempt for Newt Gingrich only leads to isolation from the actual political thinking (and eventually voting) of America. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 12:38 PM (#2926250) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief If Limbaugh equals the "actual political thinking (and eventually voting) of America" we're f***ed. Is England accepting refugees? |
|
12 Jun 10 - 12:43 PM (#2926255) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,Riginslinger I don't know: Is England accepting refugees? Certainly the US should not be. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 01:03 PM (#2926269) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief Yes, we all know about your xenophobia. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 02:19 PM (#2926313) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. They tend to search desperately for evidence that their opponents are fools, knaves, racists, or religious extremists. Desperately searching? Not at all. The evidence ie patently obvious & easily found by anyone of even moderate intelligence and/or curiousity. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 03:54 PM (#2926364) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie Palin's activities have paid off really well in a very short time. Since she abandoned the governorship of Alaska, they estimate that she has garnered 12 million dollars. And all she had to do was make outrageous accusations and insinuations. She and Ann Coulter are soulmates, although I suspect neither could stand the other. Isn't America great, or what. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 05:04 PM (#2926391) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu $12M. Golly gosh. And not two clues to rub together. Apple pie in the sky. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 06:16 PM (#2926424) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie You betcha. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 07:02 PM (#2926447) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,John Whew!! I'm glad Greg and Ebbe and Gnu and all you folks have reassured me. For a minute I thought I might have to get off my butt and talk to people about the ideas I think should guide our country. I can see I don't need to now. 'Cuz all the other guys are really dumb and nobody listens to them. What a relief! Palin sure is funny now that I see it your way. All those people who drive hundreds of miles to see her are just weirdos. They go to churches and love babies, for Heaven's sake. They aren't really going to elect any Senators and Congressmen who agree with their out-of-the-mainstream weirdness. I'll sleep easier now. Contempt for the opposition is definately the way to go for progressives. In fact, we should all sleep better, knowing that our foolish opponents will never get together an effective voting majority. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 07:55 PM (#2926465) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu "Contempt for the opposition"??? No. If you read that into what I said, you are more of an airhead than Palin. I said, essentially, she's stunned as me arse and implied that anyone who who would give her the time of day after all the claptrap bullshit she has spewed in the media on public record is even more stunned. You, apparently don't even measure up to that. Give yer head a shake to see if it rattles. But, as I have said many times before, she's a babe and I would like to... but not if I have to talk to her. |
|
12 Jun 10 - 09:21 PM (#2926514) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: olddude Palin has the right to run for anything she wants, she also has the right to speak however she wants, that is America. I won't support her, I don't have much use for her political views and don't think it will help the nation however, she certainly can write what she wants and run for whatever she wants ... Others are free to support her without name calling ... we got to stop doing this stuff people. It isn't right, and I raise my hand as guilt as charged also ... I have done my share but trying now to be better about it. It only leads to hard feelings ... and isn't necessary. Just say, hey this is why I don't like her, or hey this is why I do ... seems more productive to me ... but that is just me ... |
|
12 Jun 10 - 10:12 PM (#2926535) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie OK. Fifty years ago when Alaska became a state it was a big deal. The Governor and all the dignitaries gathered in the capital city of Juneau; on Independence Day, July 4th, 1959, bleachers were set up and there was a parade and there were songs and dances and speeches. And then Old Glory with its new forty-ninth star was sent up the pole. From all accounts it was a wondrous day. Time passed and the time came for the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of Alaska statehood. There were songs and speeches and the original 50-year-old flag was sent up the pole.Everybody was there. Except for the Governor, Sarah Palin. Oh, yes, she was in town (which she rarely was) just a block and a half from the festivities but she stayed home in the Governor's mansion. She did not even send an emissary. She would not commit nor non-commit as to her presence; at the last minute the Celebration Committee prevailed upon Dennis Egan, the grandson of former Governor Bill Egan, to act as the top dignitary. And that is why I don't like Sarah Palin, the person. |
|
13 Jun 10 - 03:09 AM (#2926608) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Sounds like a hangin' offense to me! I'm sure that will make our erudite guest (John) reconsider his views on Mrs Palin. :0) |
|
13 Jun 10 - 03:17 AM (#2926611) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie Ake, you may not be aware that what she did was a graceless, classless slur against the state that she claims to love so much. |
|
13 Jun 10 - 01:55 PM (#2926880) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie This strikes me as funny: ANOTHER ONE ... It's a joke that just doesn't want to die. Alaska State Rep. Les Gara was asked to join a delegation of Russian visitors for lunch last week. Someone asked one of the Russians if he'd ever been here before. "No, but I can see Alaska from my house," he replied. The Russians Know Palin |
|
14 Jun 10 - 09:10 AM (#2927469) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Calling an idiot an idiot is not name calling, but a simple statement of fact, Oldster. |
|
14 Jun 10 - 09:55 AM (#2927515) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger Like calling Obama ineffectual. |
|
14 Jun 10 - 10:07 AM (#2927521) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. It ain't over til its over, Rig- you're a bit premature. |
|
14 Jun 10 - 10:40 PM (#2927963) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies John seems to think she won't run for president in 2012. Perhaps--but all the signs point the other way. She's doing just about a perfect job of preparing to run in 2012. And he is right on two other counts 1) she is already dangerous and 2) some Mudcatters--not all but some--do seem to have contempt for their opposition. This in turn leads them to underestimate that opposition. Not a good idea--as should already be obvious from Reagan and GWB. |
|
15 Jun 10 - 12:36 AM (#2928062) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: LadyJean Somebody really ought to explain to Mrs. Palin that being famous means you have a much lower expectation of privacy. It means satirists will take pot shots at you and your family and some of those pot shots will be really ugly. It means anyone connected with you will enjoy a certain amount of notoriety. Mrs. Palin uses her children to make political points, then screams because people make jokes about them. She makes herself a media star, then howls blue murder because Joe McGinnis moved in next door to write a book about her. She should have a talk with Hilary Clinton, who has endured more than her share of the same, and was wise enough to ignore most of it. |
|
15 Jun 10 - 12:59 AM (#2928065) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief An interesting evaluation of the Tea Party whose de facto head Palin is. |
|
15 Jun 10 - 03:27 AM (#2928090) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Wouldn't it be nice if the left had a representative who actually believed what they espouse. I think that is the difference, Mrs Palin believes her phylosophy is right and in the interests of her country....and in much of that phylosophy (not all), she is right. We on the left are hypocrits to a man, we say one thing then do, or support the opposite......this situation comes about because we believe socialism will evolve......sometime, anytime, after we're dead preferably! We want to retain what we have looted from the system, yet whinge about how unequal it is.................unite, then slash ands burn! |
|
15 Jun 10 - 09:45 AM (#2928228) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Other nteresting points about the TeaBaggers is that they are are almost exclusively white with incomes between $50K & $100K a year. Hardly the downtrodden masses they would have you believe. |
|
15 Jun 10 - 11:18 AM (#2928275) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger Funny they don't make more than $100K, though. |
|
15 Jun 10 - 12:28 PM (#2928326) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. 1.Oh, but they DO, Rig- its just the vast majority in the $50-$100K range. 2. Wish I could try just squeeking by on $100K a year- must be tough going. 3. How much you make a year, Rig?...........never mind, question withdrawn. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 08:21 AM (#2928982) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,Riginslinger Probably a lot fewer people would object to paying taxes if the people in charge of the money wouldn't spend it so frivolously. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 09:30 AM (#2929027) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Yeah, you're right, Rig- roads, bridges, railroads, health care, rubbish pickup, snow plowing, drinking water, unemployment insurance, job training, parks & historic sites, workplace safety, uncontaminated food, etc. etc. etc. Who needs all THAT shit? |
|
16 Jun 10 - 09:33 AM (#2929030) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie And schools. Now that I resent. Who needs schools, for God's sake! |
|
16 Jun 10 - 10:27 AM (#2929073) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: olddude Ebbie is it true she was involved with textbook editing for Alaskan Schools? That one I would be very interested to know the truth on |
|
16 Jun 10 - 10:36 AM (#2929082) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger "Who needs all THAT shit?" Actually, I was thinking more about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that aircraft engine they are going forward with that that the Pentagon has already said they don't need, Michelle Obama's staff, all the csars Obama has on the payroll who are only there for political purposes, and things like that. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 10:50 AM (#2929095) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: olddude Rigs political appointments in return for election work goes back to George Washington, If you look back at the csars of the Bush Administration you will see the exact same thing going back to the first President ... It is an unfortunate side effect of politics. Now sometimes those appointments turn out to be very effective leaders, other times as we have seen in history, they turn out to be the Karl Rove types ... either way, it is the nature of the beast and certainly not new to Obama or any President for that matter. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 11:27 AM (#2929127) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger Certainly not, and I'm no Bush fan, still it's a waste of money except for politicians trying to get re-elected. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 01:12 PM (#2929194) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie "is it true she was involved with textbook editing for Alaskan Schools?" olddude That is not something I have heard anything about. I went looking online and found nothing like that. So far as I know, Alaska does not create its own textbooks- we still have only about 600,000 residents with about half of them clustered in Anchorage. The rest of the people are scattered around a very large region, mostly in dribs and drabs of 100 to 3000 people. Juneau is #3 in town size and we have only 30,000 residents. All this to say that we don't yet have a culture of power nor the cadres of educators it would take for credibility in education. Of course, Texas for all its size and age and population doesn't do any better than Alaska would. :_ |
