Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Al,
(To the tune of The Red Flag)
The working class
Can kiss my *ss
I've got the foreman's
Job at last
(For Americans, the tune is better known as 'O Christmas tree, O Christmas Tree...' The first time I heard it in the PX in Bermuda in the late 60s, I couldn't figure out why they were playing The Red Flag -- 'The people's flag is deepest red/It's shrouded oft our martyred dead/And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold/Their hearts' blood stained its ev'ry fold.')
Yours fraternally*,
Roger
*As in the story of the Muscovite who went on a European holiday in the 1970s. In a series of postcards:
Fraternal greetings from free Bulgaria -- Oleg.
Fraternal greetings from free Romania -- Oleg.
Fraternal greetings from free Hungary -- Oleg.
Fraternal greetings from Germany -- free Oleg.
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
I am yet to see an anarchist coming from a country under real anarchy.
NickTrop
Veteran
Absolutely, positively correct. Spot on. Phil "Enron Loophole" Gramm - responsible for the rolling blackouts in California that cause "granny" to pay 4X the going rate per kilowatt hour as Enron energy speculators lined their pockets and literally laughed at the poor suckers. Phil "Nation of Whiners" Gramm who repealed the safeguards put in place after the Depression.
McCain's co-chair, McCain's chief economic advisor - until he stuck is foot in his mouth.
They controlled the House, the Senate, and the WH. Period. They're the ones who are the deregulation kings. Gramm's name is right on the bill.
sanmich
Veteran
I have a very good friend. we enjoy each other very much.
If we start talking politics, we could kill each other.
So we simply avoid it and go on enjoy each other company.
I believe politics would kill the enjoyment lots of people find to share on this forum, mine including. Part of the nice cool atmosphere here is because politics or religions are not involved.
That being said, Olsen could raise his question and could even get a civilized answer.
The "that's the rule here, take it or leave it" stuff is a bit strange to me....
If we start talking politics, we could kill each other.
So we simply avoid it and go on enjoy each other company.
I believe politics would kill the enjoyment lots of people find to share on this forum, mine including. Part of the nice cool atmosphere here is because politics or religions are not involved.
That being said, Olsen could raise his question and could even get a civilized answer.
The "that's the rule here, take it or leave it" stuff is a bit strange to me....
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Michael,
So you simply avoid talking politics with that friend, as I tend to do with my father and brother.
But you don't tell all your other friends that they're not allowed to discuss politics either.
Cheers,
Roger
sanmich
Veteran
Dear Roger
You're absolutely right. But people around here are not Friends.
They are limited to a very simple and poor level of interaction.
My guess is that introducing politics is a bad thing because people will start to tag other ones, put them on their mental "hate list" and so on.
It would be a shame when what we all want to share is their photographic experience.
My guess is that I am now cooperating and getting helpful cooperation from people that i would avoid if I knew what there political views are, and that would avoid me for the same reasons.
I prefer some level of anonymity....
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Did you know that that Great Republican William Clinton signed that bill you mentionedl overturning Glass Steagal? And has made statement recently defending it?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Michael,
Maybe I'm more of an idealist...
The few people I've met in real life from the internet have indeed become friends in several cases. Not my closest, it's true, but people whose opinions and presence I value.
If people can learn NOT to hate on the basis of (as you rightly say) simple and poor interaction, perhaps it's worth the risks.
Cheers,
R.
Maybe I'm more of an idealist...
The few people I've met in real life from the internet have indeed become friends in several cases. Not my closest, it's true, but people whose opinions and presence I value.
If people can learn NOT to hate on the basis of (as you rightly say) simple and poor interaction, perhaps it's worth the risks.
Cheers,
R.
D.O'K.
Darren O'Keeffe.
"If people can learn NOT to hate on the basis of (as you rightly say) simple and poor interaction, perhaps it's worth the risks".
Absolutely and profoundly true. And a goal worth almost any "risks", I'd say...
D.
Absolutely and profoundly true. And a goal worth almost any "risks", I'd say...
