Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

DonPanic · 2005-04-30 03:12:12

LO

Sorry, but this side of Atlantic, we piss of laughter when ordinary people start giving lessons of scientific attitude to scientists.
*Come now, DonPanic. You've made a collectivist statement.

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>? ? ?</span>

No one on your side of the Atlantic dares to "give lessons of scientific attitude to scientists" -- ?

We have plenty of them, too, we call them trolls too, when they do so, Xcept that, by chance, we don't have that whole bunches of stutborn creationnists.
But here as well as in USA, I guess, first things one learns before entering in any lab is to evaluate the uncertainty margins of the theories, of the tools, of the measures, of the calculations.
Much of the trolls critics are made by peoples which never stept in a lab and don't even know that scientists apply uncertainty laws.

Now, with what we know, we can say that the climate is highly probably changing, and consequenses will be probably catastrophic for mankind and many species.
Criticising this by what we don't know is opposing ignorance as an argument against knowledge. This is a trollish attitude.

I'm not a scientist. Perhaps occasionally I make similar comments, or comments which might be construed that way. I do feel some of my thinking is scientific and I'm not reluctant to express an opinion.

Sorry, but :
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Science is based on facts, not on feelings or opinions !</span>

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-30 17:50:09

Sorry, but this side of Atlantic, we piss of laughter when ordinary people start giving lessons of scientific attitude to scientists.

So then scientists aren't ordinary people? Extended education and some grant money does not confer super-human wisdom, in fact in some cases it stifles it.

But it's incidental, as you've missed the point of my statement.

Now, with what we know, we can say that the climate is highly probably changing, and consequenses will be probably catastrophic for mankind and many species.

Which I'm not necessarily disputing, however this in no way proves or even implies that human activity is the sole or even primary cause of that change. We have this egocentric conception of how the world works, anything of consequence that happens is always about us. Only it isn't, climate changes, always has. Surely we are affecting it, how can 6 billion mammals going about the biological functions of life and burning things not have an impact, but to then assume that we, so far above all else in the world (wipe away the sarcasm) must be the direct and sole cause is silly. So laugh at this ordinary person questioning a few scientists, piss yourself if it feels better, but it proves nothing.

Sorry, but :
Science is based on facts, not on feelings or opinions !

Bold text, and red. Wow, the old argue loud and you win approach.

A collection of facts leads to two things, the asking of questions and opinions as to the answers. Whenever presented with information, or facts if you prefer, the natural human act is to draw conclusions from them. Whether done by a scientist with a bonafide theory or some ordinary person the result is essentially the same, a guess, an opinion of what the facts mean.

Convincing oneself is easy, convincing others usually requires more facts, not mere assertions. if you can't produce them, maybe you jumped ahead in your reasoning.

But I forgot, the sky is falling and it's all our fault.

A guy in a white coat said so.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-04-30 19:57:51

I can't stand by without saying I understand CC's stance on this point about Earth's climate.
We're pretty smart and we have our super-computers but we're dealing with an enormously complex system when we try to predict the future behaviour of an entire planetary biosphere. It seems to me to be impossible that we're aware of all the factors and have incorporated all conceivable variables into our climate models. To suggest otherwise smells strongly of overweening hubris to me.
Out of 4.6 billion years of climatic history, we have figures for only about the last one or two centuries. In addition, we have very incomplete data for broad swathes of geological time going back maybe 600 million years (plus scanty information about specific large-scale events in the last billion years or so) - but certainly nothing on a millenium by millenium basis before perhaps a few million years ago. In other words, our data are severely limited.
Extrapolating from severely limited data is fraught with possibilities for large errors - errors large enough to make nonsense of the extrapolation. [And, DonPanic, you don't need to be doing research at Los Alamos or CERN to understand this simple limitation of the scientific method. You and your Euro-pals may not be able to comprehend it but I believe CC does.]

