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
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
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
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
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
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