|
20 Jul 10 - 08:20 PM (#2948645) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Alice Here is an article today from TIME.com about Sarah ShakesPalin: The Bard of Wasilla Sarah Palin used Twitter to laugh off accidentally coining a new word, "refudiate." She joked that since Shakespeare coined new words, why shouldn't she? Word nerds and literary buffs didn't take kindly to Palin comparing herself to Shakespeare, and turned her quip into comedic gold. Hence, the #shakespalin hashtag, where Twitter users write Shakespearean quotes, Palin-style. Check out the quippiest (did we make that word up, too?) tweets. Read more: #shakespalin on twitter.com But soft, what light from yonder window breaks? It is the East, and I can see Russia from my front porch. A plague a' both your trailers. Uneasy the head that wears a tiara Using fewer words instead of saying things the long way is the soul of wit. |
|
20 Jul 10 - 08:29 PM (#2948648) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Alice Better link, http://twitter.com/shakespalin |
|
21 Jul 10 - 05:03 PM (#2949340) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Its only proper that she should take up where George Dumbya left off with "misunderestimate", Noo-cue-lahr, etc. |
|
21 Jul 10 - 05:42 PM (#2949363) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief Well the American voter hates someone that appears to be smarter or better educated then they are. Apparently it's important that we led by someone with a less than average intelligence (which by definition is IQ of 100). That's what we got with Dubya, that's what we'll get if (GOD FORFEND) they manage to get Sarah Palin elected. And the people who really run the Rethuglickin' party (think: extra-big business) will play her like a puppet just like they did GWB and Ronny Raygun. (I don't know enough about GHWB to know if he got played the same way; he seemed to have an actual intelligence. After all he it was who realized that "trickle down" was Voodoo.) |
|
21 Jul 10 - 06:02 PM (#2949371) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos I refudiate this addle-pated vixen! A |
|
21 Jul 10 - 06:11 PM (#2949376) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Alice kaitmacmurray "Who woo'd in haste, and means to wed at leisure. That means you, Levi." #shakespalin |
|
21 Jul 10 - 06:38 PM (#2949395) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Riginslinger "Well the American voter hates someone that appears to be smarter or better educated then they are." I wonder if that's true. It always seemed to me like Bill Clinton was really, really smart. |
|
21 Jul 10 - 06:52 PM (#2949410) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu MT.... "Rethuglickin' party..." Heheheheeeeee |
|
29 Jul 10 - 11:06 PM (#2954911) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Joe Offer OK, so I have every reason to believe that this story is completely true. A 90-yr-old friend of mine, who calls herself Barbara Butterfly, has a passionate hatred for Sarah Palin. Nothing gets her adrenaline going like the mention of Sarah Palin. Well, a couple of months ago, Barbara fell and was knocked out cold. People were worried that she would never regain consciousness, and might die from the fall. Her quick-thinking daughter rushed to her side and repeated "Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin!" over and over again into her ear. Barbara woke up right away, grumbling about Sarah, and she recovered. It's a Miracle!!!! And all due to Sarah Palin, bless her. -Joe- |
|
29 Jul 10 - 11:56 PM (#2954926) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie Try that on for size: Ste.Sarah. Ste.Sarah. Wow. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 02:14 AM (#2954964) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief Ebbie, she needs [i]two[/i] miracles, and she has to be dead. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 07:12 AM (#2955062) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,Patsy Warren Well at least Sarah Palin's description of herself was almost right being like a 'pitbull with lipstick' a pitbull's butt morelike. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 09:11 AM (#2955115) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. No, its the proverbial pig with lipstick. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 10:41 AM (#2955152) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: McGrath of Harlow Mightn't the traditional advice "don't feed the trolls" be the best way to respond to the Sarah Palins of this world? |
|
30 Jul 10 - 10:44 AM (#2955155) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Bobert Come on, ya'll... Ain't nuthin' piggish about the ol' gal... Dumb??? Unenlightened??? Egotistical??? Dangerous??? Well, yeah... Not piggish... |
|
30 Jul 10 - 12:17 PM (#2955210) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: McGrath of Harlow Nothing wrong with proper pigs. They shouldn't be insulted like this. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 12:20 PM (#2955213) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Bobert That's entirely right, McGee... Leave them poor pigs alone, ya'll... |
|
30 Jul 10 - 02:47 PM (#2955300) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie SP is tweeting about Obama not visiting the US/Mexico border, says that he has time to yak on "The View" but doesn't have time for the important things. She says that she has plans to visit the border but is non-specific as to when. I'm sure she is MUCH busier than the President of the United States. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 04:29 PM (#2955358) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu I can just hear her now at the border... "Get those mexicans in a circle." As for the pig reference... she's still a silk purse to me in the babe department. (Please read all past and future disclaimers regarding the babe comment.) |
|
30 Jul 10 - 05:00 PM (#2955373) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief This demonstrates what Palin would do if elected president. Endless photo ops. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 01:14 AM (#2955545) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: LadyJean I'm hoping she's too fond of money to run for president, and the Republicans are smart enough not to let her. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 08:55 AM (#2955651) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. and the Republicans are smart enough not to let her. Some hope. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 12:55 PM (#2955764) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor >>>The self employed local gardener, or plumber, is a capitalist, and I don't think there's much mileage in getting rid of him.<<< No he is not. Keep in mind that "Capitalism vs Communism" as we now think of it were constructs of Karl Marx based on his views of the economics of his time. Capitalists were the people with the money, the Capital, the means of production. Their money made them wealth. Workers were the people who did the work. Their work made them what wealth they had. The self employed local gardener or plumber is only a capitalist in the sense owning or controlling the means of production to the extent that that he owns his own trucks, buildings and tools. If he has borrowed money to buy those things, in a practical, real world sense, from a Marxist point of view (and remember that Marx is the guy who invented the concept) the bank is it the Capitalist. The plumber is the worker. As per Joe's example of the "Employee owned company" would Marx consider that the workers controling the means of production? Would it be socialist in any way? I don't think so. I see it as people, to a minute degree, splitting the Capitalist and worker roles. In a real sense with Joe's company, I suspect that the banks and major shareholders (the full fledged Capitalists) were actually calling the shots and leveraging the employees wealth to their own ends. At least that is the way it usually seems to work in such arrangements. Sarah Palin and her ilk use the word "Socialism" for two reasons, to undermine prudent government regulation and policing of white collar crime and to equate Democrats with people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Joe has often said here that once you compare someone to Hitler you lose the argument. That idea seems to be correct for most of the Mudcat. But outside the Mudcat it works well enough for the part of the US electorate most motivated by fear and willful ignorance. In answer to Ron Davies first post, Sweden is obviously not socialist. Their model is certainly tax the wealth and spend it on what they see as societal good. This is obviously not the state or the people owning or even directly controlling the capital. It is the state exacting a toll on the capitalists for the privilege of operating within the framework and protection of the country's infrastructure and laws. In Europe such philosophy is represented in its extreme (higher desire to tax and spend) by parties calling themselves "Social Democrats" or similar but it is also bought into by European parties calling themselves "conservative." There is nothing socialist about expecting those who benefit the most from society to pay the greatest share. It is common sense to me. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 01:08 PM (#2955774) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos The counter-argument is that those who benefit most from society do so because they take the risks, and produce the greatest benefits when they succeed. This argument has some merit, but is badly flawed when taken to extremes. Very successful companies often do little good or actual harm to the world and its denizens despite being commercially profitable. R.J. Reynolds comes to mind. The problem of taking multi-vector conditions, such as our complex matrix of economic factors, and imposing a single scale of value on it, such as capitalism<==>socialism<==>fascism, is that it makes the participants in the discussion stupid and simple-minded, and disables them from ever achieving much insight into the real dynamics of the situation. Sara supports this sort of simple-mindedness under the banner of "common sense" but in doing so she adds only heat, with no light, to the larger dialogue about how to best achieve wide-spread high-grade survival on multiple vectors. A |
|
31 Jul 10 - 01:19 PM (#2955780) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor Amos, That is one of the counter arguments that is made. But it is in no way logical. A perfect example of Palinist Capitalism is Somalia. Government has been drowned in a bathtub and the Capital, the money to raise a private army is the only law. But is the worst place to generate new wealth. There is no significant without good government. It is beneficial to all capital to support government. Unfortunately it is most beneficial to any individual capitalist to have someone else pay. That is the core function of lobbyists and special interests. To try to get someone else to pay. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 01:21 PM (#2955782) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu THAT'S what we need. A superheor to save the world... Vectorman. Ahhhh... Vectorperson. Sorry. On more than one level. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 01:27 PM (#2955786) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor There is no significant WEALTH without good government |
