Re: Politicians
On 11/22/2012 4:32 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: It's hard to compete if one has a shred of ethics. This last US Presidential election astounded me as the Republican bubble was almost impenetrable, and the constant repeating of lies by the Romney/Ryan campaign far exceeded even my most cynical expectations. Fox as the results came in was just astonishing, they really believed the pundits that predicted a large win by Romney. It actually makes sense. I first noticed this when a Bush admin official talked about how they just make their own reality. And I think it has continued with Fox an the Republicans rejecting anything science- or data-derived in favor of whatever they want to believe. But at some point reality has a way of intruding itself into your fantasies. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jon Louis Mann net_democr...@yahoo.com wrote: It is in my observation, as a politician, that MOST politicians are liars, and they tailor their promises for a target audience who will believe their rhetoric. I am not a liar, but that is probably why I have lost the 12 times I have run for office!~) So you are not a lying politician, you are just a very bad one...;-) The ones that get me are not so much the politicians but the pundits. Someone like Glenn Beck. I mean, look at the conspiracy theories he is pedaling. In my humble opinion, there are only two options: either a) he really does believe what he's saying, in which case, he is certifiably insane or b) he doesn't really believe what he's saying, in which case, he is evil with a capital E. - jmh ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians
On 23/11/2012, at 7:33 AM, John Horn anar...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jon Louis Mann net_democr...@yahoo.com wrote: It is in my observation, as a politician, that MOST politicians are liars, and they tailor their promises for a target audience who will believe their rhetoric. I am not a liar, but that is probably why I have lost the 12 times I have run for office!~) So you are not a lying politician, you are just a very bad one...;-) It's hard to compete if one has a shred of ethics. This last US Presidential election astounded me as the Republican bubble was almost impenetrable, and the constant repeating of lies by the Romney/Ryan campaign far exceeded even my most cynical expectations. Fox as the results came in was just astonishing, they really believed the pundits that predicted a large win by Romney. The ones that get me are not so much the politicians but the pundits. Someone like Glenn Beck. I mean, look at the conspiracy theories he is pedaling. In my humble opinion, there are only two options: either a) he really does believe what he's saying, in which case, he is certifiably insane or b) he doesn't really believe what he's saying, in which case, he is evil with a capital E. Him and many of his ilk. When politicians lie, the media should be calling them. When the media is just as bad and in Fox's case is a mouthpiece for the political movement that promotes increasing inequality and denies basic science, the system is broken. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On 12/08/2009, at 9:28 AM, Max Battcher wrote: Anyway, it's just a crazy thought experiment (that I created for use in a short story I never wrote) and I doubt that it would be easy to amend the Constitution to try it, but it might be something to play with at local or state levels and see if it survives/replicates... There've been a few parties that have looked to implement your idea through the 'system.' Down here in Australia, we have Senator Online, who are looking to have a representative elected into the Senate who would vote according to how citizens vote (you will need to register as a member of the voting site, but all you need to do to qualify is be a citizen.) With barely any promotion and having been registered less than two months prior to the last Federal election, they received 8000 direct votes (#1 preference,) with many more voting for them through preferences. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Max Battcher wrote: On 8/11/2009 18:53, Trent Shipley wrote: More fundamental is his objection to the U.S. Government. In effect, he is saying that the U.S. system of government is inherently illegitimate, largely because it is run by politicians. By John William's standards ALL representative democracy is illegitimate precisely because a representative democracy REQUIRES professional politicians. Crazy tangent: I've always wondered if it might be worth the effort to introduce a third house, a tricameral legislature of sorts, where the members are brought in through a random civic duty lottery (akin to jury duty selection in most states, perhaps). Call it the House of Peers or House of the Public, for instance. I think such a crazy idea would only work in the modern communications era. You can't expect a person to serve even a 1-year term if they have to pack their bags for Washington and may not be able to expect to have their existing job when they return (much less can't afford the salary differential during the term). However, with the Moderne Internet, I think that average folks might be persuaded to do a little bit of work for their country online every so often for even a tiny amount of compensation. You could even contemplate things like micro-terms of only a few weeks duration with the right technological leverage. With micro-terms and lots of paid eyeballs you might even get awfully close to a sort of representative wiki democracy. Even if this House was of lesser standing than the existing legislature it would be useful just to have a public oversight committee directly drawn from the public and in the same turf as existing legislatures. Anyway, it's just a crazy thought experiment (that I created for use in a short story I never wrote) and I doubt that it would be easy to amend the Constitution to try it, but it might be something to play with at local or state levels and see if it survives/replicates... -- --Max Battcher-- http://worldmaker.net I've been thinking very much the same thought. As long as the selection process itself isn't compromised (Congratulations to our Glorious-Leader-For-Life on yet another unprecedented term in office. Only by Divine Providence could such an extraordary event happen with our random selection process!), the worst case for random selection is better than the worst case for selection by popular vote, because it's very difficult to game a random selection system without compromising the selection system itself. And, considering the arsenal of media manipulation that's deployed around every election to game the popular vote system by what are in effect social engineering hacks, random selection *does* have a certain appeal .. When you mention that we want five debates, say what they are: one on the economy, one on foreign policy, with another on global threats and national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening family life, which would include health care, education, and retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and sentence structure. And one on fractions. