Compare the number of lies spread about Obama (in comparison to the amount
of true stories), explained here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

to, for example, the number of lies vs. true stories about George W Bush:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp

  Why do Americans hate him so much? I think this is a good example of the
lies and distortions fabricated about him:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 01/26/10 14:23, Warp wrote:
>   Compare the number of lies spread about Obama (in comparison to the amount
> of true stories), explained here:
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
> 
> to, for example, the number of lies vs. true stories about George W Bush:
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp
> 
>   Why do Americans hate him so much? I think this is a good example of the
> lies and distortions fabricated about him:

	Lots of potential problems with your questions/statements (not saying
you're wrong, but hardly conclusive):

	Why the assumption that the lies stem from Americans?

	Why the assumption of "uniform distribution?" It may well be that most
of the lies against a particular person stem from a single or small
number of sources?

	Why the assumption that Snopes is categorizing most of them?

	Also, it may well be that the number of negative statements against a
candidate/sitting president is constant, and you didn't have to lie to
criticize Bush. (gets ready to dodge fruits...).

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b5f6b4c@news.povray.org...
>   Compare the number of lies spread about Obama (in comparison to the
amount
> of true stories), explained here:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
>
> to, for example, the number of lies vs. true stories about George W Bush:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp
>
>   Why do Americans hate him so much?

Maybe the amount of ridicule US presidents get is more or less constant but
people did not need to fabricate as many lies to ridicule Bush.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/26/10 18:07, somebody wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4b5f6b4c@news.povray.org...
>>   Compare the number of lies spread about Obama (in comparison to the
> amount
>> of true stories), explained here:
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
>>
>> to, for example, the number of lies vs. true stories about George W Bush:
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp
>>
>>   Why do Americans hate him so much?
> 
> Maybe the amount of ridicule US presidents get is more or less constant but
> people did not need to fabricate as many lies to ridicule Bush.

I accuse you of plagiarism.

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message

I heard some right-wing conservatives in a newsgroups call him the "magic
negro".  Racism is still a very visible local culture divide, I guess.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Why do Americans hate him so much? 

Beats me.  I think he's the best thing to happen to our country this 
millennium.


...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b5fb489@news.povray.org...
> On 01/26/10 18:07, somebody wrote:
> > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> > news:4b5f6b4c@news.povray.org...
> >>   Compare the number of lies spread about Obama (in comparison to the
> > amount
> >> of true stories), explained here:
> >>
> >> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
> >>
> >> to, for example, the number of lies vs. true stories about George W
Bush:
> >>
> >> http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp
> >>
> >>   Why do Americans hate him so much?
> >
> > Maybe the amount of ridicule US presidents get is more or less constant
but
> > people did not need to fabricate as many lies to ridicule Bush.

> I accuse you of plagiarism.

Weird I missed it. Nonetheless,  I accuse you of precognition!

Post a reply to this message

I suspect that for any publically visible figure, there will always be a 
very loud minority who denonce them. So maybe it just varies by how easy 
it is to do for a particular figure?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:49:38 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> I heard some right-wing conservatives in a newsgroups call him the
> "magic negro".  Racism is still a very visible local culture divide, I
> guess.

Very much so.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:07:52 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>>   Why do Americans hate him so much?
> 
> Beats me.  I think he's the best thing to happen to our country this
> millennium.

Agreed, though arguably the millennium hasn't been that long yet. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:49:38 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> I heard some right-wing conservatives in a newsgroups call him the
>> "magic negro".  Racism is still a very visible local culture divide, I
>> guess.
> 
> Very much so.

But if you ask them, they'll insist they're not racist, they don't like 
this trait or that trait that they're quick to note isn't particular to 
[racial group]...it just happens to be something that they ascribe to 
most members of that group far more often than any other.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:49:38 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> I heard some right-wing conservatives in a newsgroups call him the
>>> "magic negro".  Racism is still a very visible local culture divide, I
>>> guess.
>> 
>> Very much so.
> 
> But if you ask them, they'll insist they're not racist, they don't like
> this trait or that trait that they're quick to note isn't particular to
> [racial group]...it just happens to be something that they ascribe to
> most members of that group far more often than any other.