|
31 Jul 10 - 01:36 PM (#2955791) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor The basis economic system is actual quite a bit simpler than Marx or even Sarah Palin would have us believe. If you MAKE something you HAVE something to invest or consume. What current Capitalists are doing, borrowing money, accumulating wealth by moving money, and investing and spending money elsewhere is completely undermining the country. To the extent that they are getting tax breaks to do this is moral treason on the part of the Republicans. They squawk about patriotism as they dismantle the economy for their own short term gain. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 05:24 PM (#2955878) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief The counter-argument is that those who benefit most from society do so because they take the risks, and produce the greatest benefits when they succeed. One problem with this is that those who make the decisions aren't taking any risk at all -- if the company goes under, they get a "golden parachute" and are free to go sink some other company. The people who take the risk are the little people whose 401k or pension accounts are tied into the company the CEO is f***ing with at no risk to himself. So that argument is bogus. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 05:47 PM (#2955895) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu MT... surely that couldn't happen if, say, a company lost a shitload of $$$ in something like an environmental disaster??? |
|
31 Jul 10 - 05:50 PM (#2955900) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief MT... surely that couldn't happen if, say, a company lost a shitload of $$$ in something like an environmental disaster??? Tony Hayward's 'Golden Parachute' to Top $18M. Nah. |
|
26 Aug 10 - 08:59 PM (#2973663) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies So it seems it's time for another primary postmortem. And again dear Sarah has picked quite a few winning horses. Sure there are specific local reasons in each case why the Palin-picked candidate won last night--but her endorsement helped---and even if her seal of approval was not as significant as other factors, you can bet each winner (McCain, Miller, and Nicki of SC (can't remember her last name) for instance) will be grateful to her and more than willing to help her with a prospective presidential run in 2012. I've just seen a map of "The United States of Palin"--a bit overstated, to say the least, but after all the writer wanted readers. At any rate, I count about 18 states in which the Palin-supported candidate has won his or her primary--some states more than one. Every one of those is a chit Sarah can call in. And she remains the best on the Republican side at articulating--and spreading-- seething discontent with government. Which is not restricted to Republicans. There's no question she has the pole position for the Republican nomination if she chooses to run. And there is precisely zero evidence she will not. So it would seem that if there are any Mudcatters still with their heads in the sand, whistling in the dark that she is no danger--whistling through the sand must be a neat trick---they should wake up. And she will be no pushover for President Obama, who, like all sitting presidents, must run on the platform of competence, not charisma. So that leaves charisma for Sarah. Which, for non-liberals, she has an abundance, to put it mildly. #1 on the list to prove competence will be an unemployment number much lower than the current one (9.5%?). I've also seen a prediction-- by OMB yet, so not a raving reactionary-- that even by the end of 2011, the unemployment rate will only be down to 9%. Not good enough. And what's more, as I've noted earlier, the new jobs must pay as well as the lost ones. So far, the opposite appears to be true. Not a pretty picture. |
|
26 Aug 10 - 09:03 PM (#2973672) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies It's Nikki Haley. And yes, she won earlier--not last night. But she has a debt to dear Sarah she will not forget. |
|
26 Aug 10 - 11:01 PM (#2973709) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie In Alaska too it appears to be holding true, Ron. Lisa Murkowski's Senate seat was not considered to be at risk but Tea Party/Sarah Palin supported lawyer Joe Miller at this point is a couple of thousand votes ahead of Murkowski. She is Republican but they say she is too liberal. He may not win - there are thousands of absentee votes that are not yet in- but it is quite a remarkable development. |
|
26 Aug 10 - 11:03 PM (#2973711) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief And what's more, as I've noted earlier, the new jobs must pay as well as the lost ones. So far, the opposite appears to be true. How interesting that the recovery is stagnating, arguably, because the über-rich are still holding the strings on all the money and won't lend it out to circulate the way it was before the crash. With less money circulating fewer people can buy stuff, which means more businesses go under, more people are foreclosed on, and fewer new jobs are created. And what have they to gain from this? Getting Obama tossed out. All they have to do is sit on the purse strings until December 2012, then assuming a Repuglickin gets elected, open the floodgates. The Repug is then assumed to have been responsible for the massive decrease in unemployment that results some 1-2 years later. Nah. |
|
27 Aug 10 - 09:08 PM (#2974342) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies My main point is that those who smugly assume Sarah would be easy for President Obama to defeat are dead wrong---and dangerously so. Elections are all about turnout--as anybody who watched the 2008 election should know. Who had the passionate support--Obama or McCain? The President would be much better off with a colorless technocrat like Pawlenski as his opponent than with Sarah. Sure the liberals will finally come home and vote for Obama--but Sarah has a lot more passionate support than Mudcatters seem to give her credit for. The 2012 election will be a referendum on President Obama--especially on the economy under him--regardless of the fact that he has only limited control over it. That's the way it is for every sitting president. Exhibit A: Bush the elder. And Sarah is an expert at turning that into a slashing attack, with plenty of red meat for her supporters. Unfortunately. At some point--soon--it won't matter if she can " see Russia from her house." |
|
28 Aug 10 - 01:16 AM (#2974412) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,John I got to say that it seems to me that the same folks are still going down the same alleyways in this thread. Sarah Palin has a very modest, but successful, political resume. She has had only some relatively small-time jobs with relatively small-time responsibilities. She is not seen, even by her supporters much less by her opposition, as having the background to qualify for the presidency. Running for president would be a huge reach for her. She, however, is genuinely politically gifted. People on this thread who treat her as a joke must have missed the virtually complete reorganization of the Republican Party due to her constant pressure on "moderate Republicans." She has made no effort to appeal to moderates and has reveled in her role as the bete noir of progressives. Progressives who hang out with other progressives can be excused for a time for thinking that a politician that is irrelevant to them is irrelevant in national politics. For those folks, it is worthwhile reviewing what she is really doing. She is a small-government, patriotic conservative. She is personally opinionated on dozens of social issues, but her political activities are all pretty focused. She supports smaller government and tax cuts. She supports patriots who show respect and support for the military. Her current work is entirely directed toward the election of a few dozen high profile Republican state and national legislators and executives who will stick to her narrow focus. She has used her celebrity pretty effectively. Look at the comments on Mudcat. She used to be presented as a joke and a fool. Her intelligence and ideas were mocked. Completely incoherent comments about her extremism were common. Now people are starting to sound impressed or afraid and people are beginning to be a little skeptical about whether this powerful woman got where she is by being outside the mainstream. Folks, this politician is not for most Mudcatters. She stands in opposition to the directions that many of us think that the country should go. But don't let yourself believe that she isn't a serious player in our future. Her people are looking very likely to be running half of Congress and they know Sarah Palin is one of the people who put them in such a strong position. She doesn't care. She doesn't need or want our support right now. She is working hard, with extraordinary success, to remake the Republicans. She is doing this by rebuilding the nature of Republican support at the household level. Folks who want to oppose her better get active and oppose her people. She isn't running for anything, but she is easily the most powerful figure in the conservative opposition. She loves to have her critics focus on her. That keeps her visibility high and means that the critics aren't focusing on her candidates and her message. Our president is suffering serious damage in the polls. This isn't just circumstance. There are heavy-hitting speakers leading and channeling the opposition. The only one of these heavy-hitters who is doing political work within the electoral system is Sarah Palin. Finally, if there was a political advisor who could do for a candidate what Sarah Palin has done for herself, he would be a legend. She has apparently done this almost completely on her own. We ought to start considering the possibility that she may be a genuine prodigy. I'm tired of Sarah Palin jokes. She has moved way beyond that. So should we. Get serious in a hurry if you don't want to see the country headed the way she thinks it should go. |
|
28 Aug 10 - 03:44 AM (#2974441) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Excellent post John, but maybe it is we who are political idiots. We will never get the type of society we want by opposing people like Mrs Palin....the emotions she promotes are too powerful, our "life by committee" seems dull as ditchwater in comparison. Perhaps we should start to fight the long game......perhaps we should learn a few things from and about Sarah the "fool" Regardless of our political leanings there are many things to admire about Mrs Palins ideology. Politics to day is about survival, not about promoting, as Ron Davis says ...."poisonous policies". She has talent....lets start using her, not abusing her. |
|
28 Aug 10 - 10:16 AM (#2974560) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies "ueber-rich sitting on all the money". Unfortunately I'd say this is an oversimplification. There are real secular trends of employment changing the world which are resulting in jobs in rich countries migrating to lower-labor-cost countries. This trend is quickening due to the Net--which is allowing even white-collar functions--and those jobs--to be farmed out of high-labor cost countries. Those jobs are not coming back. But that is not obvious to all--and the unemployed or underemployed look for scapegoats. In large part this trend is independent of politics- but Palin and others on the Right can and will use it--and flog government as the cause, regardless of the illogic of this. Also, protectionism is no solution. Many of the jobs which are left pay worse than those lost--except for those which by their nature cannot be transferred. It's an open question how much help the "green jobs" promoted by the Obama administration can counter this trend. |
|
28 Aug 10 - 10:17 AM (#2974561) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies "how much the 'green jobs' promoted..." |
|