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:01 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: But I am not my brother's keeper. Seems odd that you would would say that, given that when Cain said, Am I my brother's keeper? he had just murdered his brother to steal his inheritance. I thought you were *against *the taking of other peoples' property by force? There is hardly a more enduring and powerful story of theft by force, deadly force. Taking more than one legitimate inheritance does seem totally consistent with libertarian attitudes. But theft is wrong, as you have pointed out so many times. Theft by murder is even more wrong than theft alone. I'm just not sure this story is helping your argument that there's some sort of morality in libertarianism. Murdering your brother to get his inheritance is arguably little different from letting him die, through lousy health care, to get it. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:01 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: But I am not my brother's keeper. Seems odd that you would would say that, given that when Cain said, Am I my brother's keeper? he had just murdered his brother to steal his inheritance. It seems I have led you astray. I thought it was clear from the context (which you removed above), but I meant that literally. Feel free to replace it with I do not decide what others may or may not do. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:24 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: It seems I have led you astray. I thought it was clear from the context (which you removed above), but I meant that literally. Feel free to replace it with I do not decide what others may or may not do. Ah, so you thought that I am not my brother's keeper was a statement of morality, when in fact it is an allusion to a classic example of immorality in the extreme. But... what do you mean that you meant it literally? You have no concern for anybody but yourself? I believe that's what I am not my brother's keeper means, literally. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
Never argue with a pedant over nomenclature. It wastes your time and annoys the pedant. --Lois Bujold ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:51 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: Never argue with a pedant over nomenclature. It wastes your time and annoys the pedant. I take it you are opposed to pedantically taking the meaning of literally literally? That was fun. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Aug 10, 2009, at 8:40 PM, John Williams wrote: The politician pretends to be acting altruistically while still behaving in a self-serving manner. But the politicians take your money by force and THEN give it to the businesses. John: These two sentences are the problem with people accepting your arguments. The first is a gross generalization. Most of the politicians that I have personally met are not 'self-serving , rather they are making a great effort to serve. The second is not true! We live in a constitutional republic which allows us to vote for representatives at every level of government and have given those representatives the right through the constitution and the courts to tax us to maintain the societal infrastructure required to support a civilized way of life. This is not taking your money by force. This is the system that our fore-fathers left us. If it is not working for you then you have options, that is what free speech is all about. Getting on the internet and ranting is one of them. However I must tell you that generalizing and sarcasm usually code zero in a classroom which means they will not win you much support. learner ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Chris Frandsenlear...@mac.com wrote: Most of the politicians that I have personally met are not 'self-serving , rather they are making a great effort to serve. And they are good at tricking the naive into thinking that they are behaving altruistically... We live in a constitutional republic which allows us to vote for representatives at every level of government and have given those representatives the right through the constitution and the courts to tax us to maintain the societal infrastructure required to support a civilized way of life. This is not taking your money by force. ...while they take their money and give it to those who are best at bribing them. Which is perhaps the biggest difference between politicians and market participants. The politicians have better PR! They persuade you to feel like you have a choice with them, and no choice with the markets, when the reality is precisely the opposite. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
You are joking! On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:22 AM, John Williams wrote: The politicians have better PR! ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
