Re: Polarization
Your two previous links did not give an example of how Bush deregulated anything that may have lead to the subprime mortgage crisis. The youtube video you listed does not give any examples of deregulation either. I don't think that word means what you think it means. OK, *there's* the proof of the sense of humor, quoting Princess Bride. (Any old fool can dump links from The Onion.) Julia It must be some new usage of the word that I wasn't previously aware of would have been better. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, John Williams wrote: Your two previous links did not give an example of how Bush deregulated anything that may have lead to the subprime mortgage crisis. The youtube video you listed does not give any examples of deregulation either. I don't think that word means what you think it means. OK, *there's* the proof of the sense of humor, quoting Princess Bride. (Any old fool can dump links from The Onion.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:16 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What gives you the right to be THAT cynical? No doubt the politicians will take that, too. Nah. First Amendment conflict -- tt is the church's job to take away cynicism. Worked for me, anyway. Mostly. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nah. First Amendment conflict -- tt is the church's job to take away cynicism. I'd probably be less cynical if I were tax-exempt like the churches. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:30 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nah. First Amendment conflict -- tt is the church's job to take away cynicism. I'd probably be less cynical if I were tax-exempt like the churches. You, too, can become ordained. http://www.themonastery.org/ Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: polarization
At 10:07 PM Wednesday 11/12/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: it just might work, but i still prefer european style socialism. But not everyone agrees with you in that preference. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: polarization
You are The Boss... which team would you hire? Many times my answer to that question would be: E. None of the Above. but that is not one of the two choices provided. (As some wag once said and many have repeated since, Wanting to be President ought to immediately and permanently disqualify one from ever being President . . . ) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: polarization
At 09:33 PM Wednesday 11/12/2008, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Nov 12, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: i think there is a difference in the bitterness on the left and the venom on the right. both sides feel they are right, but the hate from the right is based on fear, hate and greed, while the left is motivated by idealism, and what defines true patriotism. Ah. But this language itself is so emotionally loaded that it does nothing but contribute to the polarization. Ding! (Sure, everyone's pissed, but the left is pissed for more moral reasons!) LOL! The sad truth is that the left isn't all that different from the right, not as long as big money continues to control the discourse in DC. Ding! Ding!! Ding!!! (Or should that be ka-CHING!!) Political winds shift, but the lobbyists just change parties to give their attention to. They give to both parties so that whoever is elected will be indebted to them. Little else becomes different. You might not have been around to sniff the social winds in the US in 1980, but I was, and let me tell you that the Dems were quite thoroughly corrupted by power and money back then; one of the reasons Reagan won was because of the national trend against abuse of power by Democrats. Though the 444 days beginning on 4 Nov 79 and the debacle of Desert One certainly contributed. As well as some of the economic things which as always may or may not have been in whoever is the current President's control but for which he usually gets the blame. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: polarization
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Though the 444 days beginning on 4 Nov 79 and the debacle of Desert One certainly contributed. As well as some of the economic things which as always may or may not have been in whoever is the current President's control but for which he usually gets the blame. It has been said about Swedish politics that the reason why we have never had two liberal governments in a row (liberal means right-wing in Swedish, as opposed to the social democrat left wing) is that the liberals tend to be elected at the end of a big economical upturn, with the following downturn occuring during their rule, which makes people turn back to the more safe left-wing alternative. (Sorry about the one-sentence paragraph) /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Polarization
Ding! Ding!! Ding!!! (Or should that be ka-CHING!!) . . . ronn! :) so you are saying that it makes no difference where the money comes from, or whether one side bases its positions on ethical parameters, and the other on morally righteous positions? yes political winds shift, but the corporate lobbyists do not change parties to give their attention to whoever is in power. they do try to split their bets and give to both parties so that whoever is elected will be indebted, BUT they are far more generous to republicans. in this elections obama refused their support (although clinton did not) and collected small donations from the internet and accepted support from labor. that is how he was able to outspend mc cain/palin. bush deserves most of the blame for the massive deregulation after his re-election. federal regulators held a press conference to symbolize their commitment to deregulation. one held up gardening shears. one