Yep, I've noticed that as well.  It's all very "slimy" if you ask me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2010 10:25 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:07:52 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>
>> Warp wrote:
>>>    Why do Americans hate him so much?
>>
>> Beats me.  I think he's the best thing to happen to our country this
>> millennium.
>
> Agreed, though arguably the millennium hasn't been that long yet. :-)
>
> Jim
With respect, I am starting to think that the birthers just got the 
wrong country. Every time he might get some where, he backs off, every 
time he needs to step up, he tries instead of play nice with the idiots 
apposing him, and every time he comes close to actually getting 
something done, he surrenders. Obviously... he's actually French.

I didn't get to see it. Did he actually say today that he is freezing 
government spending or not, during the state of the disunion address. 
And what will he do next that was "presented" as an idiot solution by 
the other sides. The only good thing coming out of this mess is watching 
the Republican's try to shift the goal posts even further, every time a 
concession happens. At this point, the goal posts are no longer on the 
damn field, they are being hoisted to the stop of the stadium wall, and 
next week they will be loading them in the new Massachusetts senator's 
pickup truck, in the damn parking lot, so they can drive it off a cliff 
some place.

I am getting fed up with this BS, from both sides, and Obama isn't 
helping do anything but make the right crazier than they already are, 
while missing the target continually.

-- 
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

Tim Cook wrote:
> But if you ask them, they'll insist they're not racist, 

I liked the poll I saw where they asked people if they thought the color of 
the candidate's skin would affect their vote.  8%.

Then they asked if they thought the color of the candidate's skin would 
affect their neighbor's vote: 46%.

(Numbers from memory, but it was something like that. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
> > But if you ask them, they'll insist they're not racist, 

> I liked the poll I saw where they asked people if they thought the color of 
> the candidate's skin would affect their vote.  8%.

> Then they asked if they thought the color of the candidate's skin would 
> affect their neighbor's vote: 46%.

  I'm pretty certain that we have a female president largely because she
is female and not because of her political views. Many women can't even see
what's wrong in voting someone for president *because* she is a woman (and
no, most of these women couldn't mention even *one* political opinion that
our president has).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27-1-2010 23:13, Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> But if you ask them, they'll insist they're not racist, 
> 
> I liked the poll I saw where they asked people if they thought the color 
> of the candidate's skin would affect their vote.  8%.
> 
> Then they asked if they thought the color of the candidate's skin would 
> affect their neighbor's vote: 46%.
> 
> (Numbers from memory, but it was something like that. :-)

Could very well be. There has been a turning of opinion about black 
presidents last two years. People know they have changed their mind, but 
assume that it is something particular of their own and the neighbour 
was still against it when they talked about it. But that was five years ago.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I'm pretty certain that we have a female president largely because she
> is female and not because of her political views. Many women can't even see
> what's wrong in voting someone for president *because* she is a woman (and
> no, most of these women couldn't mention even *one* political opinion that
> our president has).

Oh, that's easy.  "Women are cooler than men!"

All the opinion you need, amirite?

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On 01/27/10 14:40, Warp wrote:
>   I'm pretty certain that we have a female president largely because she
> is female and not because of her political views. Many women can't even see
> what's wrong in voting someone for president *because* she is a woman (and

	The thing with democracies is that that kind of behavior isn't wrong.
It just is.

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   I'm pretty certain that we have a female president largely because she
> > is female and not because of her political views. Many women can't even see
> > what's wrong in voting someone for president *because* she is a woman (and
> > no, most of these women couldn't mention even *one* political opinion that
> > our president has).
>
> Oh, that's easy.  "Women are cooler than men!"

they are much hotter.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:49:42 -0500, nemesis wrote:

>> Oh, that's easy.  "Women are cooler than men!"
> 
> they are much hotter.

Guys are sweatier, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

You know, I'm not sure on the State of the Union address - I had 
completely spaced it.  Will have to check it out.

It sounded like he was going to freeze spending.

I've said to some of my conservative friends that I wish that Obama would 
do a little of what Bush did - just do what he thinks is right and don't 
care what other people think - especially those on the other side.

At least that way, those of us who are on the left could have some of the 
things we want instead of trying to negotiate for everything.

Part of the problem, though, is the Democratic Party has such a broad 
base, the representation ranges from centrist to progressive - and they 
can't agree on anything.  Jon Stewart was right to make fun of them for 
not being able to get anything done in spite of having a larger majority 
in the Senate than the Republicans have since something like 1923.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:49:42 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
> >> Oh, that's easy.  "Women are cooler than men!"
> >
> > they are much hotter.
>
> Guys are sweatier, though.

what do you expect? next to a hottie after all?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:21:10 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:49:42 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>
>> >> Oh, that's easy.  "Women are cooler than men!"
>> >
>> > they are much hotter.
>>
>> Guys are sweatier, though.
> 
> what do you expect? next to a hottie after all?