John Williams wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Chris Frandsenlear...@mac.com wrote: Most of the politicians that I have personally met are not 'self-serving , rather they are making a great effort to serve. And they are good at tricking the naive into thinking that they are behaving altruistically... What a sad, cynical worldview you live in. ...while they take their money and give it to those who are best at bribing them. Hey, isn't that market forces at work? Aren't the same people that are bribing politicians the very same free market enterprises that you laud in other sentences? How is the political pork market all that different, or that far removed, from any other free market? More importantly: how is it that the politicians taking bribes are worse than the corporations giving them? I think there is just as good an argument as yours that corrupt politicians are merely victims of a corrupt market. The truth of the matter is probably even simpler: both sides have corruption. There is corruption on both sides of the equation: corruption in the free markets and corruption in politics. To laud one sort of corruption and simultaneously despise another seems to me a hypocritical thing to do. -- --Max Battcher-- http://worldmaker.net ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Max Battcherm...@worldmaker.net wrote: What a sad, cynical worldview you live in. There's alway blissful fantasy to live in. Picture the livers in Nancy Kress's _Beggars in Spain_ series...although if our politicians were as honest as her donkeys, I might consider it. How is the political pork market all that different, or that far removed, from any other free market? More importantly: how is it that the politicians taking bribes are worse than the corporations giving them? The key difference is the politicians have the power to coerce us, to force us to give them our money and obey their rules. To laud one sort of corruption and simultaneously despise another seems to me a hypocritical thing to do. I am not aware of anyone here lauding any sort of corruption. But I am not my brother's keeper. As long as no one forces me to be a party to the corruption, my attitude is live and let live. Unfortunately, politicians give us no choice: obey, or be imprisoned. No doubt businesspeople would like to have the same power, but they only have the power that the politicians allow them. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
Chris Frandsen wrote: On Aug 10, 2009, at 8:40 PM, John Williams wrote: The politician pretends to be acting altruistically while still behaving in a self-serving manner. But the politicians take your money by force and THEN give it to the businesses. John: These two sentences are the problem with people accepting your arguments. The first is a gross generalization. Most of the politicians that I have personally met are not 'self-serving , rather they are making a great effort to serve. The second is not true! We live in a constitutional republic which allows us to vote for representatives at every level of government and have given those representatives the right through the constitution and the courts to tax us to maintain the societal infrastructure required to support a civilized way of life. This is not taking your money by force. This is the system that our fore-fathers left us. If it is not working for you then you have options, that is what free speech is all about. Getting on the internet and ranting is one of them. However I must tell you that generalizing and sarcasm usually code zero in a classroom which means they will not win you much support. learner States have a monopoly on coercive force. If they don't, they don't meet the definition of a sovereign state. States collect taxes by the implied threat of coercive force. If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. John Williams is absolutely right. The government of a sovereign state takes taxes by force. Most of us believe that is right and necessary. J.W. doesn't. More fundamental is his objection to the U.S. Government. In effect, he is saying that the U.S. system of government is inherently illegitimate, largely because it is run by politicians. By John William's standards ALL representative democracy is illegitimate precisely because a representative democracy REQUIRES professional politicians. The problem is that we have representatives at every level of government and they are all necessarily politicians. Being politicians they are inherently incapable of representing the commonweal. The problem is that the judges are appointed by politicians. The problem is that it is the inherent nature of politicians to cause government to use tax money for largely illegitimate and immoral ends. == So there questions we want John Williams to answer. * Is government undesirable? That is, is less government better? This is a heuristic based on pragmatic considerations. * Is government inherently evil? This is a moral principle. * Is government necessary? * Does government have the right to levy taxes? * What kind of politician-free government does he propose? Eventually all of us in the debate may need to clarify who qualifies as a politician since the category politician seems particularly salient in John William's world view. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On 8/11/2009 18:53, Trent Shipley wrote: More fundamental is his objection to the U.S. Government. In effect, he is saying that the U.S. system of government is inherently illegitimate, largely because it is run by politicians. By John William's standards ALL representative democracy is illegitimate precisely because a representative democracy REQUIRES professional politicians. Crazy tangent: I've always wondered if it might be worth the effort to introduce a third house, a tricameral legislature of sorts, where the members are brought in through a random civic duty lottery (akin to jury duty selection in most states, perhaps). Call it the House of Peers or House of the Public, for instance. I think such a crazy idea would only work in the modern communications era. You can't expect a person to serve even a 1-year term if they have to pack their bags for Washington and may not be able to expect to have their existing job when they return (much less can't afford the salary differential during the term). However, with the Moderne Internet, I think that average folks might be persuaded to do a little bit of work for their country online every so often for even a tiny amount of compensation. You could even contemplate things like micro-terms of only a few weeks duration with the right technological leverage. With micro-terms and lots of paid eyeballs you might even get awfully close to a sort of representative wiki democracy. Even if this House was of lesser standing than the existing legislature it would be useful just to have a public oversight committee directly drawn from the public and in the same turf as existing legislatures. Anyway, it's just a crazy thought experiment (that I created for use in a short story I never wrote) and I doubt that it would be easy to amend the Constitution to try it, but it might be something to play with at local or state levels and see if it survives/replicates... -- --Max Battcher-- http://worldmaker.net ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
