 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.xkcd.com/494/ onwards
What the *hell* has Randal been smoking?! o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> http://www.xkcd.com/494/ onwards
>
> What the *hell* has Randal been smoking?! o_O
politics don't quite mix with geek humor... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:15:34 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> Invisible escreveu:
>> http://www.xkcd.com/494/ onwards
>>
>> What the *hell* has Randal been smoking?! o_O
>
> politics don't quite mix with geek humor... :P
Oh, I don't know, I found the whole series to be very entertaining. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> politics don't quite mix with geek humor... :P
>
> Oh, I don't know, I found the whole series to be very entertaining. :-)
Oh, it's *definitely* entertaining. I just have _no clue_ what the hell
they're on about... :-}
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:46:17 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> politics don't quite mix with geek humor... :P
>>
>> Oh, I don't know, I found the whole series to be very entertaining. :-)
>
> Oh, it's *definitely* entertaining. I just have _no clue_ what the hell
> they're on about... :-}
The politics of the 'net in the US was my read. It helps to know that
Ron Paul was on the Republican ticket and is still running for president
but with a different party.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh, it's *definitely* entertaining. I just have _no clue_ what the hell
>> they're on about... :-}
>
> The politics of the 'net in the US was my read. It helps to know that
> Ron Paul was on the Republican ticket and is still running for president
> but with a different party.
...then I'm guessing it also helps to know what a "republican" is too.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01-Nov-08 19:51, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Oh, it's *definitely* entertaining. I just have _no clue_ what the hell
>>> they're on about... :-}
>>
>> The politics of the 'net in the US was my read. It helps to know that
>> Ron Paul was on the Republican ticket and is still running for
>> president but with a different party.
>
> ...then I'm guessing it also helps to know what a "republican" is too.
>
I had a problem remembering who was who too. What helps for me is that
democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest
that) while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming that
the interest of themselves coincides with the interest of the nation).
From this it is not hard to infer that Clinton and Obama are democrats
whereas the Bushes, Reagan and McCain are republicans. I hope that helps.
Disclaimer: IANAUSC, opinions expressed here may be influenced by a
heavy European bias in the news. Also note that I don't claim this is in
any way true, just that it helps keeping the two major US parties apart.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:37:22 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>On 01-Nov-08 19:51, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> ...then I'm guessing it also helps to know what a "republican" is too.
>>
>I had a problem remembering who was who too
I use a simpler method. Being a socialist I remember the difference by saying
"Rabid Republicans and Decent Democrats". Although by my lights even the
Democrats are mostly more right wing than our Conservatives.
I hope that, that's not too offensive but it serves to remind me. You could say
"Right on Republicans and Decadent Democrats" if you want ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:51:35 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Oh, it's *definitely* entertaining. I just have _no clue_ what the
>>> hell they're on about... :-}
>>
>> The politics of the 'net in the US was my read. It helps to know that
>> Ron Paul was on the Republican ticket and is still running for
>> president but with a different party.
>
> ...then I'm guessing it also helps to know what a "republican" is too.
Wikipedia is your friend. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:37:22 +0100, andrel wrote:
> What helps for me is that
> democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest
> that) while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming that
> the interest of themselves coincides with the interest of the nation).
That's an interesting perspective - but it implies that the Democrats do
not put the needs of the nation first; I think you could sum the ideology
up by saying that the Democrats put the needs of the nation first, but
define the nation as the sum of its people. The Republicans put the
needs of the nation first, but (at least economically) the belief there
is that if they take care of the upper class, the rest will take care of
itself. (But I know that'll draw some flack from people in that party
over that definition as well).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:21:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> I use a simpler method. Being a socialist I remember the difference by
> saying "Rabid Republicans and Decent Democrats". Although by my lights
> even the Democrats are mostly more right wing than our Conservatives. I
> hope that, that's not too offensive but it serves to remind me. You
> could say "Right on Republicans and Decadent Democrats" if you want
LOL, I like that, and yes, our "left wing" democrats are far more
conservative than those in Europe....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The politics of the 'net in the US was my read. It helps to know that
> Ron Paul was on the Republican ticket and is still running for president
> but with a different party.