28 Aug 10 - 09:13 PM (#2974902) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie Ir appears that many people in Alaska think that the role that Palin prefers is that of kingmaker, that she doesn't have the patience required nor the interest in the hard work and recrimination that goes with elected office, that she is in it for the money and the 'prestige'. I would add that she also does not see the need for educating herself in the minutia of hard facts, that she is doing just fine without them. |
|
29 Aug 10 - 04:06 AM (#2974994) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Neither the people of the US, nor of the UK need the minutiae of hard facts at the present time......they need inspiration and belief in their own power. But at last we have real change!.....A serious post from Ebbs on Sarah Palin.....Vive la revolutionne! |
|
29 Aug 10 - 08:07 AM (#2975085) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Ake- If you read Ebbie's posts, you will find she has in fact made serious comments on Palin before this. Your own posts are not always models of clear thinking, by the way. Glass houses... Ebbie, for instance has never described Palin as "in no way a danger." Posters like this are the fuzzy thinkers you should be noting, in my opinion. A bit more on Palin: She is sounding more and more accomplished as a politician--and progressively more dangerous as a result. At the Beck rally yesterday, she struck a chord which will resonate all over the US: depicting herself not as a politician but a mother of a veteran--who served in a dangerous part of Iraq, it appears. And: LA Times: 27 Aug 2010: Palin has "more than 2 million Facebook followers." I don't think they're all Mudcatters criticizing her. |
|
07 Sep 10 - 06:38 PM (#2981866) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: katlaughing Anti-Palin buttons, stickers, etc.. I might even order one or two of them! |
|
07 Sep 10 - 07:12 PM (#2981893) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie I understand that a great many Tea Party followers are of retirement age. I wonder how many espouse the elimination of Social Security and would be willing to give up their checks? From the Beck Rally: "Becky Benson, 56, traveled from Orlando, Florida, because, she said, "we believe in Jesus Christ," and Jesus, she said, would not have agreed with the economic stimulus package, bank bailouts and welfare. "You cannot sit and expect someone to hand out to you," she said. "You don't spend your way out of debt." "People in the crowd echoed Mr. Beck's ideas that "progressives" were moving the United States toward socialism and that entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid must be ended. "The federal government is only to offer us protection from our enemies and help us when we need it," said Ron Sears, 65, of Corbin, Kentucky". |
|
07 Sep 10 - 07:14 PM (#2981896) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Ron Davies... If you read Ebbie's posts, you will find she has in fact made serious comments on Palin before this." Duh? Hahahahahahehehehehee. She's a babe without a brain. She is a top notch airhead. Why any troll would keep trying to wind peeps up over this silly, no mind twit is beyond me. Unless, of course, youse really do think that the US population as a whole have about the same intelligence as Palin. And that is a scarey thought. But, I still get weak in the loins when I gaze upon her female wiles. If I was able to vote, I wouldn't vote for her but I'd love to get in a polling booth with her for a couple of days. Or at least an hour. Yes... I said that. Fact is, I don't care about decorum because I truly believe that she is only good for one thing. Sexist? No. Truthful. Well, maybe two things... if she was here with me, she could apply for the moose draw and we could hunt together and she could do all the work and I would have bottled moose for years. Be even better than bendin her over. Either way, as long as she didn't talk, we'd, er, I'd get along fine. |
|
07 Sep 10 - 07:18 PM (#2981900) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: katlaughing Ebbie, that woman is only a year younger than I! What kind of idiots are they? I keep listening to my Rog who says they are just a bunch of extremists and not worth the press they are getting, let alone capable of carrying out their agenda. He comes into contact with a lot of conservatives and older members of the GOP, who remember a party they used to believe in. They will not be supporting idiots like that. |
|
07 Sep 10 - 08:34 PM (#2981961) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie I have a couple of good friends who are registered Republicans. I know scarcely any body more leftist than they are these days. :) Started with Reagan and has only gotten worse. |
|
07 Sep 10 - 08:40 PM (#2981963) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Donuel Help Sarah Palin and Glen Beck TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! don't vote. |
|
07 Sep 10 - 11:46 PM (#2982064) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief Go here and vote for your favourite Palin/Beck bumper sticker! |
|
08 Sep 10 - 12:47 AM (#2982085) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie I Voted! My favorite: Palin/Beck- It's a No-Brainer |
|
08 Sep 10 - 01:12 AM (#2982098) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief The one that made me involuntarily exhale rapidly (thank goodness I wasn't drinking anything) was "Palin/Beck 2012 -- Lipstick and Dipstick". |
|
08 Sep 10 - 10:58 AM (#2982342) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie For the ease of the flow, I'd say: Palin/Beck,Lip 'n Dip Stick |
|
08 Sep 10 - 11:18 AM (#2982356) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief Palin sure has been quiet about the Koran burning, hasn't she? For people who bitch that moderate Muslims don't denounce the terrorists, where is her denunciation of these Koran-burning dipsticks? Oh wait. "The base" are in favour of hate speech aren't they, as long as it's THEIR hate speech. As you were. |
|
08 Sep 10 - 06:29 PM (#2982706) Subject: Another Coincidink From: Ebbie from today's Juneau Empire (www.juneauempire.com): ANCHORAGE – Crowd magnets Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are teaming up again, this time on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. But unlike their free August rally at the National Mall, Saturday's event in Anchorage will come with a hefty price. Tickets range from $73.75 to a high of $225. Christopher Cox, the Anchorage promoter, says the show at the Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center originally featured only Beck, a popular conservative commentator. Cox says he later thought of adding the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. Cox says the date of the event is a coincidence and he doesn't know what Beck and Palin are planning. He originally was eyeing Sept. 4, but did not want to compete with the Alaska State Fair. |
|
08 Sep 10 - 06:35 PM (#2982714) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief Cox says the date of the event is a coincidence Yeah, Cox. Pull the other one. |
|
08 Sep 10 - 06:38 PM (#2982720) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: beardedbruce Reports are that Palin has asked the Rev to stop his plan, and stated it was a bad idea. But I have yet to hear Obama make any statement- so I guess that mousecrook would say HE is in favor of hate speech. |
|
08 Sep 10 - 06:49 PM (#2982722) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Enough with the PMs. I know I should not make sexual jokes bout my attraction to Sarah. Yes, I know it's not politically correct but... But neither is she. It's not my fault. I have been chaste for many years and the thought of even a stunned as me arse good lookin... more PMs I suppose. My apologies for not being more astute in my posts regarding the serious political nature of the subject but, damn, she is just so stunned. Involved in leading the USA? How could that even be plausible? And I do NOT believe she "appeals" to a "base" of similarly ignorant airheads. Such is a ruse worse than Garge Airhead Bush. Of course, that kinda cuts my premise off at the knees, I suppose eh? |
|
08 Sep 10 - 09:33 PM (#2982838) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief But I have yet to hear Obama make any statement- so I guess that mousecrook would say HE is in favor of hate speech. He doesn't stir up hate speech at his rallies. She does. Nuff said. |
|
09 Sep 10 - 03:48 PM (#2983387) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor the anti Palin Intelligent, creative, not stunned, but stunning. |
|
09 Sep 10 - 03:49 PM (#2983389) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor crap please disregard the above |
|
09 Sep 10 - 03:58 PM (#2983396) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: beardedbruce "He doesn't stir up hate speech at his rallies." BS! He stirs it up- you just approve of the targets. |
|
09 Sep 10 - 04:15 PM (#2983407) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: mousethief BS! He stirs it up- you just approve of the targets. Hmm. Has anybody ever shouted "kill him!" at an Obama rally? |
|
09 Sep 10 - 08:29 PM (#2983559) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Stilly River Sage Palin is making endorsements. A twit in Delaware. Why would anyone in their right mind listen to or seek an endorsement from this airhead? She's riding high in idiot-America popularity now but she's not bright enough to keep from tripping herself up in her hubris. And sooner rather than later. |
|
09 Sep 10 - 08:34 PM (#2983565) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies " ...tripping herself up.." We hope. So far, since the 2008 election, the opposite is true. |
|
09 Sep 10 - 09:09 PM (#2983588) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Fortunately, in Delaware, it's truly an uphill battle for Palin and her chosen candidate. In fact Democrats might want to root for Palin's choice---the Tea Party choice has severe problems which could be very useful for Democrats. |
|
15 Sep 10 - 12:28 AM (#2986991) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies So much for "uphill battle". Palin's choice won in Delaware. Chalk up another for her. What I've heard is that the RINO accusations hurled at Castle really hurt him. Some conservatives in Delaware evidently felt they haven't had a real conservative to vote for for 9 terms. At least O'Donnell should be easier for the Democrat in the fall--that's the plan, at any rate. But Sarah is not showing any signs of cooling off. And she's not just picking Tea Party winners--also regular Republicans. Building up big debts. Yet again: don't think as presidential candidate that she would be a pushover for President Obama in 2012. Just as now, it will be primarily about the economy. And she is unsurpassed at articulating--and spreading--discontent and anger. If, as predicted, the unemployment rate is only down to 9%, the President--any president--will have problems. It's past time to see her as the danger she is. |
|
15 Sep 10 - 02:41 PM (#2987408) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Ron..."It's past time to see her as the danger she is." A danger to the Dems, not America. Sarahs doin' everything right....broadening her power base. Come 2012, you may well be faced with a choice of change in the shape of "anti-political" Sarah or the mouldy and unappetising duo of Hill n' Bill Then we'll see how much Mudcats yearn for change :0) |
|
15 Sep 10 - 02:45 PM (#2987412) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos I'd like to klnow, Ake, if you have an impression of any policy, plan or project she would initiate, that would improve things? I haven't heard of any from her. A |
|
15 Sep 10 - 02:47 PM (#2987417) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton God, when I look at the weasels lining up to contest the Labour leadership, how I wish we had someone who truly believed what they preached, to motivate our electorate as Sarah has done in the US. |
|
15 Sep 10 - 03:05 PM (#2987434) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos YEs, yes, beliefs and preachments are all just fine in the ring, Ake. The question is do you have ANY idea what she would DO?? A |
