Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-04 07:01:08

Carry on.

clark · 2005-04-04 08:44:51

Are you supposed to be the horse, or the stick?

clark · 2005-04-04 09:13:57

My mistake, the horses ass. Glad we cleared that one up.

BWhite · 2005-04-04 12:28:03

Concerning Cobra's avatar, flamboyantly wrapped in the red, white and blue. . .

Males who buy oversized powerboats or 10 foot tall stereo speakers (at least in my college days) are compensating for a perceived deficiency in another department.

Might that suggest something about a nation that feels the need to wrap everything in a flag? An underlying insecurity, perhaps?

Palomar · 2005-04-04 14:40:31

Might that suggest something about a nation that feels the need to wrap everything in a flag? An underlying insecurity, perhaps?

*Are doting grandparents who plaster their cars with bumperstickers about their grandkids and who carry around wallet-sized photo albums of their grandkids (to show photo after photo to anyone who's even remotely interested) "insecure"?

Some folks are more expressive of their pride and love.

Not speaking for Cobra here...just responding.

--Cindy

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-04 15:55:36

Are doting grandparents who plaster their cars with bumperstickers about their grandkids and who carry around wallet-sized photo albums of their grandkids (to show photo after photo to anyone who's even remotely interested) "insecure"?

Yes.

Some folks are more expressive of their pride and love.

And some folks are more expressive of their pride and love, because they are insecure.

Sometimes things are not always as they seem. But in the words of the late Pope:

It is what it is.

Indeed.

-Mike

srmeaney · 2005-04-05 03:38:46

Before I decend into insulting your version of Freedom, You mentioned in the previous political potpouri something about 200 posts being the critical limit? What exactly are you talking about?

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-05 05:08:54

Concerning Cobra's avatar, flamboyantly wrapped in the red, white and blue. . .

Some folks are more expressive of their pride and love.
Not speaking for Cobra here...just responding.

Some folks just mock everything, even if we do have pride and love for it.

Before I decend into insulting your version of Freedom, You mentioned in the previous political potpouri something about 200 posts being the critical limit? What exactly are you talking about?

Most people try to argue my version of freedom. :;): Well, except trolls and Yu Knights. The 200 post "limit" refers to the tendency of large threads to collapse, all the posts become irretrievable and the whole thing has to be scrapped and replaced. Like a certain Commonwealth, one might say. While the problem hasn't been proven to be a direct result of a thread's size (could be purely random, affecting individual posts but more likely in larger threads just by the odds) but we err on the side of caution.

Might that suggest something about a nation that feels the need to wrap everything in a flag? An underlying insecurity, perhaps?

Back to point, in a way I'd have to say yes. America has a great many things to be insecure about when you get down to it. At present we have a mythology that doesn't jive with our reality. Americans are supposed to be industrious, self-reliant and independent people, hard work will bring success and wealth and you're free to live as you see fit. Enter the reality of the hyper-rich who amassed it with no real labor, the burdensome government that stifles the independent and entreprenurial spirit we supposedly rely on and the ever-growing socialistic welfare apparatus to keep us subservient to the very government that makes it necessary while claiming to be helping the people. A lot to be insecure about.

Palomar · 2005-04-05 05:38:07

Back to point, in a way I'd have to say yes. America has a great many things to be insecure about when you get down to it. At present we have a mythology that doesn't jive with our reality. Americans are supposed to be industrious, self-reliant and independent people, hard work will bring success and wealth and you're free to live as you see fit. Enter the reality of the hyper-rich who amassed it with no real labor

*Yeah, America's aristocracy. The more things change, the more they stay the same huh?

I remember the scandal surrounding the Campbell's (soup) Company, around 1990: Long-time employees who'd been guaranteed their pensions were suddenly all "dismissed" (not sure what exactly they called it); too old to start over and screwed out of their pensions. (:edit: Nowadays stuff like this is "old hat"; but in 1990 it was shocking, because back then and for a long time most -- if not all -- companies honored pensions and etc.; they especially *didn't* screw over long-time employees).

The middle class is disenfranchised and disillusioned, and has turned on itself. Which of course plays more into the hands of the wealthy and powerful. There's little sense of community anymore, etc.