Actually, no. He ran, and continued running even when there was 0
chance of him getting the ticket (i.e. after McCain clinched the
nomination). However, he did drop out and is not running at all. He did
endorse the Constitution Party, though.
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:54:32 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The politics of the 'net in the US was my read. It helps to know that
>> Ron Paul was on the Republican ticket and is still running for
>> president but with a different party.
>
> Actually, no. He ran, and continued running even when there was 0
> chance of him getting the ticket (i.e. after McCain clinched the
> nomination). However, he did drop out and is not running at all. He did
> endorse the Constitution Party, though.
Hmmm, I could've sworn I saw his name on the early voting ballot here in
Utah, but looking at the county clerk's office website, it seems I was
mistaken.
Looks like he's on a couple of ballots, though - Montana's Constitution
Party replaced Chuck Baldwin with Ron Paul; apparently he changed his
mind on Sept 11 (he didn't object as long as he didn't have to declare
initially), and it sounds like from what I was able to find that the
ballot will go out with his name on it. It sounds like he's also on the
Louisiana ballot as the "Louisiana Taxpayers Party". That also
apparently is without his consent, though.
He's not on in enough states to actually win, though.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02-Nov-08 1:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:37:22 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> What helps for me is that
>> democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest
>> that) while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming that
>> the interest of themselves coincides with the interest of the nation).
>
> That's an interesting perspective - but it implies that the Democrats do
> not put the needs of the nation first; I think you could sum the ideology
> up by saying that the Democrats put the needs of the nation first, but
> define the nation as the sum of its people. The Republicans put the
> needs of the nation first, but (at least economically) the belief there
> is that if they take care of the upper class, the rest will take care of
> itself. (But I know that'll draw some flack from people in that party
> over that definition as well).
That may or may not be more true than my rule of thumb, but it almost
destroys
democrat <-> people/voters
republican <-> nation
For me the main value is that I do not live in the US, so the party
lines have not been part of my upbringing. The problem for me (and
possibly Andy, although it could also be his habit of living under
stones) is that in my country the two concepts are not mutual exclusive.
Indeed our republicans are republicans *because* they are fundamentalist
democrats. Still, when I want to guess which party in the US wants to
reform the medical system and which one is most likely to start a war,
it helps a lot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...then I'm guessing it also helps to know what a "republican" is too.
>>
> I had a problem remembering who was who too. What helps for me is that
> democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest
> that) while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming that
> the interest of themselves coincides with the interest of the nation).
> From this it is not hard to infer that Clinton and Obama are democrats
> whereas the Bushes, Reagan and McCain are republicans. I hope that helps.
Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing. I just
tend to think that all politicians are inherantly power-hungry, lying,
cheating, manipulative, evil scum. It's a very simple thing to remember. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:38:22 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics
>I just
>tend to think that all politicians are inherantly power-hungry, lying,
>cheating, manipulative, evil scum. It's a very simple thing to remember. ;-)
Mostly true but beware idealists :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics
Um... ouch?
>> I just
>> tend to think that all politicians are inherantly power-hungry, lying,
>> cheating, manipulative, evil scum. It's a very simple thing to remember. ;-)
>
> Mostly true but beware idealists :)
Heh. I thought those were extinct now?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02-Nov-08 12:38, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> ...then I'm guessing it also helps to know what a "republican" is too.
>>>
>> I had a problem remembering who was who too. What helps for me is that
>> democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest
>> that) while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming
>> that the interest of themselves coincides with the interest of the
>> nation).
>> From this it is not hard to infer that Clinton and Obama are
>> democrats whereas the Bushes, Reagan and McCain are republicans. I
>> hope that helps.
>
> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
left/right does not really describe it fully. Not even in the US.
> I just tend to think that all politicians are inherently power-hungry,
> lying, cheating, manipulative, evil scum.