D.
kevin m
Veteran
It's a separate issue. (But it must be noted the bill had a "veto proof" majority, anyway.) Gramm slipped the "Commodity Futures Moderization Act" (which created the unregulated credit swap market) into a $384 million dollar omnibus spending bill almost a year after Glass-Steagall was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Olsen
Well-known
Watching one of the US presidential race debates, I noticed that McCain said that - over and over again, that he will spend tax payer's money on 'buying bad loans'. This is could be a very bad deal for the US tax payers. They could end up spending huge sums 'for nothing'.
Like Sweden did 18 years ago. - Ever heard of the huge Swedish tax level? That is partly due to that a 'public' (Federal) debt of 1,350 billion SEK costing the Swedish tax payers interest on this debt to 1/3 of their 'health care for all' bill; more than 100 billion SEK per year.
By 'buying out bad loans', US tax payers might end up with an astronomical tax bill with no colleteral to show for.
What I would advice is a complete nationalisation of faulty banks. Yes, it sounds very Hugo Chavez-like, but that is what we do in most of Europe now. Then the shareholders of the banks (the risk takers) loose their money, the board and the managment are cicked out (in a high volley over the fence), but the government (tax payers) can consentrate on securing ordinary people's savings and pensions etc.
Nationalized banks can later be privatized - with a comfortable profit on the tax payers hand. Norway and France (and others) did this 18 years back.
Like Sweden did 18 years ago. - Ever heard of the huge Swedish tax level? That is partly due to that a 'public' (Federal) debt of 1,350 billion SEK costing the Swedish tax payers interest on this debt to 1/3 of their 'health care for all' bill; more than 100 billion SEK per year.
By 'buying out bad loans', US tax payers might end up with an astronomical tax bill with no colleteral to show for.
What I would advice is a complete nationalisation of faulty banks. Yes, it sounds very Hugo Chavez-like, but that is what we do in most of Europe now. Then the shareholders of the banks (the risk takers) loose their money, the board and the managment are cicked out (in a high volley over the fence), but the government (tax payers) can consentrate on securing ordinary people's savings and pensions etc.
Nationalized banks can later be privatized - with a comfortable profit on the tax payers hand. Norway and France (and others) did this 18 years back.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
Below is a recent quote from "Bill O'Reilly" of all people. (Yes - he said it, and there's even audio. Mark Levine was none too happy and rebutted.)
O'Reilly: "I do talk radio, and most talk radio is conservative dominated, ideologues, Koolaid drinking idiots. Screaming at you this is socialism, this is this, this is that... This is Clinton's fault.
Clinton's fault? When he hasn't been in in office for eight years! This is Bush's fault! It happened on his watch. Bush could have prevented this... He could have said Merrill Lynch is dealing in bad paper. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, they're dealing in bad paper. So you the investor, don't invest in those companies...
... but let's get back to this talk radio stuff. These idiots, they're misleading you. They're lying to you. They're rich, these guys. They smoke big cigars, alla that! Yeah, oh, yeah - my private jet! (My note - obviously this is Limbaugh) And they say no, no bailout uh uh. No way! Hey, you're gonna get it. Not them! If foreign investment pulls out, we are toast! And they'll pull out if this bailout doesn't happen...
(Bill's now screaming) Walk away from them these LIARS! Right Wing LIARS Walk away from them!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL4__kUcD9o
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
Mine, too! Small world.
FWIW, I don't "hate" anybody based on what is said here. The internet, as somebody has mentioned, is too limited a mechanism to allow for complete human interaction. In my case, I have pretty strong opinions, but in person I have a self-deprecating sense of humor that makes those opinions sometimes funny, or at least bearable. I imagine the same is true for other people here, too, so I try not to get mad or hold grudges. I've even pm'd apologies in a couple of cases when, upon reflection, I realized I'd gotten too personal with what I said. We're all grown-ups here, right? Right?
dmr
Registered Abuser
Reminds me of a classic Johnny Carson line back in the heyday of the Tonight Show.