|
15 Sep 10 - 03:34 PM (#2987450) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Amos, at this stage, Sarah does not have to present policies, just avoid what Ron calls the Dem's "poisonous policies" Sarah has guts and self belief, but she will need to be Wonderwoman to fight off the attacks of the "liberal" media......remember how you all used to laugh and mock her?.....Well I dont hear much laughing now. Policies are not important right now. Sarah needs to keep visible, broaden her power base and unite the country against the political machine......If her belief and charisma sweeps her into the presidency....(being a woman is a huge plus, pity about Hillary :0)...It will be up to the American people to formulate policy....Not the Corporate elite!! Vive le change!! |
|
15 Sep 10 - 04:05 PM (#2987473) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos Ake, Come on, dude!! If the leader of the country has no power other than to tell people what to hate, we really need to go back to the drawing board. As for toxic policies from the Obama administration, how about some specifics? A |
|
15 Sep 10 - 04:10 PM (#2987476) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: beardedbruce "If the leader of the country has no power other than to tell people what to hate, we really need to go back to the drawing board. " So you agree that Obama has to go? |
|
15 Sep 10 - 05:05 PM (#2987515) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Hahahahaaaaaa!!!! |
|
15 Sep 10 - 06:12 PM (#2987576) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Don Firth Sarah Palin is proving to be a combination of guts, drive, ambition, lack of personal integrity, and abysmal stupidity. Yes, I think she could be a danger to the country--and quite possibly to the world in general if the American people were idiotic enough to elect her President. But the way things are turning out, Sarah Palin is a bigger threat to the Republican Party (which some of the smarter Republicans are starting to realize) than she is to the Democrats. You really don't know a whole lot about politics in the U.S.A, do you, Ake? Don Firth |
|
15 Sep 10 - 06:27 PM (#2987584) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu That's what I said Don. |
|
15 Sep 10 - 06:48 PM (#2987606) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Don Firth Yeah, gnu. But for some folks you have to spell it out in very simple language and large block letters. Don Firth |
|
16 Sep 10 - 12:22 AM (#2987749) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies the Democrats' "poisonous policies" Ake-- That's a perfect example of projection. You are projecting your own views onto me. Nice try--but nowhere have I said the Democrats' policies are "poisonous" . You are the one who came up with that. Au contraire, I have, as the classic broken record, been pointing out--constantly--that Sarah is the danger to the Republic--and Mudcatters should stop assuming she would be easy pickings for Obama. I actually think Obama is by and large playing a bad hand very well--and the sniping from the Left at him helps nobody--including the Left. But the fact remains that in 2012 the main issue is very likely to be the economy. If unemployment is not below 9% the president will -- as any president would---have serious problems. And Sarah as Republican nominee for president, might well win. Because anger and discontent is what she embodies better than any other Republican---and if the economy is still in the pits, that will likely be just the ticket to the White House. |
|
16 Sep 10 - 12:25 AM (#2987752) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies " Sarah, as" |
|
16 Sep 10 - 03:07 AM (#2987781) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Hi Ron....I may be wrong, but I am almost certain that I am quoting you directly. I was very impressed by your use of language....."poisonous policies" seemed to reflect the "liberal" political agenda very well. Although I may personaly agree with most aspects of nationalised healthcare, it does seem to be particularly divisive in America today....and Mr Obama's tinkering does not look like a vote winner. The promotion of homosexuality..."Gay" marriage..."Gay" fostering etc is also politically divisive at this point in time, when folks would evidently prefer to concentrate on healing the economy At least half of the American population are still feeling the pain of the attack on American citizens by fundamentalist Islamists....these people are voters, who in general dont draw a fine line between shades of religious belief......any politician worth his salt should understand and attempt to identify with his electorate. Sarah on the other hand promotes ideas which attempt to unite the majority, not fragment it as the Dems seem to be doing. You may call that "hatred", but without political unity absolutely nothing can be accomplished.....I call it effective politics. The next election will not be fought in the pages of Mudcat. |
|
16 Sep 10 - 07:30 AM (#2987872) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies No, Ake, I did not and would not describe President Obama's policies as "poisonous". I do agree with you that divisive issues are not a good idea to emphasize. But he deserves credit for starting to deal with the US health care travesty, for instance. There are only a few areas in which you could plausibly make the argument that he stuck his oar unnecessarily---and to his own longterm harm. First there would be his first comment on Professor Gates' arrest. He should have looked at all the facts first. It appears Prof. Gates did not comply with reasonable requests to show his ID. By jumping in immediately he gave people unsure about him reason to believe the racist line that he puts his blackness above all else---which is obviously not the case. Then he might well have left the "mosque" issue to be settled among the parties. By stepping in, he raised the profile of the topic--and gave cover to those who like to insinuate--or baldly assert-- or that he is somehow "un-American". And in both cases people like Sarah benefit---which no reasonable person should want. You don't want to give a demagogue like Sarah any more ammunition. In general, however, as I said, I think he's playing a bad hand quite well. And I was wrong on criticism from the Left---it will in fact help somebody: Sarah and her ilk. Of course you are right on the idea that the 2012 election will not be decided on Mudcat. The percentages on political attitudes on Mudcat are absurdly off as a reflection of the world at large. Too many times it seems some Mudcatters appear to believe that "we are the world". Some need to read a lot more outside Mudcat--especially anybody who thinks Sarah would be an easy opponent for the President. |
|
16 Sep 10 - 07:47 AM (#2987882) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Also, on the issue of homosexuality--it's Mudcatters who are forever thrashing this out. The President has not been bringing the topic up. The only thing I'd say here is that it does seem reasonable to take a survey of attitudes among people currently in the Armed Forces--who are the ones the removal of "Don't ask, don't tell" would most directly affect. The decision should be primarily based on whether they are ready for this step or not. It would also however seem common sense that any person in the military would not be likely to flaunt homosexuality, regardless of the status of "Don't ask.." . To do so would be idiocy. |
|
16 Sep 10 - 08:25 AM (#2987897) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton gnu and Don, I would guess that I know more about American politics, than the vast majority of US voters. I do have an interest in politics! Just as you pair probably know more about politics than the majority of UK voters. I do not naturally respond to some of Sarah's ideas...they, being a bit simplistic, but I see her as a chance to really change the face of US politics, something which will never be accomplished by a system's man like Obama...or either of the parties who support that system. As i've said before, the future will be about survival, not the niceties of civil rights and unity is needed to fight for survival. As "liberals" you may hate Sarahs current views, but millions subscribe to them....you may think you represent the majority view, but I can assure you that you do not. The silent majority will only stay silent as long as they are kept fed and watered. I dont think this crisis is recoverable whilst the American people continue to wear the corporate political shackles and the only way to break free is with a leader who is capable of uniting the country. What sarah has achieved so far against the wishes of mainstream Republicanism should give a clue to her persuasive abilities. Run America Run!! |
|
16 Sep 10 - 08:35 AM (#2987903) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Thanks for those civil responces Ron....I agree with quite a lot of what you say, but we do differ on whether Sarah would in the the long term, be benificial to the USA. I will continue to look for the "poisonous policies" reference, it was not used against Mr Obama personally, but rather the cult of "liberalism" I believe. Any way, if it turns out that I made it up, I shall wear bit with pride!! :0) Best wishes Ake. |
|
16 Sep 10 - 11:02 AM (#2987982) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos Bruce: THat was an ignorant joke. Obama --if you pay any attention at all--is clearly not teaching hate. Not even in code. A |
|
16 Sep 10 - 12:18 PM (#2988033) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,John It's almost hard to believe that this thread, of all places, include an actual discussion of what the political scene is all about. Good posts by Ron and Ak. What Palin is doing is speaking for a particular portion of the populace that doesn't feel heard. Childish complaints from Mudcatters that no one wants to listen to them because they are so wrong is irrelevant. They are citizens and voters and will have their say. Palin speaks for these folks. They come to hear her, they buy her book (which I just read was the best-selling nonfiction book of 2009). They value her judgement on conservative candidates. She is straightforward. She is consistent. She keeps it simple. She is a celebrity. These are good things for a politician and she built a lot of power. Beyond her political astuteness and strong leadership of this group, she is not a particularly attractive candidate for high national office. I doubt she will run for President. Wrong skill set for her. What we should be learning here is how many people agree with her constituency. A few? A lot? A majority? The stories in the paper have been talking about "extremists" and "anger" and "racists". Bobert and Ebbe seem to buy that explanation of tea party activity. If Palin and the tea parties represent a larger group of voters, then we need to quit belittling our fellow citizens and form a more accurate picture of the current political scene. The health care plan is a good example. It might be a good idea if the population wants it. However, if we want it, and the Democratic side of Congress wants it, but the populace doesn't, then passing it was a mistake. Rightness isn't the issue. That is arrogance and tyranny and the voters will reject the Democratic side of Congress. That is what is happening. It is not evil that we have political opponents. Palin is just an able opponent doing what opponents should be doing. Our focus should not be on Palin's character. That just helps her maintain her celebrity. Our focus should be on actual persuasion, on good policy, on the welfare of a diverse republic. Up until the last few posts, I have to say that I thought Palin was closer to that standard than Mudcat. |
|
16 Sep 10 - 03:32 PM (#2988193) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Insightful,educational, and easily understandable! I've been reading your posts since your arrival John, I am very impressed. |
|