of bush's head deregulators, james gilleran, brought a chainsaw. the sub prime mortgage crisis was a failure of his administration, more than any other. the left is very different from the right, ronn. the big money controlling their discourse represents a completely different idealogy. this is class warfare. in the end this election was determined by the economy, not the wars in iraq and afghanistan. jon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: bush deserves most of the blame for the massive deregulation after his re-election. What deregulation would that be? the left is very different from the right, ronn. the big money controlling their discourse represents a completely different idealogy. Dollars are more important than ideology. Both Dems and Reps were responsible for wasting a lot of my dollars. Their ideologies are irrelevant, since they are only a tool used to get elected. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Polarization
bush deserves most of the blame for the massive deregulation after his re-election. What deregulation would that be? take your pick, williams, or google the names that were in my post (i explained the correlation between money and idealogy, ethics and morality). you consciously ignore the substance of my post and ask questions that are irrelevant, to distract and obfuscate the issue. yes, both parties waste revenues, but the dems divert them to the poor as entitlements, and employ a bureacracy of middle class paper pushers. republicans divert revenues to wealthy arms dealers, stock brokers, financial managers, loan officers, CEOs, etc. that IS extremely relevant, as to the motive. they are completely variant avenues to power, one motivated by greed, the other by genuine desire for positive social change. the left is very different from the right, ronn. the big money controlling their discourse represents a completely different idealogy. Dollars are more important than idealogy. Both Dems and Reps were responsible for wasting a lot of my dollars. Their ideologies are irrelevant, since they are only a tool used to get elected. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: bush deserves most of the blame for the massive deregulation after his re-election. What deregulation would that be? take your pick, williams, SInce there was little relevant deregulation initiated by Bush, I'm not surprised you cannot name any. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Polarization
What deregulation would that be? take your pick, williams, SInce there was little relevant deregulation initiated by Bush, I'm not surprised you cannot name any. There you go again, making stuff up. You tell me, then, what are the causes of the current financial crisis if not deregulation by the Bush Administration? According to Nancy Pelosi, the Bush Administration's eight years of deregulation policies have resulted in our nation's largest bailout ever, leaving the American taxpayers on the hook for the bailout. Barack Obama, in the second debate stated that the biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system. This is Bush on Halloween: http://acnn.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/george-bush-still-pushing-deregulation/ This is from his address to the UN, today; my six year old can spot the flaws: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/george-bush I'm not surprised you are in denial about Bush. There are still about 20+% of you left who still believe in Bush, according to the polls. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There you go again, making stuff up. What did I make up? I asked you for an example of Bush deregulation that you said caused the subprime crisis. You appear unable to provide a single example. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Polarization
What did I make up? I asked you for an example of Bush deregulation that you said caused the sub prime crisis. You appear unable to provide a single example. there you go again, still making stuff up. i gave you two links, here is another that you won't even have to read: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CaOrlFxEZcfeature=related i am not wasting any more time answering your questions, until you start answering mine. you can begin with my previous post, but you won't, because you can't... you avoid answering because you can't refute what i really am saying, so you ignore my questions, come up with specious questions of your own, use ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and in desperation, cite the onion!~) jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there you go again, still making stuff up. i gave you two links, here is another that you won't even have to read: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CaOrlFxEZcfeature=related Your two previous links did not give an example of how Bush deregulated anything that may have lead to the subprime mortgage crisis. The youtube video you listed does not give any examples of deregulation either. I don't think that word means what you think it means. deregulation n : the act of freeing from regulation (especially from governmental regulations) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:03 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Dollars are more important than ideology. Both Dems and Reps were responsible for wasting a lot of my dollars. Their ideologies are irrelevant, since they are only a tool used to get elected. What gives you the right to be THAT cynical? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polarization
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What gives you the right to be THAT cynical? No doubt the politicians will take that, too. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
polarization