In further support of CC, Earth's biosphere and climate have changed enormously over geological time. The amount of oxygen in the air, for example - negligible for billions of years at the start - has swung between 10% and 35% of the total atmosphere in the past 500 million years. Over a similar period, the percentage of atmospheric CO2 has been far less than it is today, and also up to 20 times as much as it is now!
In all that time, the variations in average global temperature, none of which had anything whatsoever to do with human interference, were always counteracted by 'checks and balances' in the natural system. Some have cited "Gaia" as the mechanism behind the self-governing nature of the beast - life itself automatically controlling the environment to ensure its own continued viability.
These climatic variations, over long periods, have all been on a scale larger than anything humans have witnessed since the advent of civilization. But our knowledge of finer climatic checks and balances, which may operate over very much shorter time-periods, is very much sparser.
Could the average global temperature swing up and down by about 1 deg.C, at random, on a timescale of centuries? Does the biosphere react swiftly and automatically to such changes in ways we don't know about?
Don't know? ... Exactly!

I think this is the point of CC's posts on this subject. There appears to be a tendency among scientists to state things about global warming with a certainty which appears unjustified.
There is a growing body of evidence that there's at least bacterial life on Mars - impact transfer of material between the rocky planets, the the Viking experimental results (dismissed up to now but gaining credence), large expanses of ground ice even near the equator, the acceptance that liquid water can exist today (if only fleetingly) at the Martian surface, gradual and grudging acceptance that Mars is very likely still geologically active, and now the discovery of regions of the atmosphere with high concentrations of methane (and possibly even formaldehyde).
But despite all these data, the scientific establishment still has its heels dug in pretty tight - the paradigm is still that Mars is sterile, something which seems patently unlikely to me.
It seems to me that the scientific community has opened its heart to the concept of human-mediated global warming with the same enthusiasm with which it has resisted the concept of a Martian biosphere. ???

Scientists are just human beings. They're subject to the same 'herding instinct' as the rest of us. They're tempted to toe-the-line to ensure their acceptance by the in-crowd in just the same way as the rest of us, especially when their employment and financial survival depends on it.
To this extent, I can see exactly where CC is coming from and I applaud his independent thinking.

By the same token, I don't believe for a moment that CC is advocating we should abandon caution and go on pumping CO2 into the air. I don't advocate that either.
My opinion is we should work hard to minimize our impact on the ecosystem. For this reason, and for various other geopolitical reasons dear to all our hearts, we should push for alternative energy sources which impact far less on the world around us. We need renewable and benign energy sources and we need them now!
The reason I say this and believe this is because I don't know whether what we're doing to the atmosphere is dangerous and I don't want to take the risk.
But, in agreement with CC, I think it behoves the scientific community to drop any political agenda with which it may sympathize (and I believe there's more than a hint of politics involved) and admit its own uncertainty with equal candour.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, 'methinks the scientific global warming community doth protest too much'! I think that if they presented their findings in a more realistically ambivalent way, their pronouncements would gain credence with those of us able to differentiate between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific law.
Just a few thoughts.

DonPanic · 2005-05-01 03:21:30

LO

Which I'm not necessarily disputing, however this in no way proves or even implies that human activity is the sole or even primary cause of that change. We have this egocentric conception of how the world works, anything of consequence that happens is always about us. Only it isn't, climate changes, always has. Surely we are affecting it, how can 6 billion mammals going about the biological functions of life and burning things not have an impact, but to then assume that we, so far above all else in the world (wipe away the sarcasm) must be the direct and sole cause is silly. So laugh at this ordinary person questioning a few scientists, piss yourself if it feels better, but it proves nothing.

Not a scientist, knowing more than anybody that climate has always changed, would say that man activity is the sole cause for global warming, they just say that man has become a major factor for the planet changes.
If an ordinary person can gather and study all the datas, calculate how sea temperature can help or brake gas solution, slows or accelarates CO2 capture, evaluate feedbacks on biologic gaz cycle or such things, i'ts no more an ordinary person, it's a scientist...

And, DonPanic, you don't need to be doing research at Los Alamos or CERN to understand this simple limitation of the scientific method. You and your Euro-pals may not be able to comprehend it but I believe CC does.

Me and Europals !
Since when NOAA or Pentagon are among europal gangs ?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glo … rming.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internat … ...00.html
What I've read of yours on this forum shows you are much more ideologic than I am. The fact is that whoever disagrees with you is supposed to be a leftist, should be the Pentagon !

My opinion is we should work hard to minimize our impact on the ecosystem. For this reason, and for various other geopolitical reasons dear to all our hearts, we should push for alternative energy sources which impact far less on the world around us. We need renewable and benign energy sources and we need them now!