16 Sep 10 - 03:48 PM (#2988200) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos The notion that Sarah "unites" voters--aside from a small number of people who gravitate to her -- is ludicrous. She alienates thinking people, literate people, compassionate people, and intelligent people almost every time she speaks by using rhetorical gimmicks and crude categories and push-button phrases designed not to inform or bring abount understanding, but to stimulate reactions. Some people, it is true, go in for thatkind of rhetoric because it is electrifying to be told to "reload" and to think about shooting animals from a helicopter. But the rest find her divisive. A |
|
16 Sep 10 - 04:46 PM (#2988232) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Well I would suggest you start unitin' purty quick old friend, although I am politically on the left, many of my neighbours are conservatives who share Sarahs views on "abortion on demand" "promotion of homosexuality", the "Benefits culture" and "state control" of our lives. I am not arrogant enough to brand these good people as illiterate, unthinking, uncompassionate, or unintelligent. You illustrate John's point precisely Amos. |
|
16 Sep 10 - 05:30 PM (#2988258) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,John Rest easy, Amos. Palin is a fool... Just a few moose shooters at those rallies... Polls are all misleading... Elections will see the triumph of our point of view. Rest easy... Sleep... sleep..... sleep................ |
|
16 Sep 10 - 11:43 PM (#2988434) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Point is: it really doesn't even matter if "these people" are "unintelligent, illiterate" etc. or not. Debating that allegation is pointless. There are a lot of them. They are angry. And they vote. On top of that, Sarah is a demagogue par excellence. And a far more skilled politician than Mudcatters want to believe. That's the danger. |
|
16 Sep 10 - 11:53 PM (#2988438) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos Demagpgue of sorts, sure. But she still does not handle herself well in conversation. She's fine as long as she has a bully pulpit of some sort. A |
|
17 Sep 10 - 09:44 AM (#2988651) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Unfortunately there are lots of bully pulpits for any candidate for president. And huge numbers of people willing to make excuses for any lapse of tongue on her part. Can anybody doubt that a large section of the population, when they hear her, say: "she sounds just like me"? Why can't we left of center learn from the reaction of the country at large to GWB, for instance? How many terms of office did his malapropisms, misjudgments, perceived instability ("higher Father"), etc., keep him out of? And on top of this she has charisma--far more than GWB ever had. Not for us, but, as I keep saying, we should be reading more outside Mudcat--and not just our own echo chamber. She's fun--and easy--to ridicule. But when we finish doing that, we'd best start recognizing her for what she is. She is a serious danger. And if she runs, the only thing which will save the President is if the economy improves substantially--and soon. |
|
17 Sep 10 - 01:06 PM (#2988771) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: beardedbruce Amos, "Obama --if you pay any attention at all--is clearly not teaching hate" Unless you happen to be rich, a conservative, a banker, in an oil company, a Tea Party supporter, or anyone else he disagrees with. Then you are a racist, ignorant, evil SOB. Sounds like hate speech to me. |
|
17 Sep 10 - 02:08 PM (#2988826) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Amos Bruce: I think that is bullshit. He has preached against crime, against gouging the innocent, against putting major areas of the environment at risk for the sake of higher profits -- all legitimate complaints -- but his wrath is aimed at crimes, not at particular groups. Take it down a notch. A |
|
17 Sep 10 - 02:58 PM (#2988854) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: beardedbruce When Obama declares that those who oppose him, with legitiment policy differences, are somehow stupid, racist, or evil intentioned, Obama is acting in a hateful manner. |
|
17 Sep 10 - 11:08 PM (#2989059) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Bruce, that is painting with too broad a brush. If you accuse President Obama of hate speech, let's have exact quotes, with dates and sources. |
|
18 Sep 10 - 11:33 AM (#2989241) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies One other point on this question. For those who don't think Sarah will run in 2012. You may be right. In fact I hope you are. But it depends entirely on her ambition. She is inexperienced, has only been on the national scene a little while. Where have we seen this before? Try very recently--e.g. President Obama. He was admonished to wait, to get more experience, and a better track record. But he knew he had to seize the moment when it was here--since you can never assume you will ever have a better opportunity. . And he recognized that the 2008 election was his moment. I'm sure Sarah is getting counsel to wait. But she also knows you need to strike while the iron is hot. So the question becomes: does she want the job or not? And all the signs so far point to preparation for a run by her--in 2012. |
|
18 Sep 10 - 11:57 AM (#2989248) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. ... a large section of the population, when they hear [Palin], say: "she sounds just like me"... Absolutely correct! And a large section of the population - not necessarily the same section, but the probability is good- are ignorant morons. Just like her. Therein lies the problem. |
|
18 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM (#2989253) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Bingo, Greg. As I have been saying for months. And as I recall, the answer was that Sarah was "in no way a danger". Right. Just like Reagan and GWB were no threats. And no matter how you may characterize Sarah's supporters, they vote. As I've said more than once, I hope those who don't think Sarah will run--or that if she does, she has no chance--are right. But that's not a good assumption. For reasons I have set out in great detail in more than one thread. We'll probably know quite soon the answer on whether she will run. |
|
18 Sep 10 - 12:17 PM (#2989256) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Also, question for Ebbie: are there any liberals in Alaska aside from you and KT? Since it appears that the Democrats may in fact have a chance for the Senate: hot news: Lisa Murkowski will run as a write-in. That's what she says now, at any rate. That should split the Republicans up there--shouldn't it? And brighten the Democrats' chances considerably. If there are enough Democrats and liberals in Alaska. |
|
18 Sep 10 - 12:38 PM (#2989262) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie Well, the word here, Ron, is that Murkowski will probably draw some Democrats into her fold, perhaps enough to neutralize the splitting effect of having two Republicans run. I don't know. If I didn't vote Democratic, I would certainly vote for Lisa- not that I ever would have before. (Speaking of that certain Mudcatter and her skills of mimicry, Ron, during the last election Murkowski's telephone electioneering was so pervasive that once when I heard that distinctive voice say "This is Lisa Murskowski and I would appreciate your vote..." I just hung up, without a word. The phone rang again; I picked it up and that same distinctive voice said, "This is still Lisa Murkowski...") |
|
18 Sep 10 - 12:51 PM (#2989268) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies So Murkowski's run is going to split the Democrats as much or more than the Republicans? Politics is indeed a strange business. Glad I asked you, Ebbie. |
|
18 Sep 10 - 06:42 PM (#2989413) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Nowt strange... if she is being paid under the table to mess thing up. |
|
18 Sep 10 - 07:08 PM (#2989424) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie gnu, bite zee tongue. |
|
19 Sep 10 - 03:10 AM (#2989543) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton "Dem conspiracy theorists".....whatever next! |
|
19 Sep 10 - 12:33 PM (#2989747) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Ebbie-- "that certain Mudcatter"---is that by any chance KT? |
|
19 Sep 10 - 01:31 PM (#2989784) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie :) |
|
19 Sep 10 - 05:27 PM (#2989901) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies That's great. We'll have to get her back to the Getaway to hear her do Murkowski--and anybody else she wants to. And how about you--coming back anytime soon? (Who cares about dread "thread drift"?) |
|
19 Sep 10 - 06:25 PM (#2989933) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie She is a veritable repository. As for the Getaway, I've had a difficult year and there is no way I'll make it this year. Next year maybe? |
|
18 Oct 10 - 05:52 PM (#3010126) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Another view. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM (#3010134) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Even better. |
|
25 Nov 10 - 08:59 AM (#3040213) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Simple mistake but it still struck me funny... 42 minutes ago By The Associated Press WASHINGTON - Sarah Palin is drawing criticism from around the world after declaring that the United States has to stand with "our North Korean allies." Palin's gaffe, made Wednesday during an interview on Glenn Beck's syndicated radio show, was quickly corrected by her host. But it drew immediate fire from liberal bloggers, who cited it as an example of the 2008 vice-presidential candidate's lack of foreign policy expertise. Newspapers in Asia and Europe are repeating the criticism. The Times of India says Palin "did it again," while London's Daily Mail says she "may want to brush up on her geography." The conservative U.S. website The Weekly Standard came to Palin's defence, pointing out that "she correctly identified North Korea as our enemy literally eight seconds before the mixup." |
|
25 Nov 10 - 10:21 AM (#3040255) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies It's true that ridicule is the best way to defeat dear Sarah. And it always helps when she supplies the ammunition for it. But the question is how many people on the fence about her will care about this. I'll admit I enjoyed the "Downfall" parodies, uneven though they were. My favorite lines were: 1) Hitler telling all who voted for Obama to leave the room---and almost everybody leaves. 2) Hitler: "Every time she (Sarah) winked I thought it was just for me.." Which were your favorites, gnu? It's amazing what a gold-mine of humor that one "Untergang" clip has been. |
|
25 Nov 10 - 02:07 PM (#3040387) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Hard to choose a fav Ron. I suppose it was the first one I saw but I can't remember which one it was. All I remember was laughing uncontrollably, repeating it and doing the same again... tears of laughter. I needed more than one tissue. |
|
25 Nov 10 - 02:15 PM (#3040396) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Thanks for reminding me Ron. Found one I hadn't seen before. A few good chuckles |
|
26 Nov 10 - 10:55 PM (#3041211) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies You're right, Gnu, that real estate version was really excellent. I laughed all the way through. I'd write more but there's a cat on my lap. |
|
09 Dec 10 - 07:10 AM (#3049502) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies A bit of good news on the Palin front--her Discovery show has evidently had the salutary effect of alienating, of all people, some hunters. Obviously PETA was not enthralled, but neither were at least some hunters. One poster wrote on Palin's own Facebook page--posting now deleted, of course---"What a joke. I was a fan before the show. No one who is a true hunter lets others carry their rifle or can't load their own shells. Sarah, you are a phony in this area of your 'skills'." Another poster: "I would not hunt with her." In our local --conservative--rag (always taking pot shots at Obama) the columnist writes: Out to hunt caribou: "After several failed attempts (at least five) to shoot and kill the rather large caribou, and with much help from her pa and the fine editors on the show, trigger-happy Palin finally takes down Bambi's cousin, which she says 'is a great feeling of accomplishment.' " Open mouth, insert foot. |