The lady from the zoo, Joan {mumble}, was there with a small burro. She stated "... now the burro is a member of the ass family."
The camera cut to Carson's facial expression, and then he remarked something like "Oh, my ex in-laws!"
You don't have to. If people in America would learn to think, as opposed to following either the extreme right or the extreme left in zombie style, we would be much better off!
Over the past few days, I've been surprised at how many "conservative" Republicans are questioning the VP's nomination. The word I overheard at a meeting of the "side door club" the other day was "we need a candidate, not a rock star!" This got me thinking ...
At the trade shows we call them "booth bunnies", a very sexist term for an aspiring model or actress who is hired to draw attention to your company's exhibit. It works! They do get a lot of attention from a mostly-male audience. The thing is, they don't know ANYTHING about the company they are working for, or the line they are pushing!
Sarah Palin is the "booth bunny" of the Republicans. She was put there to draw attention to the campaign and yes, it worked. The move got far more attention and airtime than any of several cookie-cutter short-list choices.
She's over her head, however. No way is she qualified!
Oh well ... I'll shut up ...
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Sarah Palin is the "booth bunny" of the Republicans. She was put there to draw attention to the campaign and yes, it worked. The move got far more attention and airtime than any of several cookie-cutter short-list choices.
She's over her head, however. No way is she qualified!
Oh well ... I'll shut up ...
Agree. I was going to vote for the old guy but not with this booth bunny on the ticket. Sadly I will not be voting in November.
Olsen
Well-known
They (the illuminati!) have moved us to the 'Off Topic' section, but it is still 'life' in this old thread. Not bad!
May I air an opinion on US politics here that just might sound very Euro-trash'ist. Have me excused, I do not live in a perfect and harmonious political system myself.
1)
I think it is unfair that 'winner gets it all' in any political system. Over here, a government forms as a result of a majority of a range of smaller parties have to cooperate. Wouldn't USA function better with a parliamentarian system? Like the ones in Europe.
2)
Isn't USA just too big to be democratic? This is the discussion going here in Europe, - how powerful do we want EU to become on the expense of each and every national state. How powerful should 'Washington' be on the expense of the local states?
3)
The role of the US president; isn't it too much destructive power in one hand? Say, if you had a 'General Secretary' elected by one of the Houses and that each and every state could decide on wether they wanted to participate in the War In Iraq, (health care programs, pension systems, bank bail-outs etc)
4)
This two-party-system, two political twins where hardly the color of their expensive silk ties signals the difference, - is it impossible to reform that and allow other parties to become real alternatives? And make the Houses more representative of the American people,- from the Hells Angels members - to real angles. Not just business lawyers.
Well. No European have to tell you anything about democracy. Some of the best known experts on the issue are Americans. Some of the best 'system critics' are indeed Americans. You have the knowledge to make a reform - improve - your political system, but how could it come about..?
And,- indeed, what system changes do ordinary Americans want? All those one hundred million voters that don't vote. Why do they not participate?
May I air an opinion on US politics here that just might sound very Euro-trash'ist. Have me excused, I do not live in a perfect and harmonious political system myself.
1)
I think it is unfair that 'winner gets it all' in any political system. Over here, a government forms as a result of a majority of a range of smaller parties have to cooperate. Wouldn't USA function better with a parliamentarian system? Like the ones in Europe.
2)
Isn't USA just too big to be democratic? This is the discussion going here in Europe, - how powerful do we want EU to become on the expense of each and every national state. How powerful should 'Washington' be on the expense of the local states?
3)
The role of the US president; isn't it too much destructive power in one hand? Say, if you had a 'General Secretary' elected by one of the Houses and that each and every state could decide on wether they wanted to participate in the War In Iraq, (health care programs, pension systems, bank bail-outs etc)
4)
This two-party-system, two political twins where hardly the color of their expensive silk ties signals the difference, - is it impossible to reform that and allow other parties to become real alternatives? And make the Houses more representative of the American people,- from the Hells Angels members - to real angles. Not just business lawyers.