No that are just the ones you see on the TV. These are the ones that
either got a top position by being power hungry or are incompetent
enough to hit the headlines before they got there. Still most of the
politicians are motivated and more or less competent. Unfortunately you
have your scum at any level, so even the local politicians (and
professors, managers, bankers... for that matter) will seem to be all
corrupt.
> It's a very simple thing to remember.
That will not make it easy to vote. I assume you don't do that.
>;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02-Nov-08 12:57, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:38:22 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics
>
>
I am confused by the headings
Modern international use of the terms
versus
Modern U.S. use of the terms
Did I miss something?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
> left/right does not really describe it fully. Not even in the US.
As I understand it, it's only meant to be a first-level summary.
>> I just tend to think that all politicians are inherently power-hungry,
>> lying, cheating, manipulative, evil scum.
> No that are just the ones you see on the TV.
Heh, maybe you're right.
>> It's a very simple thing to remember.
> That will not make it easy to vote. I assume you don't do that.
No. When all politicians are equally evil, it doesn't seem to matter
which one you pick.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02-Nov-08 13:31, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
>> left/right does not really describe it fully. Not even in the US.
>
> As I understand it, it's only meant to be a first-level summary.
It mostly works in two party states. If you live in a country where
there are 10 or more parties in parliament you realize that politics is
a multi dimensional space.
BTW IMHO it is slightly more subtle. It is not the case that politicians
and parties can be divided in left and right, but voters can be divided
in those that dislike lefties and those that hate right wing bastards.
Many of them will deny that they are right or left wing themselves.
Still you can identify the non-left and the non-right parties. You might
equate non-left with right, but that does not do them justice ;)
>>> It's a very simple thing to remember.
>> That will not make it easy to vote. I assume you don't do that.
>
> No. When all politicians are equally evil, it doesn't seem to matter
> which one you pick.
Next election watch the people not the party. Vote for someone you trust
and see if (s)he delivers. If you do not know enough of the people, the
best ones are often the women that are more intelligent than the leader.
You know how he got there and she does too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:32:44 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>On 02-Nov-08 12:57, Stephen wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:38:22 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>>> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics
>>
>>
>I am confused by the headings
>Modern international use of the terms
>versus
>Modern U.S. use of the terms
>
>Did I miss something?
You have got to remember the far left is Fascist-ism (sp?) and the far right is
hard to distinguish from that.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> No. When all politicians are equally evil, it doesn't seem to matter
> which one you pick.
>
You'll need to pick one who values same thing (for himself, naturally)
as you do (for yourself, naturally).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> You have got to remember the far left is Fascist-ism (sp?) and the far right is
> hard to distinguish from that.
I thought far left is communism and far right is fascism/nazism.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing.
FWIW, me neither.
>>>They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various
legislative bodies of France,
Ah, that might help explain my confusion. :-)
There's also the whole "liberal/conservative" bit, which also doesn't
mean what the words say.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I thought far left is communism and far right is fascism/nazism.
Those can be hard to distinguish when it's government-enforced communism.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> BTW IMHO it is slightly more subtle. It is not the case that politicians
> and parties can be divided in left and right, but voters can be divided
> in those that dislike lefties and those that hate right wing bastards.
I think that's the most wonderful summary of US politics I've seen in
ages. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> BTW IMHO it is slightly more subtle. It is not the case that
>> politicians and parties can be divided in left and right, but voters
>> can be divided in those that dislike lefties and those that hate right
>> wing bastards.
>
> I think that's the most wonderful summary of US politics I've seen in
> ages. :-)
I dunno. That sounds like a liberal talking...<G>
--
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Heh. I never did comprehend the whole left wing/right wing thing. I just
Don't bother. Just focus on values, promises, and output. Think of how
you think things should be, and if a politician thinks likewise, you may
want to support him (but do look at critiques of your POV). It then
shouldn't matter if you find out he's extreme right/left/both.
Wow. That sounded like very generic meaningless advice.<G>
> tend to think that all politicians are inherantly power-hungry, lying,
> cheating, manipulative, evil scum. It's a very simple thing to remember.