|
09 Dec 10 - 07:48 AM (#3049520) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,Peter Laban Aaron Sorkin had something to say on the caribou issue : I am sure the moose had it coming |
|
09 Dec 10 - 09:33 AM (#3049596) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Jeez- ya mean Sarah the Mighty Hunter is all bullshit? Shock! Horror !! |
|
09 Dec 10 - 03:15 PM (#3049850) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Saw the show. I was intrigued. Well, there was nothing else on so... Even though I was shocked (SHOCKED) that her old man was reloading for her, I still fancy her. Maybe it's a "father-daughter" thing or something they do in Alaska for good luck? Or maybe she's just too stunned to reload her own gun... when she's being RECORDED FOR A TV SHOW? Even her old man didn't realize how that would look. Oh my... do you suppose it runs in the family? Now, I woulda forgiven that reloading stuff if they'da shown her shoulders deep taking out the trachea but I just don't think that happened. |
|
09 Dec 10 - 04:55 PM (#3049928) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: kendall An example of socialism before FDR? The Pilgrims. |
|
09 Dec 10 - 09:52 PM (#3050091) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies OK, let's pursue that. It appears that the Pilgrims did indeed try a bit of socialism. Gov. Bradford had quite a bit to say about this idea, which he helped put into practice. "The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried, sundry years and that amongst Godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times: that the taking away of propertie and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth would make them happy and florishing: as if they were wiser than God. For this communitie ( so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontente and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte, For the young men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, and that without any recompense." To be continued |
|
09 Dec 10 - 10:07 PM (#3050103) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies More from Gov Bradford: "The strong, or man of parts, had no more in divission of victuals and cloaths, than he that was weakeand not able to doe one quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours, and victuals, cloaths, etc. with the meaner and younger sorte thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dressing their meate, washinge their cloaths etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery; neither could many husbands well brooke it." In 1623, after 2 years of this, Gov. Bradford called a meeting to discuss how to have a more productive growing season and be better able to face the next winter. "All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they" (the Pilgrims) " begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could and obtaine a beter crope than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length after much debate of things, the Gov. (with the advise of the cheefest amongst them) gave way that they should set downe every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves." |
|
09 Dec 10 - 10:32 PM (#3050117) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies "And so assigned to every family a parcel of land. This had very good success; for it mande all hands very industrious so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Gov. or any other could use,and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledge weakness, and inabiitie: whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and opression." Source: William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647. In other words, socialism, as tried by the Pilgrims was a total disaster. It was only by rejecting it that they were able to make a go of the Plymouth colony. As Nathaniel Philbrick in the book Mayflower puts it (p 165) "The Pilgrims had stumbled on the power of capitalism." Face it, pure socialism in the US has been--always--a loser. And, like atheism, it appears to be so in the world also. Look, man is just not a socialist animal. Sometimes we're lucky if he's a social animal. You need an element of self-interest. Obviously self-interest needs to be tempered; hence so many religions' appeal to charity. And, just as obviously, hence the need for the social safety net provided by government. Limbaugh, the WSJ editorial page, etc. are just as much prisoners of tunnel vision as those who see pure socialism as the holy grail, and abhor capitalism. But for the overwhelming majority of the (short) history of European colonization of North America and especially US history, socialism has been an also-ran---and not very successful when it was attempted. Capitalism has dominated by a huge margin. Those who would allege that socialism has always been a large part of US history have yet to come up with any evidence--much less proof. |
|
01 Jul 11 - 01:10 AM (#3179525) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Sawzaw "Sarah Palin did not say "I can see Russia from my house" or "from my porch". What she said was "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." The Russian Island of Big Diomede, 2 miles away is clearly visible and the Russin Mainland, 25 miles away is also visible. At one time people on both islands were related but After World War II the people on Big Diomede were relocated [forcibly evicted and moved elsewhere] to prevent contact with Americans. The gap between the two was called the Ice Curtain during the cold war. The two islands are part of a proposed bridge or tunnel across the Bering Straight from Alaska to Russia. Never happen you say? In 2007 The Russian government said that it will back a $65 billion scheme by a consortium of Russian companies to build the longest tunnel in the world 63 miles across the Bering Straight. So before you go putting some one down for what they didn't say like the rest of the tribe, try checking out the facts first. As for Sarah, I would not vote for her. I don't think she is qualified but I don't think Hillary "I remember landing under sniper fire" Clinton is qualified either. |
|
01 Jul 11 - 03:30 AM (#3179555) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie Pedant Alert: It is not Bering STRAIGHT. Irritating, you know? |
|
01 Jul 11 - 04:59 AM (#3179584) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Sawzaw Who is Lisa Murskowski ? |
|
01 Jul 11 - 10:08 AM (#3179702) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: frogprince The problem wasn't what Palin said she could see from where; the problem was that she claimed that the relative proximity of Alaska to Russia made her qualified in international relations, and that she stuck by that assertation when challanged on it later. |
|
01 Jul 11 - 10:40 AM (#3179716) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor Palin did try to make people believe that the proximity of some remote Alaskan islands to some remote Siberian islands that's basically what Frogprince just said. But Siberia, Ain't Moscow any more than Alaska is Washington DC. The "I can see Russia" jibe is shorthand for that and for that insane statement were she implied that she was some sort of distant early warning system alertly watching for Putin's Ugly head (her words) to loom over the Horizon. |
|
01 Jul 11 - 11:51 AM (#3179753) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie Lisa Murkowski is a current US Senator from Alaska. She has since won election on her own (twice) but she was first appointed to the position by her father, outgoing US Senator, when he won election as Governor of Alaska. (and who went on to become the second least popular governor in the United States, dropping to 19% approval) |
|
08 Jul 11 - 03:42 PM (#3183906) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu The bluey ain't workin, so.... This is BY FAR NOT, NOT his best but it fits this thread... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f98TaKJomnk |
|
08 Jul 11 - 07:05 PM (#3184008) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor 22 Minutes & Palin |
|
08 Jul 11 - 10:03 PM (#3184100) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Sawzaw That is Lisa Murkowski I asked who Lisa Murskowski was. And do you agree that She never said she could see Russia from her house or porch? And what did the other VP candidates say when asked the same question? Which candidate responded to a question during a debate with "that is above my paygrade" |
|
09 Jul 11 - 12:05 AM (#3184145) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,TIA And what is the difference between a duck? Is it hotter in the summer or in the city? Damn, I gotta know these things. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 04:57 PM (#3186271) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor Lawrence O'Donnell Tears Newsweek Apart For Sarah Palin 'Love Letter' |
|
12 Jul 11 - 06:52 PM (#3186318) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Little Hawk It's great to see Michael Palin experiencing a new wave of popularity and recognition. I'll never forget his marvelously funny role in "A Fish Called Wanda", not to mention... Oh...wait... Sorry! Wrong thread. ;-) "I'll get me coat," as the British Catters would say. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 11:21 PM (#3186426) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Lawrence O'Donnell knows his MSNBC audience. But it's to be hoped some actually read the article he trashes. I have. Its main themes are the fact that her candidacy is plausible---and the top heinous sin of which he accuses the author--that she may well not do it since her current situation is so comfortable and fun for her. He has done the hatchet job on the author that he obviously feels Newsweek had an obligation to do on Sarah. But that ignores two important aspects: it would not be news and it would in fact not serve Newsweek's audience well--since it would confirm many, like many Mudcatters, in their naive attitude that she is no danger. She is in fact still a danger, due primarily to two facts: 1) the economy will determine the election and 2) she still has large numbers of passionate supporters she can marshal at the drop of a hat (and passion is what determines primaries. ) Dwelling on polls is an addiction of the "chattering class" and at this point proves nothing. What's most interesting to me is that both Newsweek and O'Donnell have missed the #1 changed factor which makes Obama hugely stronger than before May this year: the killing of Osama has given the lie permanently to the slander that Obama is a weak Commander in Chief, incapable of aggression against foes of the US. This was one of Palin's favorite themes--and it's gone now. Obama's dithering on Libya provides a pale shadow of the attack Palin--and others in the GOP--had planned. Especially since the GOP itself is split on Libya. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 12:44 AM (#3186436) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,John Haven't read this thread for a while...got tired of reading comments from folks who seemed to think they could wish away Palin's influence by calling her names and floating rumors. On the caribou thing-- You folks do realize that Palin's husband (and thus, her kids) are Native Alaskan. Hunting caribou and fishing for salmon are important traditional acts and reassertions of tribal rights. She can not omit those things from her kids experience and education if she cares about her partner and his heritage. Jewish families who value tradition celebrate Passover. Native American families have freezers full of meat and fish. Good luck on selling the "hunters don't dig Palin" narrative. If anybody is wondering why the Republicans are so intransigent on the debt ceiling-- They are scared of casting the wrong vote and seeing Sarah Palin in their district around primary season next year. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 02:05 AM (#3186449) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor I think that Palin is surfing the Tea Party wave, not controlling it. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 07:53 AM (#3186606) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies "not controlling it" --yet. But if she joins the race, they will be there for her. They're passionate--and they vote. She's been through the crucible of a national campaign--and contrary to Mudcatters' fondest dreams, McCain's loss was due above all else to the financial crisis. Sarah helped him far more than she hurt him--, by providing the passion his campaign conspicuously lacked. If Sarah jumps in, Bachmann's candidacy implodes, since she is Palin lite. And she herself will support Palin. Palin will portray herself as a reform candidate--as she was in Alaska til McCain picked her---for among other things, the traditional campaign job of the VP candidate--hatchetman to trash the opposing presidential candidate. And she was brilliant at this. But she's not the caricature Mudcatters desperately want to see. Obviously this is still just speculation. But you can't write Sarah off until she herself declines to run. It's time for Mudcatters to stop gloating about Palin. It's premature. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 08:28 AM (#3186623) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Sawzaw "Ten thousand people died - an entire town destroyed" "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." |