Well. No European have to tell you anything about democracy. Some of the best known experts on the issue are Americans. Some of the best 'system critics' are indeed Americans. You have the knowledge to make a reform - improve - your political system, but how could it come about..?
And,- indeed, what system changes do ordinary Americans want? All those one hundred million voters that don't vote. Why do they not participate?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Olsen,
1 Remember that the US constititution is designed to ensure as much gridlock as possible: that's what 'checks and balances' are about. I regard this as one of its shining achievements. The dangers of the alternative route of excessive proportional representation are well illustrated by Italy (lost count of the number of governments since 1945) and Israel (some truly poisonous parties, elected in tiny numbers, sometimes hold the balance of power).
2 I've long wondered the same thing. So did Jefferson Davis.
3 Possibly this would introduce even more gridlock. Not sure any democracy could handle it.
4 Two-party systems seem to be self-selecting. In the UK we ued to have Liberal and Conservative; now we have Labour and Conservative (though both look so weak that as a life-long Liberal who joined the Young Liberals as 16, I suspect the Liberal Party might just about have been able to knock one of them out is they'd stuck with Charles Kennedy).
5 I've always liked the old Soviet rule which I recall (perhaps erroneously) as follows: if >50% of the electorate stay home, the election has to be re-run and the former candidates aren't allowed to stand. Of course it wasn't ever invoked -- not with 101% voting -- but a variant on it could be enormously useful...
Cheers,
R.
DelDavis
.
The idea of the states being united was forged at the beginning of our government and is codified in the Constitution. The Constitution exists in many peoples' minds as the bedrock. It would take a great deal to fundamentally alter it. We would be moving away from the original concept of the United States. Of course, as we speak we are going through some fundamental changes, are we not?
My experience, having volunteered for a couple of recent presidential campaigns, is that there are a lot of people who still feel very disconnected from the political discourse. Walk around the streets and talk to people, and you will understand how apart they feel. The United States is still highly segregated in certain respects, and it's easy for people to not look outside their own community. Put another way, it's very hard for many people to conceive of themselves as part of the "shining city on a hill" (a phrase that is starting to become distasteful to me). At one time they may have suspected that's what the United States was supposed to be, but that image is so far from their own experience that it is inaccessible, and they become resigned to the fact that it is for others to experience, but not themselves. And since it is inaccessible, why should they go to the trouble of registering to vote? Even if they make up their mind to participate, there are too many hurdles: they don't know how they'll transport themselves (no car, no public transport); they solve that problem but have been lied to about the location of the polling place (I've seen it happen numerous times); they are lied to about their eligibility (again, seen it); they get to the polling place and are harassed endlessly, and are worn down to the point that they give up and go home (yes, I saw that).
I've seen people break down in tears because they went through so much trouble, tried to vote and were unjustly turned away. Pleading with them to try again doesn't work. For them, it's just too degrading. This does happen here.
Olsen
Well-known
1)
We have a Constitution too, very much an idea out of the French Revolution, like the US equaliant, 200 years old, increasingly irrelevant and 'impossible' to change. It even has chapters out of 1000 years viking laws like 'a man is a man, a word is a word' etc. The next constitution we will have, if we ever get around to make a new one, shall have an 'expire date' some 50 years from creation, some it can be modernized in pace with changing times.
Instead of coping with the old text we have simply ignored it (How is that for democracy?), but to change it means we will have military dictatorship - for a week or two. To change it democratically means to solve an impossible gridlock.
What a Constitution should deliver is a representative democracy. Not a gridlock.
3)
It is easy to underestimate the efficiency of the Italian democracy. But the system was designed to ensure that either the facists or communists could take power alone. No bad idea.
4)
The British democracy is the next one up for reform, if you ask me...
5)
The new Russian constitution is close to what critics here in Norway wants for our own country. Securing that it is the obligation of the state to see to that you have a home, a job and a decent life with human rights, freedom of speach etc. - The problem in Russia is that 'everybody' just give a damn about all laws.
Last edited:
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Well, the other party put their "booth bunny" at the TOP of the ticket, so I think I'll join you...