LOL

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Compare the number of lies spread about Obama
> (in comparison to the amount
> of true stories), explained here: ...


An interesting sociological observation that could perhaps be proven with
research is the following.  I've done a lot of browsing on political websites,
and I think that I see a lot more sexual references interspersed into the nasty
things said about Obama than I ever did in reference to Bush.  People may have
disagreed with both for good reason, and mean people may have said nasty things
about both, but this different theme keeps popping up again and again against
Obama.  I think it has to do with racist associations about sexuality, forced or
forbidden.  One of my facebook friends used some of this kind of language in an
update to diss Obama, then a month later (December) asked us to "remember the
reason for the season."  Would like to see (actually, no I wouldn't) what kind
of religious catechism he'd write.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2010 5:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You know, I'm not sure on the State of the Union address - I had
> completely spaced it.  Will have to check it out.
>
> It sounded like he was going to freeze spending.
>
> I've said to some of my conservative friends that I wish that Obama would
> do a little of what Bush did - just do what he thinks is right and don't
> care what other people think - especially those on the other side.
>
> At least that way, those of us who are on the left could have some of the
> things we want instead of trying to negotiate for everything.
>
> Part of the problem, though, is the Democratic Party has such a broad
> base, the representation ranges from centrist to progressive - and they
> can't agree on anything.  Jon Stewart was right to make fun of them for
> not being able to get anything done in spite of having a larger majority
> in the Senate than the Republicans have since something like 1923.
>
> Jim
Yeah, he did say he was going to freeze it. Nearly everyone involve with 
economics says this is a bloody stupid idea, not the least due to how 
much the bloody government *spends* on things in the private sector, to 
support all the stuff being frozen.

What some people, including me, find so idiotic about this is McCain 
***ran on*** the idea that we should freeze spending, as a solution to 
the economic problem. Now that Obama is doing it, McCain is whining that 
it doesn't, "Go far enough!".

Seeing the right react to everything done by Democrats, including when 
those things are the very ideas they **themselves** ran on, is like 
watching the two clones running for President on Futurama:

"Jack Johnson: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.

John Jackson: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far 
enough!"

Its funnier than hell, until you consider that many of these clowns 
*got* elected, and McCain only missed with a Palin pick for VP. (Rhyms 
conveniently with appalling).

-- 
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

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:web.4b623c39e9f0323c34d207310@news.povray.org...
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> > Compare the number of lies spread about Obama
> > (in comparison to the amount
> > of true stories), explained here: ...

> An interesting sociological observation that could perhaps be proven with
> research is the following.  I've done a lot of browsing on political
websites,
> and I think that I see a lot more sexual references interspersed into the
nasty
> things said about Obama than I ever did in reference to Bush.

I've not seen any significant number of sexual references for either. You
are probably thinking of Clinton.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:10:21 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> What some people, including me, find so idiotic about this is McCain
> ***ran on*** the idea that we should freeze spending, as a solution to
> the economic problem. Now that Obama is doing it, McCain is whining that
> it doesn't, "Go far enough!".

Yep.  I had a debate with some self-confessed ultra-conservatives who 
were railing against Obama for the bank bailout.  I rather pointedly 
asked if they would have rather had unemployment skyrocket with all these 
banks and auto companies failed so they could be complaining about that 
instead.

Not a single one had an answer to that question.

Because truth be told, if Obama had said "let the banks and car companies 
fail", they'd have been screaming about that instead, about how Obama was 
causing unemployment to skyrocket.

It's a case where there was no way to win.

Of course, now that the Democrats have lost Ted Kennedy's seat in the 
Senate, we're pretty hosed; after all, they only have the second largest 
majority in 32 years in the Senate, control of the house and the white 
house.  With that lack of power, there's no way they'll be able to get 
anything passed without giving some serious concessions to the Republican 
*-19* vote majority in the Senate.

I'm pretty fed up with the Democrats right now.  I think I'm voting 
independent next time around.  They control 2 of 3 branches of government 
and *still* can't get anything done.  What a bunch of tossers.