> ;-)
Used to be my way of thinking. Till I came across some who were the
exact opposite. Not surprisingly, they're often the most ignored by
everyone.
Frankly (and I don't mean to criticize), your way of thinking is often
why most politicians are evil. Think about it...
--
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I think that's the most wonderful summary of US politics I've seen in
> ages. :-)
I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK "politics" seems to
involve a bunch of grumpy old men sitting in a room jeering at each
other, rather like a bunch of 12 year old schoolboys. As soon as anybody
announces a policy, everybody else immediately says how wrong it is.
(They never suggest anything better themselves, mind you - they just
pick holes in everybody else's ideas.) Presumably which policy gets
implemented varies according to which gang jeers the loudest?
I'm sorry - is this the 21st century??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> He's not on in enough states to actually win, though.
No, I think only 5 or 6 are: McCain, Obama, McKinney, Nader, and either
Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin or both.
--
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02-Nov-08 18:48, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> I think that's the most wonderful summary of US politics I've seen in
>> ages. :-)
>
> I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK "politics" seems to
> involve a bunch of grumpy old men sitting in a room jeering at each
> other, rather like a bunch of 12 year old schoolboys.
I think the parliamentary democracy is though to have been born in the
UK, perhaps it never grew up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 12:27:33 +0100, andrel wrote:
> That may or may not be more true than my rule of thumb, but it almost
> destroys
> democrat <-> people/voters
> republican <-> nation
> For me the main value is that I do not live in the US, so the party
> lines have not been part of my upbringing. The problem for me (and
> possibly Andy, although it could also be his habit of living under
> stones) is that in my country the two concepts are not mutual exclusive.
> Indeed our republicans are republicans *because* they are fundamentalist
> democrats. Still, when I want to guess which party in the US wants to
> reform the medical system and which one is most likely to start a war,
> it helps a lot.
An outside view does always bring a different perspective - and that's
the thing I find interesting. I'd never thought about it that way myself.
I think most people are more complex than either ideology lays out - for
example, I consider myself a fiscal conservative but not a social
conservative.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:49:11 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> He's not on in enough states to actually win, though.
>
> No, I think only 5 or 6 are: McCain, Obama, McKinney, Nader, and
either
> Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin or both.
Yeah, I believe that is correct.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:46:17 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>> politics don't quite mix with geek humor... :P
>>> Oh, I don't know, I found the whole series to be very entertaining. :-)
>> Oh, it's *definitely* entertaining. I just have _no clue_ what the hell
>> they're on about... :-}
>
> The politics of the 'net in the US was my read. It helps to know that
> Ron Paul was on the Republican ticket and is still running for president
> but with a different party.
>
> Jim
Had a long chat with the "supporters" of this guy on a science blog. In
fact... They won't fracking shut up, even after pointing out to them
that their "claims" that the government is supposed to only protect
against things like fraud, theft, violence, etc., wouldn't have done
anything to **stop** the current financial crisis, because nothing the
companies that caused it did falls into **any** of those categories. In
point of fact, what caused the problem was the government opting to
believe the banks, when those entities told them, "We know the market,
and know what we are doing", and opted to **not** regulate them, place
any new limits on what they could do, or in any way restrain them from
loaning out more money than they had, in absurd amounts, to people only
an idiot would believe had the means to pay them back. Oddly, the only
people that one could "claim" where committing, say fraud, for example,
might be the people filling out the applications for credit, and most
sane people would ask themselves, "Well, if the banks 'knew' it was
fraud, why the hell did they accept the applications?!"
But, somehow, Ron Paul supporters, and other "Libertarians" still insist
that the solution is smaller government, less regulation, privatization
of *everything*, including, in the extreme cases of delusion for some of
them, the military (apparently the Blackwater incident was something
they missed completely), while the government, more or less, doesn't do
anything at all.