Fully agreement with this.

BWhite · 2005-05-01 06:16:29

Though [John] Bolton supported the Vietnam War, he declined to enter combat duty, instead enlisting in the National Guard and attending law school after his 1970 graduation. "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy," Bolton wrote of his decision in the 25th reunion book. "I considered the war in Vietnam already lost."

Today, will he extend that same privilege to those who do not wish to go to Iraq?

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29455]Link

Verbally vocal in support of the war, but unwilling to go himself. Typical for the current leadership in DC.

Edited By BWhite on 1114949893

Shaun Barrett · 2005-05-01 06:52:51

The links you posted, DonPanic, do nothing to reassure the likes of CC and me:-

Since when NOAA or Pentagon are among europal gangs ?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glo … rming.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/interna. … ...00.html

The first link is so full of would be, could be, might be maybe that it's difficult to deduce anything concrete from it.
The second link sounds like the script from "The Day after Tomorrow" - full of breathless sensationalism. You'll note that it's dated February 22nd 2004 and says:-

As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Well, here we are in the middle of that "next year" they were raving about and there's no problem yet with sea levels creating major upheaval for millions.

You do your case no good at all, DonPanic, if your case is to belittle those of us doing our best to sift and separate the facts from the fantasy.

Palomar · 2005-05-01 07:12:48

*DonPanic: You live in France. Voltaire lived, died and was buried in France. I'm Voltaire's sweetheart. If you continue "yelling" at me in big red letters, the ghost of Voltaire might come to haunt you. :;):

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-01 07:39:42

Don't forget, guys. A great many in the GOP intend to slash funding for Earth sensing satellites (the tools we need to investigate the true causes of global warming) because "everyone knows" global warming is a hoax.

Unless of course you are a Frog loving liberal liar.

= = =

GOP talking point? We can't be sure about global warming.

GOP policy? Slash funding for the tools needed to make sure.

Edited By BWhite on 1114954875

DonPanic · 2005-05-01 08:27:20

LO

*DonPanic: You live in France. Voltaire lived, died and was buried in France. I'm Voltaire's sweetheart. If you continue "yelling" at me in big red letters, might come to haunt you. :
--Cindy

The ghost of Voltaire tickled me all that night

So sorry, http://isaisons.free.fr/muguet.jpg this as an apology...

DonPanic · 2005-05-01 08:58:08

LO

The first link is so full of would be, could be, might be maybe that it's difficult to deduce anything concrete from it.
The second link sounds like the script from "The Day after Tomorrow" - full of breathless sensationalism. You'll note that it's dated February 22nd 2004 and says:-

Each scientific forecast has always a part of uncertaincy.

Wheather forecasts should always be written like that :
"tomorrow weather should be..." instead of "tomorrow weather will be..."

Here, only few TV channels give the percentage of credebility of the weather forecasts.
Criticising the expression of uncertaincies that are attached to these forecasts is the mark either of ignorance of scientific processes, or of a deep intellectual dishonesty,

Shaun Barrett · 2005-05-01 17:46:31

You miss my point, I think, DonPanic.
I don't criticize the uncertainty in the terminology of your first link; I applaud it. What I criticize are the far-reaching conclusions drawn from these uncertain data - conclusions then purveyed to the rest of us by too many scientists and much of the media as incontrovertible facts.

Your second link exemplifies this distortion of the scientific process perfectly. The part I quoted states:-
"As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions." [My emphasis added.]
As you yourself say, even weather forecasts for tomorrow should be honest enough to allow for the degree of uncertainty we all know exists. And here we have people, ostensibly in positions of trust and authority, making firm predictions about disasters "next year" from computer models they seem to think are infallible.

This is where the problem lies. You accuse me of either dishonesty or ignorance of the scientific method. My opinion is that it is dishonest if scientists present computer simulations based on incomplete data as something more than a guess as to what might happen in the future.
The majority of the public is profoundly ignorant of the scientific method and ill-equipped to distinguish hype from hypothesis (yes, I'll go out on a limb and suggest they're even more ignorant than I am - hard to believe, I know). It's far too easy to mislead these people, especially with sensationalist media helping to distort the the real scientific message.