One thing many of those who scream the loudest against recent events seem to forget is that we were all once united on the same front. On 12 September 2001. But some of us -- possibly a decent majority now -- saw ourselves betrayed, saw our nation betrayed, saw our ideals laid waste. And those of us who see it that way don't care much for labels such as unpatriotic. There's been far too much polarization, and the part that saddens me the most is that the sore winners of 2004 are now, apparently, the sore losers of 2008. It saddens me, but it doesn't surprise me. Warren Ockrassa i think there is a difference in the bitterness on the left and the venom on the right. both sides feel they are right, but the hate from the right is based on fear, hate and greed, while the left is motivated by idealism, and what defines true patriotism. just look at the difference in how the wingnuts went after clinton, and how the bleeding heart liberals don't have the gonads to go after bush and company. i posted this earlier to illustrate the difference in perspective: What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review? What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class? What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said I do to? What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards? What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization? What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard? What if Obama were a member of the Keating-5*? * The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker? If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are? This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference. PS: What if Barack Obama had an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter You are The Boss... which team would you hire? With America facing historic debt, 2 wars, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. Educational Background: Obama: Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations. Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude Biden: University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science. Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.) vs. McCain: United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899 Palin: Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism Now, which team are you going to hire? -- Kyla Bender-Baird M.S. Women's Studies Part-time Researcher, National Council for Research on Women ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: polarization
On Nov 12, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: i think there is a difference in the bitterness on the left and the venom on the right. both sides feel they are right, but the hate from the right is based on fear, hate and greed, while the left is motivated by idealism, and what defines true patriotism. Ah. But this language itself is so emotionally loaded that it does nothing but contribute to the polarization. (Sure, everyone's pissed, but the left is pissed for more moral reasons!) The sad truth is that the left isn't all that different from the right, not as long as big money continues to control the discourse in DC. Political winds shift, but the lobbyists just change parties to give their attention to. Little else becomes different. You might not have been around to sniff the social winds in the US in 1980, but I was, and let me tell you that the Dems were quite thoroughly corrupted by power and money back then; one of the reasons Reagan won was because of the national trend against abuse of power by Democrats. And, FWIW, McCain *was* quite charismatic in 2000. He actually stood a good chance against W until he was torpedoed by extremists in the Republican party itself -- the same PAC that formed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to attack Kerry in 2004. To me it seems that there's no real reason, if you're so motivated, to continue attacking the GOP. It's in the middle of its own self- destruction. A better approach might be to talk to the moderates, the centrist Republicans, who are very much like centrist Dems such as Obama, and are quite as horrified by Palin as many others are, and start trying to heal some breaches rather than continuing to hammer at the idea of them (whoever they are) being wrong (whatever that means). Maybe together we can all rediscover what it means for the GOP to be the party of Lincoln. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: polarization
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:33 PM Subject: Re: polarization On Nov 12, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: i think there is a difference in the bitterness on the left and the venom on the right. both sides feel they are right, but the hate from the right is based on fear, hate and greed, while the left is motivated by idealism, and what defines true patriotism. Ah. But this language itself is so emotionally loaded that it does nothing but contribute to the polarization. (Sure, everyone's pissed, but the left is pissed for more moral reasons!) The sad truth is that the left isn't all that different from the right, not as long as big money continues to control the discourse in DC. Political winds shift, but the lobbyists just change parties to give their attention to. Little else becomes different. You might not have been around to sniff the social winds in the US in 1980, but I was, and let me tell you that the Dems were quite thoroughly corrupted by power and money back then; one of the reasons Reagan won was because of the national trend against abuse of power by Democrats. And, FWIW, McCain *was* quite charismatic in 2000. He actually stood a good chance against W until he was torpedoed by extremists in the Republican party itself -- the same PAC that formed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to attack Kerry in 2004. To me it seems that there's no