At this point, the very idea that "any" of them will be elected scares
the hell out of me. But, its just a choice between that, mild, empty
stomach feeling you get when you think something is wrong, or a sweat
soaked nightmare you get when you are sure you are about to be hurt
**really** badly by an accelerating car, or a charging rabid animal.
Me, I opted to go for the only candidate with a chance of winning, who
merely made me very uncomfortable. My parents.. have apparently both
bought into the bullshit idiocy of the theocrats, who have spent the
last 20+ years shoveling every sick idiot in the country onto the
national news, whined about failing morality, and exaggerated every
minor hiccup into a sign of the end of civilization, and are opting to
vote for the ones who have made it their mission this election to kiss
the asses of the same idiots that have been lying about these things for
decades. I'd bang my head on my desk, but the bruise is already so large
at this point that the next hit would probably do brain damage.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02-Nov-08 20:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 12:27:33 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> That may or may not be more true than my rule of thumb, but it almost
>> destroys
>> democrat <-> people/voters
>> republican <-> nation
>> For me the main value is that I do not live in the US, so the party
>> lines have not been part of my upbringing. The problem for me (and
>> possibly Andy, although it could also be his habit of living under
>> stones) is that in my country the two concepts are not mutual exclusive.
>> Indeed our republicans are republicans *because* they are fundamentalist
>> democrats. Still, when I want to guess which party in the US wants to
>> reform the medical system and which one is most likely to start a war,
>> it helps a lot.
>
> An outside view does always bring a different perspective - and that's
> the thing I find interesting. I'd never thought about it that way myself.
> I think most people are more complex than either ideology lays out - for
> example, I consider myself a fiscal conservative
I don't know what that means (i.e. not a term used here.) Does that mean
that you are against raising taxes? In favor of decreasing taxes for the
rich? Or simply keeping the system as it is?
Anyway, this outsider (yes I am, to the point that I do think the US is
international, a point unfortunately missed by Stephen :( ;) ) thinks
that the current US government has directly and indirectly borrowed so
much money from other countries that one day they'll have to pay back
one way or another. Even McCain will have to raise taxes if he doesn't
want to continue Bush's irresponsible politics. He knows that, and I am
frankly amazed that large parts of the US electorate let him get away
with attacking Obama because he is a 'socialist' and will therefor
surely increase taxes. But I am just an outsider.
> but not a social conservative.
Which means you wouldn't mind if neighbours moved? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> against things like fraud, theft, violence, etc., wouldn't have done
> anything to **stop** the current financial crisis, because nothing the
> companies that caused it did falls into **any** of those categories.
Except to the extent they are regulated banks and the government already
took over banking and money, yeah. I mean, given that you let the
government control printing of the money, confiscating gold, and
eliminating risk for banks, no, there's nothing they did that fall into
those categories. One of the things Ron Paul (as I understand it)
advocates is getting the government out of the business of trying to
regulate the economy in the first place.
> or in any way restrain them from
> loaning out more money than they had, in absurd amounts,
That's where the "fraud" part comes in, you see. Except the government
already passed laws (back in 1916 or so) saying they're allowed to.
> But, somehow, Ron Paul supporters, and other "Libertarians" still insist
Be aware that "libertarians" are like "pagans". There's maybe 3 points
of agreement between any two people in those groups, and the rest is
open to interpretation. :-)
> At this point, the very idea that "any" of them will be elected scares
> the hell out of me.
Also be aware that, GWB notwithstanding, the President doesn't make the
laws in the USA. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:490### [at] hotmailcom...
> I had a problem remembering who was who too. What helps for me is that
> democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest that)
> while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming that
That's an interesting perspective, but there are many situations where the
two parties are the exact opposite of what you're saying here.
I find a more accurate description is their stance on regulation. Democrats
favor heavy regulation and Government involvement, Republicans want to be
left alone. Though this, too, is sometimes inaccurate.
Maybe if the parties made more sense, I'd be able to pick one and stick to
it. The way things are, though, I usually just pick the candidate that's
going to do the least amount of damage.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:490e1dc5$1@news.povray.org...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> against things like fraud, theft, violence, etc., wouldn't have done
>> anything to **stop** the current financial crisis, because nothing the
>> companies that caused it did falls into **any** of those categories.