Max Battcher wrote: On 8/11/2009 18:53, Trent Shipley wrote: More fundamental is his objection to the U.S. Government. In effect, he is saying that the U.S. system of government is inherently illegitimate, largely because it is run by politicians. By John William's standards ALL representative democracy is illegitimate precisely because a representative democracy REQUIRES professional politicians. Crazy tangent: I've always wondered if it might be worth the effort to introduce a third house, a tricameral legislature of sorts, where the members are brought in through a random civic duty lottery (akin to jury duty selection in most states, perhaps). Call it the House of Peers or House of the Public, for instance. I think such a crazy idea would only work in the modern communications era. You can't expect a person to serve even a 1-year term if they have to pack their bags for Washington and may not be able to expect to have their existing job when they return (much less can't afford the salary differential during the term). However, with the Moderne Internet, I think that average folks might be persuaded to do a little bit of work for their country online every so often for even a tiny amount of compensation. You could even contemplate things like micro-terms of only a few weeks duration with the right technological leverage. With micro-terms and lots of paid eyeballs you might even get awfully close to a sort of representative wiki democracy. Even if this House was of lesser standing than the existing legislature it would be useful just to have a public oversight committee directly drawn from the public and in the same turf as existing legislatures. Anyway, it's just a crazy thought experiment (that I created for use in a short story I never wrote) and I doubt that it would be easy to amend the Constitution to try it, but it might be something to play with at local or state levels and see if it survives/replicates... -- --Max Battcher-- http://worldmaker.net Every house you add to a legislative system increases gridlock. Let's suppose you did have representation by jury duty. You aren't going to get Plato's Republic of leadership by philosopher. Your average legislative juror will be average: average IQ, average education, average income, you know, average. This means you will want a large pool so you get some good leadership--300 to 3000 should do. You won't want mini-terms. The issues don't get easier just because you draft your congress critter. Mini-terms won't be much better than rule by public opinion poll or focus group. You will want to have substantial terms so that the legislators learn to negotiate, understand the issues, learn about their constituency, and so on. Since you need substantial terms you will need to give your representatives REAL salaries and real support staff to help with all the research. It won't be cheap. However, you wouldn't have political campaigns and you wouldn't have self-selected political professionals. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Trent Shipleytship...@deru.com wrote: The government of a sovereign state takes taxes by force. Most of us believe that is right and necessary. J.W. doesn't. Where did I state this view? By John William's standards ALL representative democracy is illegitimate precisely because a representative democracy REQUIRES professional politicians. Why do you say that is by my standards? So there questions we want John Williams to answer. Is that the royal we? Why are you talking about me in the third person? I'd be glad to discuss the subject with you, if you ask me a question or two directly (preferably not all at once in a list) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
John; I really dislike it when someone generalizes any group. The problem I have is with the continuous rant from the right that Everyone knows that ___ is incompetent(replace the blank with government, public schools or teachers etc) Please note that big business is never a target. In this case you just did the same with politicians. I agree that they are not taking the action on Cap and trade that I would like to see. The question is why? You might even be right that it is because they have been bought off and this issue is so complex that they feel most of the public is not watching. How have we gotten to the point that you suggest, that all of our politicians are on the take to the highest bidder? I think the answer is very simple. The cost of running a federal campaign today is staggering. A campaign manager once told a class that if you are looking for a candidate find someone prepared to spend six days a week six hours a day on the phone asking for money! The easiest source of funds is big business. Cloaked, of course, by go betweens and consultants. I suggest that rather rant in general that we begin a concerted effort to limit spending on campaigns and disallow TV and radio ads by any organization other than the candidates. Leave the newspapers and the internet open but ban TV and Radio from replaying political material garnered from open sources. Too simple? Other suggestions ? Chris Frandsen On Aug 9, 2009, at 7:29 PM, John Williams wrote: It does not take long for the new set of politicians to start selling out just like the old set. Cap and trade was supposed to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue by auctioning off the emission credits, but now it seems that most will be given away for free to whoever was best at bribing the politicians. Next up, the politicians sell out to the drug companies, in what could easily amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. What a bunch of suckers we are to keep putting our faith in these politicians. http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/08/white-houses-deal-with-big-pharma.html Robert Reich wrote: Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don't know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven't been made public.) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Chris Frandsenlear...@mac.com wrote: I suggest that rather rant in general that we begin a concerted effort to limit spending on campaigns and disallow TV and radio ads by any organization other than the candidates. Leave the newspapers and the internet open but ban TV and Radio from replaying political material garnered from open sources. Too simple? Other suggestions ? Too difficult to implement, they will find ways around whatever you do. The solution most likely to work is the simplest: fewer politicians with less power. The more politicians and the more power they have, the more sellouts we will have. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