I think a certain majority in this nation assumed once it gained power, it'd be "easy street" for everyone. Meanwhile, certain minority groups were suffering and sweating it out. Now there's this vast schism in the majority -- and it's getting uglier by the year. A certain minority group I can think of must be watching with amusement.

America has become so vicious and dog-eat-dog within itself; the "little guy" hero figure who battled the big oppressive guy and yet remained nice and caring and generous to others after overcoming the oppressor is pretty much a dead concept. Nowadays the prevailing attitude is, "Screw you, I've got mine!" Even people who don't have anything to gain from an attitude like that, or who are bit players with delusions of grandeur, are stupidly vicious.

A friend of ours was threatened with being fired from her job at McDonald's about 8 years ago. Why? Because she wouldn't sleep with the manager. Fast-food jobs are a dime a dozen; he thought it'd be some great loss to her?? :laugh: Of course she turned in her 2-week notice and found a better job (just about -anything- is better than fast-food).

I wonder where it'll all end up. America like Rome: Imploding.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-05 05:58:29

I wonder where it'll all end up. America like Rome: Imploding.

An outside possibility.

My barbarians still need some work though.

Palomar · 2005-04-05 06:09:37

::shakes head::

Can't understand being glib about it. But then I've actually seen the changes in America over the past 25 years.

Another example (a former employer of mine in this town): A young gal who was repeatedly told by the department head (a woman) that the paperwork regarding her annual review had been "lost." It was this company's own policy that every employee was to get a yearly review. And of course it's during the review that the company decides whether it'll give the employee a raise or not. The department head and her snotty little clique didn't like M, and so made up an excuse of "having lost the paperwork."

So RE-DO the paperwork.

M wouldn't press the issue, and how could she? She'd have been fired. Despite being punctual, courteous and a pretty good worker.

I've seen things in the past 10 - 12 years especially, as work-place abuse goes, which I couldn't have dreamed of in the mid-1980s, when my career began, and into the early 90s.

Most of it is senseless and stupid. The manager at McDonald's: Did he fancy himself Donald Trump and our friend as a young executive who was facing a "sleep with me or lose a $250,000 per year salaried job" dilemma? :laugh:

It's sad, all the way around.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-04-05 06:36:40

Concerning Cobra's avatar, flamboyantly wrapped in the red, white and blue. . .
Some folks are more expressive of their pride and love.
Not speaking for Cobra here...just responding.
Some folks just mock everything, even if we do have pride and love for it.

Exactly!

This is why I chose Cobra's avatar for my example. A red, white and blue Darth Vader? The mockery door has already been opened.

Some sometimes we love that which we mock. And sometimes we must mock that which we love, to keep it out of the deep water.

= = =

Once again it appears Cobra and I process data in much same way, we simply seem to start with different data samples.

= = =

He writes:

America has a great many things to be insecure about when you get down to it. At present we have a mythology that doesn't jive with our reality. Americans are supposed to be industrious, self-reliant and independent people, hard work will bring success and wealth and you're free to live as you see fit.

I agree.

We also have a tradition of one person, one vote and we are less than 5% of the global population. Long term, something has to give way.

Edited By BWhite on 1112704683

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-05 06:37:36

Can't understand being glib about it. But then I've actually seen the changes in America over the past 25 years.

Well, I'm looking at this from two angles. First, I'm coming from a low, dark place at the moment and just can't get too worked up about social ills or imminent collapse. Second, and bear with my clumsy analogy, America is kinda like this giant jar of money and goodies sitting on a table, everything you could ever want is in there. But some bunch of jackasses have screwed the lid so tight that you can't in. I'd rather just fix the lid and inventory the contents in an orderly fashion, but there are days when I'm forced to admit that given the choice between leaving it sealed up or pushing it off onto the floor, sending the contents spilling free, I might be inclined to give it a little nudge and worry about the clean-up after.

Not that I'm advocating revolution in general, it's a damn messy and high-risk way to go about things.

Stability in any arrangement among humans is largely a self-imposed delusion.

M wouldn't press the issue, and how could she? She'd have been fired. Despite being punctual, courteous and a pretty good worker.