>
> Except to the extent they are regulated banks and the government already
> took over banking and money, yeah. I mean, given that you let the
> government control printing of the money, confiscating gold, and
> eliminating risk for banks, no, there's nothing they did that fall into
> those categories. One of the things Ron Paul (as I understand it)
> advocates is getting the government out of the business of trying to
> regulate the economy in the first place.
It sounds nice in theory, especially when you've studied Adam Smith and
believe in the "invisible hand", but history has shown us that an unmanaged
economy can get, quite literally, stuck in a rut(1). In such situations,
massive economic intervention is the only way to achieve anything close to
normal(2) productivity.
(1) OK, I've only taken one semester of economics, but it was enough to
convince me that Keynes was right about the Great Depression. The economy
got to a point where 1/3 of the population was unemployed, and on its own it
would have probably stayed that way for decades.
(2) It varies, but most economists call full production a 5% unemployment
rate (or thereabouts).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:18:28 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> I think most people are more complex than either ideology lays out -
>> for example, I consider myself a fiscal conservative
>
> I don't know what that means (i.e. not a term used here.) Does that mean
> that you are against raising taxes? In favor of decreasing taxes for the
> rich? Or simply keeping the system as it is?
I'm in favor of paying for what we "purchase" from the government. I
don't like the debt/deficit spending that the US is engaged in, and it
troubles me that the government doesn't have a balanced budget (but in
order to keep from being bankrupt, I have to).
> Anyway, this outsider (yes I am, to the point that I do think the US is
> international, a point unfortunately missed by Stephen :( ;) ) thinks
> that the current US government has directly and indirectly borrowed so
> much money from other countries that one day they'll have to pay back
> one way or another. Even McCain will have to raise taxes if he doesn't
> want to continue Bush's irresponsible politics. He knows that, and I am
> frankly amazed that large parts of the US electorate let him get away
> with attacking Obama because he is a 'socialist' and will therefor
> surely increase taxes. But I am just an outsider.
I think either candidate would ultimately look to cut spending and raise
taxes in some way. Who they raise taxes on and what they cut spending on
is the difference between the two, really.
I think that Obama will probably raise taxes on the "rich" (and where
that cutoff is will ultimately depend on a cost/benefit analysis that
he'll have to do once he's got *all* the numbers, which I don't think
either of the candidates really have - just a gut instinct on my part),
and i think he'll probably try to keep taxes down for those who aren't
"rich".
But even if my taxes do go up (and I'm well below the $250,000/$200,000
mark), I think it is important to pay for what we do, which means paying
the troops and giving them health care. That's a damned dangerous job
they do, and while I'm certainly not for the war in Iraq, those who have
chosen to serve have my respect and I would absolutely show my support
for them by paying their salaries and making sure their families don't
have to give up their homes because they're deployed in a dangerous part
of the world.
There are too many people over here who think that "support the troops"
means "support fighting in Iraq", but who don't think that paying a
little more in taxes in order to actually pay them is important.
I'll get off my soapbox before I go longer. :-)
>> but not a social conservative.
>
> Which means you wouldn't mind if neighbours moved? ;)
LOL - given that we've got a lousy garage band next door, no. ;-)
But what I mean by that was actually well summed up on Real Time with
Bill Maher by one of the panelists this week, something to the effect of
"fix yourself and help others. Not the other way around; you don't go
around trying to fix everybody else."
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:38:13 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Also be aware that, GWB notwithstanding, the President doesn't make the
> laws in the USA.
Executive orders have the force of law, though, and line-item veto is a
powerful tool that a president has to modify a law that's been approved
by congress through a vote.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers wrote:
> (1) OK, I've only taken one semester of economics, but it was enough to
> convince me that Keynes was right about the Great Depression. The
> economy got to a point where 1/3 of the population was unemployed, and
> on its own it would have probably stayed that way for decades.
Funny how the Great Depression started just one decade after the
government took over control of the money and the banks, replacing all
the actual valuable money with IOUs from corporations, eh?
