McCain's son an airline pilot?

[Rez O. Lewshun]

She's hotter than Dick Cheney.

PIPE

and we all know how the GOP voter base LOVES getting phcuked by Dick!!

 

[Cobra17]

Considering that McCain could not even beat out a lame duck such as GWB (a man who had even less experience in national politics than Obama) in the 2000 primaries, what does that say about him?

#1. Do you even know what a "lame duck" is in regards to politics?

#2. The 2000 campaign only highlights why McCain's presidency will not be an extension of GWB's.

#3. Which party was unable to produce a candidate that could defeat an unpopular president in the middle of an unpopular war.

Al Gore
John Kerry
Barack Obama

Just give us somebody we might actually consider voting for.

 

[DoinTime]

#1. Do you even know what a "lame duck" is in regards to politics?

Yeah, the lame duck is usually the party champion.

#3. Which party was unable to produce a candidate that could defeat an unpopular president in the middle of an unpopular war.

Al Gore
John Kerry
Barack Obama

I voted for Gore and Kerry, I didn't want to, but I did. Either one of them was better then voting for the dimwit we have as president now. During the 2004 election the war was not prohibitively unpopular (are wars ever popular?) and Bush was still around 50% approval. Unfortunately, Americans fall hook, line and sinker for the fear card.

For the record, Gore did defeat Bush.

Just give us somebody we might actually consider voting for.

What democrat would you consider voting for?

 

[mtsupilot376]

I'm voting Republican only because McCain's running mate is hot.

Giggity !!!

She's Hot!

 

[JustaNumber]

Similar to one passenger saying to another "Are you fearful to fly on airplanes?" Only to get such a reply: "We are not on an airplane, we are on a Boeing 737-500.

And of police, fire, EMS, voter registrar offices? There are many facets of the public domain that must remain so... to remove the democratic principles is UN American. To hand them over to corporations so that they may make a profit only yields elitism and exclusion.

Keynesian economics is much better and provides for a better distribution of wealth for most citizens. What you are describing is laissez fare or Friedmanism economics, which is the privatization of the state.

The police and fire department.

Jefferson rejected the Central Bank and multi tiered credit system. One could argue that the IMF and World Bank are quite the same but for global economies whereas the FedReserve is the US central bank. The IMF and World Bank are too influenced by US foreign and/or economic policy...

Marxism is bad yes... but so is extreme capitalism, corny capitalism or disaster capitalism. They are all meant to take advantage of the average citizen, exploit him/her and line the pockets of a select few. In order to do this democracy or specifically for your needs, constitutional republic (or representative republic) must be eradicated. That is, for example, what the Patriot Act is all about...

reference

Consumed by Barber

and

Shock Doctrine by Klein

"Your intellect is truly dizzying."

Let me spell it out for you.

You said (basically), "I am afraid of corporations because they don't contain any democratic provisions (i.e. because I can't control them)."
I said (basically), "Democracy is not a desirable trait, so why are you afraid?"

A more appropriate airplane metaphor would be:
You say, "I am afraid of flying because the pilots won't let all the passengers fly the airplane."
I say, "All the passengers flying the airplane would be a bad thing, so why are you afraid to fly? At some point, you need to trust the pilots, they usually do a pretty good job. Sure, some pilots are clueless, but then you should have figured that out and not gotten on that particular airplane."

The rest of your arguments are typical of liberal logic: you ignore key facts and use invalid assumptions to further your own twisted logic.

I clearly said the U.S. (as in Federal) government does a poor job of anything outside of its constitutional mandates, and you refer to police and firefighters, a part of local governments, and furthermore a constitutionally mandated part of those governments (you know, the part about providing for common protection and protecting the rule of law). My point is still valid--government provides non-constitutionally-mandated functions poorly, much more poorly than corporations could.

You say Keynesian economics is much better....blah blah blah. Only Keynesian economists say Keynesian economics is much better. What do neoclassical economists say? Your argument is like saying, liberalism is much better; you are not a liberal, so you are not correct.

You talk about various forms of capitalism being designed to "line the pockets of a select few." This ignores all facts. American capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any other system ever created. You are just jealous that some people have more wealth than you. Get over it.

"I spent the last few years building up an immunity to Iocane powder." (Let me know if you don't get it).

 

[AC560]

Yeah, the lame duck is usually the party champion.

Lame Duck

GW is a lame duck now, he was not then.

 

[DoinTime]

Lame Duck

GW is a lame duck now, he was not then.

No, GW has always been a lame duck.

 

[ackattacker]

government provides non-constitutionally-mandated functions poorly, much more poorly than corporations could.

So far it seems almost every single major institution that was significantly deregulated or privatized has required a huge taxpayer funded bailout.

Amtrak? check.
Savings and Loan industry? check.
Airline industry? check.
Fannie and Freddie? check.
Electricity industry (Enron) check.

Add it all up and it's about a gadjillion dollars give or take.

As Obama said earlier today:

"You notice a lot of these folks don't like government when they're making money but the minute they start losing money, they think government's just swell."