|
13 Jul 11 - 09:03 AM (#3186640) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor I am not gloating. I think O'Donnell realistically portrayed her chances. 24 % of the voters love Palin. 64% Believe that she is not fit to be President. That hasn't changed since 2008. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 12:59 PM (#3186808) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ebbie Google doesn't know "Lisa Murskowski ". I put your spelling down to ignorance. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 09:01 PM (#3187137) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies The "poll" is unrealistic since she hasn't even declared a candidacy. If you trust a "poll" cited by the successor of Keith Olbermann--on this topic--you are more gullible than I thought. Wishful thinking pays off remarkably seldom in politics. At this point, as I said, polls on this question are worthless. Passion is useful not just in primaries but in the general election also., Who had passion on his side in 2008? Just be patient yet a little while. We can all hope she does not run--and that's what we should hope for if we are sensible. |
|
13 Jul 11 - 09:13 PM (#3187140) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies There is certainly the possibility that it won't matter who the Republicans nominate--Obama will win anyway. Latest development in this direction is McConnell's proposal on the debt ceiling crisis--which has already has resulted in an incipient civil war in the GOP. You always want a civil war on the other side. Now if the Left can--for once--be sensible enough to come out to vote --in 2012--for a candidate who is demonstrably not perfect, Obama will have an excellent chance. (If the unemployment rate is down quite a bit below 9.2%.) |
|
13 Aug 11 - 03:46 PM (#3207403) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies So at this point the unemployment rate is definitely not well below 9.2 %. But it looks like Sarah has missed her chance for 2012 anyway. With Rick Perry in the running, she has no chance unless he self-destructs. He appeals to the same groups she does--and has a better record as governor, to say the least. With his theme--let's do in the whole US what I've done in Texas ( he will claim to havel created about 40% of all jobs in the US in the past 2 years)--she has nothing to counter him. Consider that even before he announced today, he was #2 on the Republican side. In fact unless the economy improves drastically and soon, he could easily be a dangerous opponent for the President. Of course right now Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and even Pawlenty are aiming at the same group. Which benefits Romney. But his support is shallow--the passion isn't there. And Perry is likely to get all sorts of deserters from the others' camps. It will be interesting to see if he is considered strong enough on illegal immigration to suit that group of true believers. After all, he has advocated in-state schooling for children of illegal immigrants, and called the US-Mexico wall "idiocy." That could hurt him in GOP primaries. But right now the economy is king. And Perry's story trumps that of all the other GOP figures. However, those of you idiotic enough to think Obama is a religious bigot should read a bit about "Governor Goodhair." |
|
13 Aug 11 - 04:27 PM (#3207438) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu "But she's not the caricature Mudcatters desperately want to see." Hahahahahahahaa. If she ain't a cartoon that is indeed scarey! She is a brain dead twit that has NO.... aggghhhh! I think she is a wonderful person (EXCEPT FER THE STUNNED AS ME ARSE PART) and I would slip a ring on her finger in a heartbeat if I thought I could edjumacate her over the years but SHE AIN'T PRES MATERIAL! The only way she could get elected is is the majority of the public of the USA... nevermind. |
|
14 Aug 11 - 12:41 PM (#3207932) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Just heard Bachmann on BBC, she is not exactly charismatic or inspirational.....Sarah is still the gal. Forget your puny differences.....dont you know your voting for survival of your National soul. |
|
14 Aug 11 - 12:46 PM (#3207937) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor >>>He appeals to the same groups she does--and has a better record as governor, to say the least.<<< He has cut the already thin guts out of Texas public services and had the good luck that fracking was invented and deployed nationally on his watch and the law suits will come to roost on the next governor's watch. The way he can claim responsibility is by saying that his prayers caused the good fortune. That will work on 25% of the country. |
|
14 Aug 11 - 04:53 PM (#3208109) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies "cut thin guts out" (sic). Don't you ever proofread? I gather that means you don't like his record as Texas governor. So Perry may not get your vote. Somehow, I don't think he was counting on it. I say again: he will claim that TX has created 40% or more of the jobs in the US added since the recession began. If the US economy does not pick up a lot--and soon--that will resonate. In the general election too. And most arguments against him will come across as whining. His main problem with the GOP primaries, as I said earlier, is his immigration stance. We'll see how that pans out. |
|
14 Aug 11 - 04:56 PM (#3208110) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies Sorry, your only obvious mistake is "lawsuits". Fine on "thin guts". Can't expect perfection. |
|
14 Aug 11 - 04:58 PM (#3208111) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Ron Davies And an anti-fracking campaign plays only on Mudcat and other Left-oriented sites, not in the country at large. |
|
14 Aug 11 - 05:04 PM (#3208116) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Donuel Palin at Rommney rally? |
|
14 Aug 11 - 06:51 PM (#3208181) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,999 Work with me on this. Bachmann for President and Palin for VP. Two slightly deranged individuals with delusions of adequacy and a bright future for America and the world. Your polite input will be valued. |
|
17 Aug 11 - 11:24 PM (#3208675) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST maybe 'somebody' should be the one doing the listening! yup,yup,yup. But the irony is lost. Garaunteed. |
|
17 Aug 11 - 11:41 PM (#3208267) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Two slightly deranged individuals... I take issue with "slightly". These two idiots have no grasp on reality, knowledge of hostory, or recall beyopnd last week. They're also abysmally under-educated and ignorant. And they are firm believers of fringe fundagelical "christian"[sic] mythology. A "bright future" for Amerika? Not. Anyone know what the regs are for immigration into the UK & if you can get a permanent visa for residence in Scotland? Caithness, here I come. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 01:18 AM (#3208707) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Jack the Sailor Bachman/Palin ticket Democratic strategists dream. they already know how to beat Palin. But even Bachmann isn't dumb enough to put the pitbull hockey mom on the ticket. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 08:15 AM (#3208814) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Oh, I think Bachmann herself is plenty dumb enough. her handlers, however, are a bit smarter which, of course, ain't sayin' much. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 01:52 PM (#3208365) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu My sentimetns exactly, Greg F. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 01:53 PM (#3208366) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu Ahhhh... without the ypto, of course. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 01:56 PM (#3208945) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Chongo could beat Obama, but I feel Mr Obama may be asked to "spend more time with his family" quite soon. Oh! who's that tubby figure hiding behind the door? Come away in Hillary.....brought Billary with you? |
|
18 Aug 11 - 02:08 PM (#3208376) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,999 Uh, youse guys ain't working with me on this. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 02:23 PM (#3208393) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Guest,999: "Bachmann for President and Palin for VP. Two slightly deranged individuals with delusions of adequacy and a bright future for America and the world. Your polite input will be valued." 999: "Uh, youse guys ain't working with me on this." I did!!! GfS |
|
18 Aug 11 - 02:37 PM (#3208400) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: gnu 9... well, I would normally try to do so but my initial reaction was AAAAGGGGHHHHHH!!!! and that seemed to block my funny bone. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 03:17 PM (#3208430) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Greg F. Yeah, them ypto's is a bitch & I seeam to be masking evn more of 'em than ususl. (Proofread, Greg, Proofread.) |
|
14 Sep 11 - 02:03 AM (#3222919) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: Joe Offer I see that the Chicago Tribune refused to run the Doonesbury comic strip for at least part of this week. Doonesbury's Fox reporter Roland Hedley is reading an advance copy of The Rogue, the forthcoming Palin biography by Joe McGinniss. Hedley is doing his best to sanitize the book's contents to make it palatable to his FoxNews audience. In the book excerpt published September 13
"Her chief of staff, Mike Tibbles, came in one day and said, 'They're all fired. That's what she wants...Sarah just isn't comfortable in the presence of dark-skinned people.'" I don't have a very high opinion of Sarah Palin, but I'm having a hard time believing this. I can't find any verification of this from a source other than the McGinness book excerpt in Doonesbruy. It will be interesting to see reaction to the book once it comes out September 20. For more, see The Washington Post. -Joe- |
|
14 Sep 11 - 03:32 AM (#3222935) Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread From: akenaton Sorry to break the news to you guys, but "politics" cant cure the malaise which affects our respective nations. Only WE can effect change that has any meaning and for that we need inspiration and belief in ourselves as individuals. The last thing we need is "clever" politicians or complicated socio/economic systems. If we want change/survival, we must first try to understand what life really means, and our place therein. |
.jpg){kind=link}