Perhaps, but firings have to be justified in most cases, what would they give as cause? Why couldn't she go over their heads, especially if annual reviews were company policy that the department head was deliberately breaking for personal reasons?

Which brings me to another point. The biggest reason for the problems we face in this country is that too many just take it. Perhaps it's time we collectively grew tougher spines and thicker skins, even if it means we have to temporarily inconvenience ourselves. Standing up to the boss, taking a case to court instead of just paying the fine, challenging unfair policies; hardly earth-shattering hardships. Our ancestors fought a war for lesser insults after all.

Palomar · 2005-04-05 06:54:23

M wouldn't press the issue, and how could she? She'd have been fired. Despite being punctual, courteous and a pretty good worker.
Perhaps, but firings have to be justified in most cases, what would they give as cause? Why couldn't she go over their heads, especially if annual reviews were company policy that the department head was deliberately breaking for personal reasons?
Which brings me to another point. The biggest reason for the problems we face in this country is that too many just take it. Perhaps it's time we collectively grew tougher spines and thicker skins, even if it means we have to temporarily inconvenience ourselves. Standing up to the boss, taking a case to court instead of just paying the fine, challenging unfair policies; hardly earth-shattering hardships. Our ancestors fought a war for lesser insults after all.

*I see your point in your last paragraph, and agree with in. Briefly: In M's case, it wouldn't have mattered. Very small hospital and the department head (L) had the CEO in her pocket.

L also tried to cheat me out of a raise promised by a supervisor, on the condition that I undertake a new and specific task which required taking a class. While still taking the class, the supervisor was drummed out. I fulfilled my part of the bargain, and took the matter to the department head. She refused to grant me the raise because the supervisor who'd promised it was no longer an employee.

I knew I couldn't take the matter to L's superiors because of their close relationship. The doctors in that small hospital valued my work, and so I took the issue to the CMO (chief medical officer). He went to bat for me and I got the raise. I was called into the department head's office and chewed out. She'd have fired me if she could (supremely abusive) but she didn't dare. All of her superiors were also especially hostile to me after that.

Again: M didn't have a chance.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-05 07:01:35

There's always the Bob Ross approach.

"Happy Accidents"

Rather glib today it seems. ???

clark · 2005-04-05 10:27:43

Speaking of "Happy Accidents"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/cousin … index.html

Cousins' marriage highlights relationship controversy

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) -- It began as the kind of childhood crush that often becomes family lore shared at reunions years later.
Eventually, first cousins Donald W. Andrews Sr. and Eleanore Amrhein realized they had a deeper love and wanted to wed. It couldn't happen in their home state of Pennsylvania, though, or 23 other states that prohibit first cousins from marrying each other.
Instead, they tied the knot in Maryland last month.
"This is a decision me and my husband have made on our own. We never thought of it being publicized," said Eleanor Andrews, 37. "We didn't want the publicity. We wanted the rights like anybody had the rights."
Their nuptials highlight a relationship that often draws scorn, yet advocates say is equally misunderstood. Such marriages are common in the Middle East, Asia and Africa and are legal in Europe and Canada.

Thoughts, comments, pointless arguments pro or con?

It is a man and a woman... I wonder if two gay first cousins married, would that be more of an affront to god and society, or less? Things to ponder.

BWhite · 2005-04-05 16:30:58

Seize power; loot the http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.a … le]pension plan - - Nothing but the good old fashioned corporate raider mentality.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-04-05 23:08:42

Srmeaney:-

The only Australian Prime Minister to oppose the presence of a US Military base on Australian soil soon after walked out of Parliament and went for a swim in his suit with a briefcase full of government documents and Drowned, never to be seen again.

Are we talking about the death of Harold Holt in 1967?
If so, am I right in thinking you mean to somehow implicate the United States of America in his death?

Here's something about him from Google, which I found at http://www.naa.gov.au/Publications/fact … .html]THIS SITE. :-

During his time in office, Holt strongly supported United States' involvement in Vietnam. One of his first acts as Prime Minister was to increase the size of the Australian forces in Vietnam by one third.
An active sportsman, Harold Holt disappeared while swimming in heavy seas off Portsea in Victoria on 17 December 1967. His body was never recovered.