> Seeing the right react to everything done by Democrats, including when
> those things are the very ideas they **themselves** ran on, is like
> watching the two clones running for President on Futurama:

LOL, that is a great one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2/1/2010 10:15 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm pretty fed up with the Democrats right now.  I think I'm voting
> independent next time around.  They control 2 of 3 branches of government
> and *still* can't get anything done.  What a bunch of tossers.
>
Sadly, it *is* possible to blame the president for a lot of it. There 
was a statement made on a blog when he was running, by the blogger that, 
"My greatest fear is that he is someone that badly wants to be liked by 
everyone, and this will result in him not doing anything if its making 
the opposition unhappy.", or something to that general effect. Its not 
*precisely* the case, but he is trying to bridge a gap between a 
political party that is what the conservatives where, in too many ways, 
in the 30-40s, with one whose membership seems to belong to nothing but 
evangelical, right wing, churches, or just got off the bus from the 
national institute of the insane, which has a special wing set aside for 
people who are perpetual liars. What is left of the "core" of the 
republicans is being sidelined by the nutcases, the nutcases think 
*anything* vaguely liberal is evil, especially if you suggest that the 
world isn't run by a religious version of Andrew Ryan from Bioshock, and 
his ultra-libertarianism and rampant conspiracy theories, and members of 
the Democrats are even turning out, like in the case of Liberman, to be 
bloody sleeper agents.

But, they have spent so damn long "compromising" at every turn, 
including on their own principles, and moving right of center, that, 
without someone willing to stand up and say, "This will stop.", not, "I 
really wish, if you would like, hopefully, that you will sort of stop 
this, not that you are really doing it.", they can't do anything but 
what they did for the last several decades, and compromise everything.

I love that Obama stands up and says that people are being 
obstructionists and doing stupid things, especially in the last few 
speeches, but he has got to get past the assumption that the people 
holding the puppet string in the Republican party give a crap about 
being wrong, doing wrong, or fixing problems, unless it helps them 
personally.

-- 
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 Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:34:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> I love that Obama stands up and says that people are being
> obstructionists and doing stupid things, especially in the last few
> speeches, but he has got to get past the assumption that the people
> holding the puppet string in the Republican party give a crap about
> being wrong, doing wrong, or fixing problems, unless it helps them
> personally.

Agreed.  He needs to stop talking about doing things and just do them.

I'm also inclined to agree with Doris Kearns Goodwin (who was on Jon 
Stewart's show last week) who said that Obama and the Democratic 
leadership in the Senate should just let the GOP filibuster - then people 
can see what a bunch of tossers *they* are.

I often feel that the whole of DC just needs to have a big cage put 
around it; then we'll have locked up a fairly significant number of 
criminals who peddle in influence over laws.

But I think the real solution would be to return political positions to 
being an unpaid (and cannot-accept-gifts under ANY ANY ANY circumstances) 
positions.  Give them a studio apartment in DC and a stipend, but never 
let them forget that they work for the *people*.  Take away the salaries, 
the high-end health plans, and all of the benefits.  Make it truly a 
public service that they fulfill.

And put term limits in place.

But of course for any of these things to happen, those in power have to 
decide to put those restrictions on themselves.  Like *that* will ever 
happen.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message

> But I think the real solution would be to return political positions to
> being an unpaid (and cannot-accept-gifts under ANY ANY ANY circumstances)
> positions.  Give them a studio apartment in DC and a stipend, but never
> let them forget that they work for the *people*.  Take away the salaries,
> the high-end health plans, and all of the benefits.  Make it truly a
> public service that they fulfill.

Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and
much more to lose by doing so. Then send packs of hungry lawyers after them
to uncover any wrongdoing.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/4/2010 6:05 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson"<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote in message
>
>> But I think the real solution would be to return political positions to
>> being an unpaid (and cannot-accept-gifts under ANY ANY ANY circumstances)
>> positions.  Give them a studio apartment in DC and a stipend, but never
>> let them forget that they work for the *people*.  Take away the salaries,
>> the high-end health plans, and all of the benefits.  Make it truly a
>> public service that they fulfill.
>
> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and
> much more to lose by doing so. Then send packs of hungry lawyers after them
> to uncover any wrongdoing.
>
You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it. The 
#1 thing causing problems right now is that companies and private 
groups, and sometimes people, funnel large amounts into electing 
someone, then expect them to do what they want, usually by bribing them 
with more money to help with X pet project, or the next re-election. 
Needless to say, a recent supreme court decision is just going to make 
this stupid idiocy worse. The last thing you need is to make it a field 
that only crazies and the corrupt want to even try to get into, because 
it pays shit to work at it.