real reason, if you're so motivated, to continue attacking the GOP. It's in the middle of its own self- destruction. A better approach might be to talk to the moderates, the centrist Republicans, who are very much like centrist Dems such as Obama, and are quite as horrified by Palin as many others are, and start trying to heal some breaches rather than continuing to hammer at the idea of them (whoever they are) being wrong (whatever that means). Maybe together we can all rediscover what it means for the GOP to be the party of Lincoln. You guys really need to watch The Power Of Nightmares - The Rise Of The Politics Of Fear by Adam Curtis. It really shines a light on the history behind the subject you are discussing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. Its three one-hour parts consist mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis's narration. The series was first broadcast in the United Kingdom in late 2004 and has subsequently been broadcast in multiple countries and shown in several film festivals, including the 2005 Cannes Film Festival. The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries-and particularly American Neo-Conservatives-in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies. The Power of Nightmares has been praised by film critics in both Britain and the United States. Its message and content have also been the subject of various critiques and criticisms from conservatives and progressives. http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=The+power+of+nightmares+bbcaq=foq= xponent Second Try Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: polarization
Warren Ockrassa said the following on 11/12/2008 10:33 PM: To me it seems that there's no real reason, if you're so motivated, to continue attacking the GOP. It's in the middle of its own self- destruction. A better approach might be to talk to the moderates, the centrist Republicans, who are very much like centrist Dems such as Obama, and are quite as horrified by Palin as many others are, and start trying to heal some breaches rather than continuing to hammer at the idea of them (whoever they are) being wrong (whatever that means). I agree, Warren. The left should talk to the moderate Republicans and old-style (pro-business/small-government) Republicans and ignore everyone else until they are willing to sit down and have a real conversation. If we give an eye-for-an-eye against the neoconservatives and radical religious right we will only feed into their program of hate/fear. I'd much rather let them stew in their own juices and continue demonstrating to the rest of the U.S. just how out of touch they are. --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
polarization
Ah. But this language itself is so emotionally loaded that it does nothing but contribute to the polarization. (Sure, everyone's pissed, but the left is pissed for more moral reasons!) The sad truth is that the left isn't all that different from the right, not as long as big money continues to control the discourse in DC. the left at least, champions the middle class, even though it fosters dependency with entitlements, subsidies, and is somewhat a pawn of unions, etc. better that than the corporate crooks that own the republican party. perhaps that will change now that the GOP is self destructing as you say... Political winds shift, but the lobbyists just change parties to give their attention to. Little else becomes different. You might not have been around to sniff the social winds in the US in 1980, but I was, and let me tell you that the Dems were quite thoroughly corrupted by power and money back then; one of the reasons Reagan won was because of the national trend against abuse of power by Democrats. not only was i around in the 80s but i'm a child of the 60s, so if winds do shift, the left has never moved that far right of center. before reagan, even the the goldwater republicans weren't so bad... the democrats have never abused power like the nixon/reagan/bush administrations. in america the left is not really that far to the left, compared to europe, where socialism is not a dirty word. And, FWIW, McCain *was* quite charismatic in 2000. He actually stood a good chance against W until he was torpedoed by extremists in the Republican party itself -- the same PAC that formed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to attack Kerry in 2004. To me it seems that there's no real reason, if you're so motivated, to continue attacking the GOP. It's in the middle of its own self- destruction. A better approach might be to talk to the moderates, the centrist Republicans, who are very much like centrist Dems such as Obama, and are quite as horrified by Palin as many others are, and start trying to heal some breaches rather than continuing to hammer at the idea of them (whoever they are) being wrong (whatever that means). Maybe together we can all rediscover what it means for the GOP to be the party of Lincoln. Warren Ockrassa it may even happen under obama, with all this talk of bipartisanship, but only because we are in desperate straits... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
polarization
I agree, Warren. The left should talk to the moderate Republicans and old-style (pro-business/small-government) Republicans and ignore everyone else until they are willing to sit down and have a real conversation. If we give an eye-for-an-eye against the neoconservatives and radical religious right we will only feed into their program of hate/fear. I'd much rather let them stew in their own juices and continue demonstrating to the rest of the U.S. just how out of touch they are. --[Lance] it just might work, but i still prefer european style socialism. the only decent republicans in my lifetime were ford and eisenhower... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