Various conspiracy theories surfaced about Holt's disappearance, including the idea that he was kidnapped by the Chinese in a submarine!
Many conspiracy theories could just conceivably be true and most of them are far more exciting than the mundane official explanations put forward. In this case, Occam's Razor guides us inexorably to the conclusion that Harold Holt went swimming, got into difficulties in rough seas, and drowned.
Plain and simple.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-06 04:59:49

Seize power; loot the pension plan - - Nothing but the good old fashioned corporate raider mentality.

Argh!

What are you referring to? A government bond, backed by government trust and held by the government is not an asset, it's not money. It's as though you put a dollar in a jar every day for ten years, then spent it all but for every dollar left a notecard with "$1.25" written on it. On paper it might look okay but you got nothing. That's the SocSec "trust fund", you can trust that there are no funds. Borrow money to redeem the bonds or borrow it to offset on-paper losses from private accounts, we're talking about the same thing.

As a younger guy I'd like to increase my return with some private investment mixed in, you, being a bit older might prefer to take your chances that it holds up as-is. Current retirees won't be affected either way. There may be some legitimate personal reasons for opposing reform, but let's at least be up front about it. On a purely policy level leaving it as-is just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Martian Republic · 2005-04-06 11:12:51

Seize power; loot the pension plan - - Nothing but the good old fashioned corporate raider mentality.
Argh!
What are you referring to? A government bond, backed by government trust and held by the government is not an asset, it's not money. It's as though you put a dollar in a jar every day for ten years, then spent it all but for every dollar left a notecard with "$1.25" written on it. On paper it might look okay but you got nothing. That's the SocSec "trust fund", you can trust that there are no funds. Borrow money to redeem the bonds or borrow it to offset on-paper losses from private accounts, we're talking about the same thing.
As a younger guy I'd like to increase my return with some private investment mixed in, you, being a bit older might prefer to take your chances that it holds up as-is. Current retirees won't be affected either way. There may be some legitimate personal reasons for opposing reform, but let's at least be up front about it. On a purely policy level leaving it as-is just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

So you support George Bush Priratizing Social Security?

That exactly what he doing you know!

Bill had it right!

George Bush intends to decrease the benefits by 50% to those who are receiving Social Security and he intends to add two trillion dollars worth of debt to Social Security and he intend to default on two trillion dollars worth of Social Security I.O.U. that he put there in previous years.

Now if you believe that have the benefits slashed by 50% and having trillion of new debt added to the tax burden a good deal, thin George Bushes Social Security reforms for you.

But, you not going to get that money as an investment, because they already plan to steal it for Wall Street.

Larry,

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-06 11:15:21

A cogent argument, as always. :;):

BWhite · 2005-04-06 18:12:20

Seize power; loot the pension plan - - Nothing but the good old fashioned corporate raider mentality.
Argh!
What are you referring to? A government bond, backed by government trust and held by the government is not an asset, it's not money.

Its reneging on a promise made by prior sessions of Congress to mask and smokescreen the Bush massive indulgence of "borrow and spend" in lieu of "tax and spend" - - when Clinton left office the budget was balanced. Since then spending has exploded and =NONE= of this new spending is on social welfare programs. Oh, and some huge tax cuts.

To pay for these new programs, and the Iraq war (omitted from budget projections) and the tax cuts, Bush now proposes to slash social welfare and social security spending.

Its reverse Robin Hood. Pure and simple. Gordon Gecko in the White House.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-07 05:34:38

Its reneging on a promise made by prior sessions of Congress...

Congress promises all sorts of things that never happen. The government is in no way contractually obligated to pay SocSec benefits. They could pull the plug on the whole scheme tomorrow and there's nothing anyone could do about it.

to mask and smokescreen the Bush massive indulgence of "borrow and spend" in lieu of "tax and spend"

For which I've been critical of the Administration almost from day one.

when Clinton left office the budget was balanced.

On paper, for numerous reasons, many outside the President's control.

Since then spending has exploded and =NONE= of this new spending is on social welfare programs. Oh, and some huge tax cuts.