-- 
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

somebody wrote:
> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and

Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded 
people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b6bb03b$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm
thinking
> > in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes)
and

> Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded
> people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)

Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers". However, IME, poor and
badly-rewarded people are so readily corrupted and manipulated (as they have
much more to gain and much less to lose) that I wouldn't trust any important
and powerful job to them.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm 
>> thinking
>> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) 
>> and
> 
> Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded 
> people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)
> 

So cynical for one so young :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:04 -0700, somebody wrote:

> Don't you want the exact opposite?

Nope, because if you do the opposite, then they make a career out of it.  
Politics *shouldn't* be a career, it should be a term of service to the 
public.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:11:02 -0700, somebody wrote:

> Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers".

You can do that without paying the politicians anything above a living 
stipend.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it. 

You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get the 
people who *want* to do a real *public service*.  If there's no money in 
it, you keep the money out of it (you have to monitor contributions, 
bribes, and the like - but you take the money that's being paid to the 
congresscritters right now and hire people to monitor that - you'd still 
end up with leftovers).

You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people 
would participate.  I don't think they would because those people are 
largely driven by a profit motive.

> The
> #1 thing causing problems right now is that companies and private
> groups, and sometimes people, funnel large amounts into electing
> someone, then expect them to do what they want, usually by bribing them
> with more money to help with X pet project, or the next re-election.

Yeah, so you watch for that activity like a hawk, and if someone is 
receiving bribes, you prosecute them and throw their asses in jail - both 
the person bribing the official and the official who accepted the bribe.

> Needless to say, a recent supreme court decision is just going to make
> this stupid idiocy worse. 

I agree with this.  One of the worst supreme court decisions in all time.

> The last thing you need is to make it a field
> that only crazies and the corrupt want to even try to get into, because
> it pays shit to work at it.

Only crazies and the corrupt want to get into it now, for the most part.  
Look at Michelle Bachmann or watch *any* of the house or senate debates 
on TV where they pull out a stupid chart on an easel.  You have to be 
crazy to say some of the things that are said on the house floor.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:04 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>> Don't you want the exact opposite?
> 
> Nope, because if you do the opposite, then they make a career out of it.  
> Politics *shouldn't* be a career, it should be a term of service to the 
> public.
> 

Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in? :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b6e194b$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:11:02 -0700, somebody wrote:

> > Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers".

> You can do that without paying the politicians anything above a living
> stipend.

Sure but you'd then only attract losers or fanatics, or more likely both.
Unless you live in dreamland. In that case, why pay any professional above
minimum wage? Make doctors work for a can of soup. I am sure that would
ensure brightest people providing the best health care.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b6e1aa9$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> > You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it.
>
> You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get the
> people who *want* to do a real *public service*.

What makes you think *I* want people that are so useless and naive that they
cannot do anything else with their lives than politics as public service for
free?

> You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people
> would participate.

No. You are assuming *better* people would participate if you pay them less.
I'm afraid that doesn't quite work like that. If it did, it would mean we
have built the modern society entirely bass ackwards.

> I don't think they would because those people are
> largely driven by a profit motive.

I definitely want people driven by the profit motive. I wouldn't trust
anyone that's *not* driven by the profit motive, as it would likely mean
they are either not smart enough or have a darker motive. It's a matter of
regulating *where* that profit comes from. You want to make sure that the
profit does not come under the table.

If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? I
don't need it, and it's absolutely not worth risking getting caught and
losing the $1M pay. But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe starts
to look much more appetizing.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-2-2010 13:50, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b6e1aa9$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it.
>> You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get the
>> people who *want* to do a real *public service*.
> 
> What makes you think *I* want people that are so useless and naive that they
> cannot do anything else with their lives than politics as public service for
> free?
> 
>> You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people
>> would participate.
> 
> No. You are assuming *better* people would participate if you pay them less.
> I'm afraid that doesn't quite work like that. If it did, it would mean we
> have built the modern society entirely bass ackwards.
> 
>> I don't think they would because those people are
>> largely driven by a profit motive.
> 
> I definitely want people driven by the profit motive. I wouldn't trust
> anyone that's *not* driven by the profit motive, as it would likely mean
> they are either not smart enough or have a darker motive. It's a matter of
> regulating *where* that profit comes from. You want to make sure that the
> profit does not come under the table.
> 
> If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? I
> don't need it, and it's absolutely not worth risking getting caught and
> losing the $1M pay. 