Show me someplace having a Great Depression that *isn't* using fiat
currency, and I'll believe you more.
> (2) It varies, but most economists call full production a 5%
> unemployment rate (or thereabouts).
I think it varies depending on the type of economy. In a rural economy,
I think you tend to get pretty much full employment whether you want it
or not. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Executive orders have the force of law, though,
Only because nobody can really stop him. :-) Certainly executive orders
aren't going to change the tax rates.
> and line-item veto is a powerful tool that a president has to modify a law
Did that actually pass? I thought Congress fought tooth and nail to
prevent line-item vetos.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:03:04 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Executive orders have the force of law, though,
>
> Only because nobody can really stop him. :-) Certainly executive orders
> aren't going to change the tax rates.
It would be interesting to see someone try that just to see what happens.
>> and line-item veto is a powerful tool that a president has to modify a
>> law
>
> Did that actually pass? I thought Congress fought tooth and nail to
> prevent line-item vetos.
Sorry, I was thinking about "signing statements", which Bush has used
over the last 8 years.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sorry, I was thinking about "signing statements", which Bush has used
> over the last 8 years.
Yeah. My understanding is that those aren't really law, but just
instructions to the executive branches which enforce the law.
In other words, it's like the police chief saying "We know it's legal to
have a peaceful protest, but I want you to go out and arrest protesters
anyway." He's not making laws. He's just enforcing his own will.
Not unlike the courts, except that's their *job*.
At least as I understand it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:46:01 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sorry, I was thinking about "signing statements", which Bush has used
>> over the last 8 years.
>
> Yeah. My understanding is that those aren't really law, but just
> instructions to the executive branches which enforce the law.
>
> In other words, it's like the police chief saying "We know it's legal to
> have a peaceful protest, but I want you to go out and arrest protesters
> anyway." He's not making laws. He's just enforcing his own will.
>
> Not unlike the courts, except that's their *job*.
>
> At least as I understand it.
That could be - I've not read a lot about it, maybe time to do some more
reading. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers wrote:
> Maybe if the parties made more sense, I'd be able to pick one and stick to
> it. The way things are, though, I usually just pick the candidate that's
> going to do the least amount of damage.
That's what is apparently the general thing in the US now. People are voting
the candidate they hate the least...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> against things like fraud, theft, violence, etc., wouldn't have done
>> anything to **stop** the current financial crisis, because nothing the
>> companies that caused it did falls into **any** of those categories.
>
> Except to the extent they are regulated banks and the government already
> took over banking and money, yeah. I mean, given that you let the
> government control printing of the money, confiscating gold, and
> eliminating risk for banks, no, there's nothing they did that fall into
> those categories. One of the things Ron Paul (as I understand it)
> advocates is getting the government out of the business of trying to
> regulate the economy in the first place.
>
Oh, yes, things where so much better back in colonial times, when every
state, or even county, and sometimes cities, printed their own money,
and you never knew if the next place you landed in would accept it..
Sorry, but no. For a system to function you need a stable basis for the
system not 50 different interpretations of what that "basis" should be.
At one time, that was a gold standard, and some countries still, sort
of, operate off it. But there just isn't enough fracking gold in the
world to support, never mind back, the number of transactions that
actually take place in the modern world. Moving away from that as a
standard, to currency itself being the standard, **helped** growth. You
know what has hurt growth in the US? Two things:
1) exceptionalism. The idiot belief that America is the best at
everything, and always will be, which has left companies like Ford and
the rest *fighting* the Asian automakers to this day, most recently by
selling shit pickups and Hummers, and other gas guzzling scrap piles,
when we should have been paying attention to the fact that the rest of
the world figured out 20 years ago that small, efficient and
streamlined, was the future.
2) anti-intellectualism. Its now insanely common to hear idiots in the
press and government babbling about the "elitists" that don't "feel"
right about anything, so must be "wrong" because they use facts, logic
and science to find solutions, instead of gut reactions, traditional
thinking, and a persistent belief that nothing can go wrong, because,
see #1.