If spending is to increase I'd prefer it be on something other than social welfare. Military spending or the like can be cut with little fanfare, social spending only grows and grows and grows, it's the cancer of government. If not kept in check it will consume so much that the nation cannot function.

By the same token, tax cuts (aside form other benefits, both pratical and philosphical) reduce the immediate pool of resources for consumption. In theory it should force down spending. The fact that in practice it tends to not affect overall spending is not an argument against tax cuts but against the very method of American governance.

to pay for these new programs, and the Iraq war (omitted from budget projections) and the tax cuts, Bush now proposes to slash social welfare and social security spending.

Slash Social Security spending? It appears benefits will be largely unaffected. One way or another SocSec spending is going to increase, either directly to pay back treasury bonds or indirectly to make up for private accounts. Either way it doesn't represent a big pot of money to be pilfered for other expenses. That sort of thing is what got us in this mess in the first place.

But then whatever happens, I've been resigned to never seeing that money for years. All I've got at stake is a bonus provided we all live that long.

That rapture-plague is coming, you know. :;):

Palomar · 2005-04-07 06:01:04

...and]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050406/us_nm/arizona_security_dc_2]"...and we get to play Dress Up, and play Cowboys & Mexicans, and..."

*I do not like this idea. It'll create racial tensions, the chances for abuse is staggering, and who do these "militiamen" answer to? The Border Patrol has a chain of command, answerable.

Is this "frontier justice" or is it vigilanteeism? Seems to me it's the latter.

Bill O'Reilly is always screaming about "the Border situation." Yeah, from up there in Noo Yawk. What does he know about it, *personally*? I live not 50 miles from the Mexican border. The situation -isn't- as drastic as he paints it. Maybe the situation IS worse in AZ; I don't know.

But I do know I don't like this (article).

Some folks may mean well. But others will be bullies, will be the types who want to "take it (whatever is chewing their own asses in real life) out on" often unarmed and "regular" civilian Mexicans, etc. There will be rapes and beatings and murders. And who will they answer to?

This isn't 1880. It's 2005.

--Cindy

P.S.: Note the assertion (unsubstantiated for now) of one person interviewed, that he/she has seen Mexicans caught taken north. Could it be some of these "militiamen" are into forced labor (slavery)?

Hire more Border Patrol officers and let *them* handle it; around here the BP does a *fine* job. And, again, they have a chain of command and are ANSWERABLE to it.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-07 06:15:13

Is this "frontier justice" or is it vigilanteeism? Seems to me it's the latter.

It seems to me that this is an axample of the media making a story about something other than what's really going on. There are many in this country that have tried for years to get more attention placed on securing the borders with little success. Finally, a few have decided to go out there themselves and report (not apprehend, shoot, beat down or chase off) illegals attempting a crossing. They call the border patrol who comes out and gets them. Americans trying to do what they believe is right for the country becasue no one else will.

And they've aleady helped, not to mention that the Mexican government is now making some efforts (no doubt temporary) to curb the flow. It's working.

Unfortunately, certain elements woul rather portray any effort to reduce illegal immigration as some sort of bigotry.

I reserve judgement at this point but overall my outlook is favorable at the moment. We'll see how it goes.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-04-04 07:01:08

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#2 2005-04-04 08:44:51

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#3 2005-04-04 09:13:57

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#4 2005-04-04 12:28:03

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#5 2005-04-04 14:40:31

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#6 2005-04-04 15:55:36

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#7 2005-04-05 03:38:46

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#8 2005-04-05 05:08:54

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#9 2005-04-05 05:38:07

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#10 2005-04-05 05:58:29

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#11 2005-04-05 06:09:37

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#12 2005-04-05 06:36:40

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#13 2005-04-05 06:37:36

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#14 2005-04-05 06:54:23

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#15 2005-04-05 07:01:35

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#16 2005-04-05 10:27:43

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#17 2005-04-05 16:30:58

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#18 2005-04-05 23:08:42

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#19 2005-04-06 04:59:49

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#20 2005-04-06 11:12:51

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#21 2005-04-06 11:15:21

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#22 2005-04-06 18:12:20

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#23 2005-04-07 05:34:38

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#24 2005-04-07 06:01:04

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#25 2005-04-07 06:15:13

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Board footer