At 02:57 PM Monday 8/10/2009, Chris Frandsen wrote: John; I really dislike it when someone generalizes any group. The problem I have is with the continuous rant from the right that Everyone knows that ___ is incompetent(replace the blank with government, public schools or teachers etc) Please note that big business is never a target. No, the problem with _them_ is that they are _all too_ competent (at getting money for themselves). Any number of people have said (and editorial cartoonists have drawn cartoons illustrating) during the past (roughly) year that a/the problem is that Wall Street and others are too _greedy_. In this case you just did the same with politicians. I agree that they are not taking the action on Cap and trade that I would like to see. The question is why? You might even be right that it is because they have been bought off and this issue is so complex that they feel most of the public is not watching. How have we gotten to the point that you suggest, that all of our politicians are on the take to the highest bidder? I think the answer is very simple. The cost of running a federal campaign today is staggering. A campaign manager once told a class that if you are looking for a candidate find someone prepared to spend six days a week six hours a day on the phone asking for money! And then willing to spend the same for the next two or four or six years trying to find ways to get money out of taxpayers? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
At 06:53 PM Monday 8/10/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Aug 10, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: No, the problem with _them_ is that they are _all too_ competent (at getting money for themselves). Any number of people have said (and editorial cartoonists have drawn cartoons illustrating) during the past (roughly) year that a/the problem is that Wall Street and others are too _greedy_. I'd go somewhat farther and say that the Wall Street culture institutionalizes and rationalizes greed as a virtue, if not a sacrament. (Greed is good. Greed works.) Which doesn't make it any more RIGHT than it was 20-odd years ago when that movie came out . . . The market does what it's designed to do quite well, and very efficiently. The problem is in the philosophy behind the design and the assumptions it makes about what's important and what has value .. You certainly recall what happens when you assume . . . ;) It is the mark of a higher culture to value the little unpretentious truths which have been discovered by means of rigorous method more highly than the errors handed down by metaphysical and artistic ages and men, which blind us and make us happy. -- Nietszche This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy. ~ Douglas Adams . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
Sorry but the rant against Wall Street and Big Business in general has never reached the level of the constant drum beat heard everywhere you turn about lawyers, politicians, school systems and government bureaucrats, etc. Of course the references to Government bureaucrats was dialed back quite a bit during the Bush years. This is one of the key strategies used to destroy any organization. You know the big lie: You say something long enough and loud enough some people will believe it! learner On Aug 10, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Any number of people have said (and editorial cartoonists have drawn cartoons illustrating) during the past (roughly) year that a/the problem is that Wall Street and others are too _greedy_. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians sell out again
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I'd go somewhat farther and say that the Wall Street culture institutionalizes and rationalizes greed as a virtue, if not a sacrament. (Greed is good. Greed works.) One of the differences between a politician and a market participant is that the market participant is at least honest about their self-serving behavior. The politician pretends to be acting altruistically while still behaving in a self-serving manner. Another difference is that in a free market, a business can only get your money if you decide to give it to them. But the politicians take your money by force and THEN give it to the businesses. The problem is not greed in free markets, it is greed in politics. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: politicians are evil, why they must be eradicated
Alberto wrote: Politics is crazy But it sure makes life interesting, no? Reggie Bautista Sig added to keep this from being a one-line reply _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: politicians are evil, why they must be eradicated
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:47:48PM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote: Reggie Bautista Sig added to keep this from being a one-line reply Not necessary, Microsoft takes care of that for you... _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: politicians are evil, why they must be eradicated
I wrote: Reggie Bautista Sig added to keep this from being a one-line reply Erik replied: Not necessary, Microsoft takes care of that for you... _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail Ah, the joys of web-based email; I get to advertise for a company I'm not too fond of... Reggie Bautista Sig added because I felt like it :-) _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