Strange but true in practice they do. Possibly partly explained by the 
fact that if you and all your colleagues are corrupted anyway that 10K 
is just like any other bribe. Watch the British scandal over the 
declarations of the MPs. That is often below 10K, and almost everybody 
defends themselves by pointing at the others.

> But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe starts
> to look much more appetizing.

Politicians here earn about 100K enough for very comfortable living but 
not so much that we only get people that are motivated by money. Just 
being motivated by money has too much danger of corruption. That starts 
during the campaign because getting elected is of utmost financial 
importance, and after being corrupted things will go on as usual while 
in parliament/senate. Second problem is that you get a very small social 
subgroup, which is not good for democracy. People earning 1M are too 
often too much trying to earn money and making sure their friends also 
get a 'fair' share. You get legislation aimed at increasing the wealth 
of the current wealthy and aiming at diminishing opportunities of those 
that are now less well off.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/7/2010 9:33 AM, andrel wrote:
>> But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe starts
>> to look much more appetizing.
>
> Politicians here earn about 100K enough for very comfortable living but
> not so much that we only get people that are motivated by money. Just
> being motivated by money has too much danger of corruption. That starts
> during the campaign because getting elected is of utmost financial
> importance, and after being corrupted things will go on as usual while
> in parliament/senate. Second problem is that you get a very small social
> subgroup, which is not good for democracy. People earning 1M are too
> often too much trying to earn money and making sure their friends also
> get a 'fair' share. You get legislation aimed at increasing the wealth
> of the current wealthy and aiming at diminishing opportunities of those
> that are now less well off.
>
Point is, if I can make $10K a year, and *still* somehow get another 
$10K donated for "campaign money", or other projects, out of which I can 
funnel some cash for myself, you haven't solved anything. Its not about 
whether someone makes $10K a year, or $10 million a year, its whether or 
not various other interests can get by with funneling as much, or more, 
to them other ways, while they are there. And, in the US at least, its 
been the trend for the politicos to arrange things so this *is* 
possible, to support reelection campaigns, pet projects, and various 
crazy assed revisionist/activist goals they have, which ignore the 
people, in favor of what ever schizo idea they (or their 
church/party/secret_cult/personal_business_associates/family/all_of_the_above 
happen to hold).

-- 
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 7-2-2010 18:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 2/7/2010 9:33 AM, andrel wrote:
>>> But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe starts
>>> to look much more appetizing.
>>
>> Politicians here earn about 100K enough for very comfortable living but
>> not so much that we only get people that are motivated by money. Just
>> being motivated by money has too much danger of corruption. That starts
>> during the campaign because getting elected is of utmost financial
>> importance, and after being corrupted things will go on as usual while
>> in parliament/senate. Second problem is that you get a very small social
>> subgroup, which is not good for democracy. People earning 1M are too
>> often too much trying to earn money and making sure their friends also
>> get a 'fair' share. You get legislation aimed at increasing the wealth
>> of the current wealthy and aiming at diminishing opportunities of those
>> that are now less well off.
>>
> Point is, if I can make $10K a year, and *still* somehow get another 
> $10K donated for "campaign money", or other projects, out of which I can 
> funnel some cash for myself, you haven't solved anything. Its not about 
> whether someone makes $10K a year, or $10 million a year, its whether or 
> not various other interests can get by with funneling as much, or more, 
> to them other ways, while they are there. And, in the US at least, its 
> been the trend for the politicos to arrange things so this *is* 
> possible, to support reelection campaigns, pet projects, and various 
> crazy assed revisionist/activist goals they have, which ignore the 
> people, in favor of what ever schizo idea they (or their 
> church/party/secret_cult/personal_business_associates/family/all_of_the_above 
> happen to hold).

I agree, but a major part of the reason why the US law works the way it 
does is that the people who are 'in charge' are precisely the ones who 
got there in that way. And often they are part of the same subculture 
that also 'influences' broadcasting networks to give more time to people 
who defend this system than to the ones who are opposed. Then you are in 
danger of ending up with a situation where the majority of politicians 
is corrupt *and* the people re-elect them because they believe that is 
the way it should be.
The US need a very big crisis to get out of this mess. The last one was 
apparently not enough.