The former blinds us to the fact that the only places that are bigger
hell holes than the US when it comes to violence, bigotry, poor medical
coverage, poor economic growth, bad education and unemployment is...
places like the Middle East, and third world countries. Its just ***not
possible*** for the average American to admit that the US is turning
into a third world country, and when they do, they blame gays,
terrorist, atheists (since you can't safely blame blacks or Jews any
more), or "liberalism" (never mind the fact that most of the world takes
one look at what we call liberals and asks, "Wait? Why are the
conservatives attacking other conservatives over not being conservative
enough?). The later is why people don't "stay" in the US as much any
more, after getting an education, why BS like 'No Child Left
less-Behind' gets cheers, while suggesting we teach critical thinking
and problem solving actually, in one case I know of, got the parent
chewed out for "Teaching their kid, instead of letting the school do it,
since all the questions they asked, and their demand for **real**
information and explanations for things was **disruptive**."
The modern US thinks we are #1, while simultaneously thinking that being
smart, knowledgeable, logical, or just prone to use a lot of big words,
makes you a pariah and untrustworthy. Even if we closed every over seas
manufacturing plant, reopened every US business that used to make stuff
here and then started hiring workers to fill the positions, we would
have to ship people in from half the rest of the world to "find" enough
people that know the difference between silicon gel and silicon chips,
never mind had a damn clue what the hell the difference made.
And the companies know this, which is one reason why, recently, as of
like last year, the major car manufactures in the US flat out stated,
"We are moving much of our operations to Canada, because in recent years
we simply can't find enough people in the US that are knowledgeable
enough when hired to do the job, and those we have hired tend, for the
most part, to be **untrainable**."
When the business world has no resources other than the same idiots that
take out 16 credit cards, then try to use them to pay off each other, to
hire in the first place, it hardly matters what the companies *or* the
government does, the result is going to have more in common with the
movie Idiocracy, than with Libertarianism.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Oh, yes, things where so much better back in colonial times, when every
> state, or even county, and sometimes cities, printed their own money,
> and you never knew if the next place you landed in would accept it..
Um, no. Every bank printed its own money, and gold worked everywhere.
Why do you think there were gold rushes?
Now we have only one bank printing money, and the only reason it's
accepted everywhere is because we have lots of gund. See Iceland for a
counterexample. Why again is this good?
> At one time, that was a gold standard, and some countries still, sort
> of, operate off it.
You know, it worked between countries a thousand years ago. The only
reason to get *off* of a gold standard is if you *want* to counterfeit
money. It's perfectly possible to devalue money without leaving a
hard-metal standard - how many pounds of sterling silver can you buy
with a British Pound Sterling today?
> But there just isn't enough fracking gold in the
> world to support, never mind back, the number of transactions that
> actually take place in the modern world.
Bull. You don't need the actual gold. You just need your money to be
worth something universal and impossible to counterfeit. What does it
matter if an ounce of gold is worth $100,000?
I'm not suggesting that carrying around gold is a good way to do
business. I'm merely pointing out that the Great Depression happened a
decade or more after people stopped backing money with gold.
> Moving away from that as a
> standard, to currency itself being the standard, **helped** growth.
Perhaps. Until people stop believing in money. Then you get the Great
Depression.
> when we should have been paying attention to the fact that the rest of
> the world figured out 20 years ago that small, efficient and
> streamlined, was the future.
Except the Japanese like to buy big gas-guzzling Ford pickup trucks too.
:-) Plus, CAFE helped there a whole bunch.
> 2) anti-intellectualism.
Yep.
> The modern US thinks we are #1, while simultaneously thinking that being
> smart, knowledgeable, logical, or just prone to use a lot of big words,
> makes you a pariah and untrustworthy.
In many ways, yes. Altho I'm not sure what this has to do with monetary
policy. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:55:37 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> That's what is apparently the general thing in the US now. People are
> voting the candidate they hate the least...
That's been going on here for some time. This year, I finally get to
vote *for* someone rather than *against* someone.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