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

"Your intellect is truly dizzying."

Let me spell it out for you.

You said (basically), "I am afraid of corporations because they don't contain any democratic provisions (i.e. because I can't control them)."
I said (basically), "Democracy is not a desirable trait, so why are you afraid?"

Wow.... here we go with spin....

Corporations are not inherently evil. They can be. Just as any organization comprised of humans. My arguement is that over the past 30 years there has been shift to increased corporatism at democracys expense.


So, I gather, that you don't like democracy because the average citizen is too ignorant to understand and implement policy or law... Is this correct?

A more appropriate airplane metaphor would be:
You say, "I am afraid of flying because the pilots won't let all the passengers fly the airplane."
I say, "All the passengers flying the airplane would be a bad thing, so why are you afraid to fly? At some point, you need to trust the pilots, they usually do a pretty good job. Sure, some pilots are clueless, but then you should have figured that out and not gotten on that particular airplane."

My metaphor was used to highlight semantics... our form of gov't is commonly expressed as a democracy. and yes you are correct that a more accurate example is a constitutional or representative republic.

Air travel is not a democracy and never was. First, the corporations that a passenger buys the ticket is not democracy. The passenger must accept that companies policy. When the passenger arrives on the jet again there is no democracy. PIC authority rules.

But lets not get sidetracked...

The rest of your arguments are typical of liberal logic: you ignore key facts and use invalid assumptions to further your own twisted logic.

I clearly said the U.S. (as in Federal) government does a poor job of anything outside of its constitutional mandates, and you refer to police and firefighters, a part of local governments, and furthermore a constitutionally mandated part of those governments (you know, the part about providing for common protection and protecting the rule of law). My point is still valid--government provides non-constitutionally-mandated functions poorly, much more poorly than corporations could.

There is truth to your statement. Define poorly. Do you mean financially? Effective use of funds? What about civil rights and fair application of the law to all?

Take the charter schools in New Orleans. Katrina allowed those in control to wipe out the public school and start over. A unique opportunity but also part of the disaster capitalism complex.

So the Charter schools accepted the better students and rejected those with learning disabilities. And closed admittance at the beginning of the year so late arrivals would not disrupt classes. Now the public schools will have the late comers and the LD kids...

Of course the charter schools will do well and the public schools will fail... but is that fair? Using Federal and local money for charter schools but excluding certain individuals?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0904/p01s08-ussc.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900096.html

You say Keynesian economics is much better....blah blah blah. Only Keynesian economists say Keynesian economics is much better. What do neoclassical economists say? Your argument is like saying, liberalism is much better; you are not a liberal, so you are not correct.

wow... how about an objective reference to the pros and cons of Keynesian economics....

Keynesian economics provides stability. liberal economies or radical freemarket economies leave too many people below the poverty line, create militant groups and reactive polices to counteract unstable gov'ts.

You talk about various forms of capitalism being designed to "line the pockets of a select few." This ignores all facts. American capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any other system ever created. You are just jealous that some people have more wealth than you. Get over it.

It sure has.. until the late 1970's. When organizations use disaster and shock to implement policies that cannot be pushed through the democratic process and those polices increase poverty and reduce the middle class then there is a problem with a select few lining their pockets....

page 458 of the Shock Doctrine by Klein:

Thanks to Rummy's privatization obsession as he first suggested on Sept. 10, 2001 [to Pentagon brass that any part of the MIL that could be outsourced...shall..] when sick soldiers came home they were treated by HealthNet who hired in experienced low wage workers to replace more than 100 skilled federal workers.​

The greatly expanded role of private companies was never openly debated as a question of policy. Rummy didn't have to engage in battles with federal employees unions or high ranking generals. Instead it just all happened on the fly in the field in what the military calls mission creep. The longer the war wore on the more privatized it became... becoming a new way of war.​

The numbers tell a dramatic story of corporate mission creep. For Gulf War I in 1991, there was one contractor for every 100 soldiers. For the 2003 invasion it was one contractor for every ten soldiers. Three years into the occupation it was one to three. Close to the fourth year it was one private contractor for every 1.4 soldiers. That doesn't include sub contractors and those in Jordan and Kuwait.​

Blackwater was sent to Iraq to run security for US envoy Paul Bremer but their role quickly "creeped" to the point that during one firefight in April 2004 Blackwater mercs assumed command over active duty Marines in a day long battle. [reference Scahill Blackwater 2007]​

I suggest you get out of the past and learn the present so that you might be prepared for the future.

"I spent the last few years building up an immunity to Iocane powder." (Let me know if you don't get it).

Perhaps you'll use objective references to your reply... rather than your opinion..... it is just that... yours and only yours...


Consumed by Barber

The End of Poverty by Sachs

 

[AC560]

So, I gather, that you don't like democracy because the average citizen is too ignorant to understand and implement policy or law...

That was the thought process of the founding fathers which is why we have the electoral college and a representative form of government.