There are probably good historical reasons why the US politics work the 
way they do. I am happy to live in a more sane country. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> The US need a very big crisis to get out of this mess. The last one was 
> apparently not enough.

Historically speaking, it tends to be the crises that make it worse, not better.

You don't get the draft during peacetime. You don't get the Federal Reserve 
when the economy is humming along.  You don't get to toss out Habeas Corpus 
unless there's a big "emergency" that "justifies" it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On 7-2-2010 22:02, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> The US need a very big crisis to get out of this mess. The last one 
>> was apparently not enough.
> 
> Historically speaking, it tends to be the crises that make it worse, not 
> better.
> 
> You don't get the draft during peacetime. You don't get the Federal 
> Reserve when the economy is humming along.  You don't get to toss out 
> Habeas Corpus unless there's a big "emergency" that "justifies" it.

I was thinking about a crisis so severe that the US drops to place 
number 50 of richest countries in the world and their government is 
forced to comply with the rules dictated by the now richest 8.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> forced to comply with the rules dictated by the now richest 8.

Maybe. I don't really see *that* happening too soon. :-) I suspect the 
leaders would ensure something more catastrophic happens before that.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:36:32 -0700, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b6e194b$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:11:02 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers".
> 
>> You can do that without paying the politicians anything above a living
>> stipend.
> 
> Sure but you'd then only attract losers or fanatics, or more likely
> both. Unless you live in dreamland. In that case, why pay any
> professional above minimum wage? Make doctors work for a can of soup. I
> am sure that would ensure brightest people providing the best health
> care.

It's called public service.  There are people who do that who aren't 
"losers or fanatics", even in the system we have today.  Just not that 
many - those are the types of people that need to be attracted to 
actually *serve* the public rather than themselves (which is what most 
politicians do).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:42:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:04 -0700, somebody wrote:
>> 
>>> Don't you want the exact opposite?
>> 
>> Nope, because if you do the opposite, then they make a career out of
>> it. Politics *shouldn't* be a career, it should be a term of service to
>> the public.
>> 
>> 
> Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in? :-P

The western USA. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:50:31 -0700, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b6e1aa9$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>> > You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it.
>>
>> You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get
>> the people who *want* to do a real *public service*.
> 
> What makes you think *I* want people that are so useless and naive that
> they cannot do anything else with their lives than politics as public
> service for free?

You are assuming that only useless and naive people who can't find other 
work would be the only ones to do public service.

>> You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people
>> would participate.
> 
> No. You are assuming *better* people would participate if you pay them
> less. I'm afraid that doesn't quite work like that. If it did, it would
> mean we have built the modern society entirely bass ackwards.

I'm saying make sure that they're provided for.  I'm not suggesting they 
be made homeless - but at the same time, if the average congresscritter 
is making more than the people they ostensibly represent, then they 
aren't actually *representing* those people very well, because they can't 
*identify* with them.

So you take the money out of it entirely.  Make sure they have a place to 
live (it doesn't have to be fancy, a studio apartment should suffice for 
most), food to eat, basic health coverage (including catastrophic care), 
and a way to do the people's work.

>> I don't think they would because those people are largely driven by a
>> profit motive.
> 
> I definitely want people driven by the profit motive. I wouldn't trust
> anyone that's *not* driven by the profit motive, as it would likely mean
> they are either not smart enough or have a darker motive. It's a matter
> of regulating *where* that profit comes from. You want to make sure that
> the profit does not come under the table.

People driven by a profit motive will do what increases THEIR profit, 
whether that helps the people they represent or not is inconsequential.

> If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? 

There are plenty who do.  Why?  Because they can.

> I
> don't need it, and it's absolutely not worth risking getting caught and
> losing the $1M pay. But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe
> starts to look much more appetizing.

Where did I say they would make $10K a year?  I said make sure their 
needs are provided for.  Don't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars 
a year.

There are more ways than "cash in pocket" to pay someone for public 
service that don't compromise the integrity of the system.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:42:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 
>> Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in? :-P
> 
> The western USA. ;-)
> 

Ah! The western part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, I remember now.

Apologies to both of the sensible Americans ;)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message