As I've said, I think there is enough potential danger to justify our civilization taking stock of its treatment of the environment and reducing our CO2 production. In fact, this stance has always made sense to me and I have been an environmentalist since 1969 - long before the term 'global warming' was even heard of.

I just hate to see the scientific method prostituted and hijacked in the name of politics. To me, that's a subtle form of book-burning and could lead to just as much trouble in the end. :bars:

BWhite · 2005-05-01 18:08:05

I just hate to see the scientific method prostituted and hijacked in the name of politics. To me, that's a subtle form of book-burning and could lead to just as much trouble in the end. :bars:

I agree 100% with this.

I also believe that about 50% of those voting for Bush in 2004 voters believe the world is 6000 years old and less than 2% of Kerry voters believe that.

Edited By BWhite on 1114992508

Shaun Barrett · 2005-05-01 22:56:37

Bill:-

I also believe that about 50% of those voting for Bush in 2004 voters believe the world is 6000 years old and less than 2% of Kerry voters believe that.

So about 40% of Americans voted.
About half of those voted for Bush (20% of Americans).
You guesstimate, or believe, about half of these Bush-voters think the world is 6000 years old (10% of Americans).

Even assuming your cherished belief is correct that half of Bush-voters are creationists (based on what?), that means maybe 1 in 10 Americans think the world is 6000 years old.
This is an appalling and utterly deplorable state of affairs.

But, since we're airing cherished beliefs today , let me take a wild guess and suggest that as many as 90% of Americans think Earth is on the brink of a runaway greenhouse effect. They think the polar ice-caps will soon melt, inundating the world's coastal cities, changing the climate drastically, bringing about the demise of civilization at best, and maybe of all terrestrial life at worst.

Creationism is an intellectual dead-end, by definition, while fears about the greenhouse effect are at least based on scientific data. But the belief factor is almost as strong in one as it is in the other - it has to be, since our climatic forecasts are based on computer models. And these models are inherently flawed because we simply don't know enough about our own planet - there are just too many variables.

It's a matter of faith in either case. It's just that we have 10% of Americans who adhere to a religion which flies in the face of science, and 90% of Americans who adhere to an act of faith which is sanctioned by science (... but science with a political agenda). Each one preaches armageddon in its own sweet way.
I disapprove of both situations.

[And that's coming from someone who wants CO2 emissions reduced or eliminated as soon as possible - but not because of politically motivated doomsday priests.]

Incidentally, Bill, the Bush/Kerry fight is over. Bush won. You really must try to move on, for the sake of your health. What will you do if Hillary wins in 2008? Without your anti-hero to worry about day and night, the hole in your life may be too big to fill.

[P.S. While I was looking up the voter turnout in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, I accidentally stumbled across some figures about voter profiles.
Apparently, among U.S. college graduates who voted, 52% voted for Bush while 46% voted for Kerry.
I mention this only because I found it difficult to believe that the Republican Party voter is always and necessarily a slavering moron - a picture you paint so often and with such endearing zeal.]

BWhite · 2005-05-01 23:17:45

In other news, the war in Iraq was won two years a

Palomar · 2005-05-02 06:46:25

In other news, the war in Iraq was won two years ago today/yesterday. Yup. Those fruits of victory are sweet!
= = =
Actually, we probably are better off that Bush won. Now Bush can collect all the chickens that will be coming home to roost.

*I'm sure I'm not the only person who has noticed a marked change in Mr. Bush's demeanor over the past year. In some ways (many, IMO) it seems like two entirely different administrations. Actually, it seems like three different administrations: The "easing into the Presidency/things are looking rather rosy" pre-9/11 admin; then the "Wanted Poster/gonna get bin Laden and Saddam" fiesty and arrogant admin; now this "parked my boots beneath the desk" laid back admin.

Of all the Presidencies I've watched, this certainly is the most "interesting" one of them all. :-\ I'm like, "Would the real President Bush please stand up?"

Either it's a continued "mission accomplished" attitude, or he's more subdued now because he's had a few unpleasant realizations.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-02 10:38:51

Actually, we probably are better off that Bush won. Now Bush can collect all the chickens that will be coming home to roost.

Do they have large talons?

Or perhaps a more appropriate movie quote, Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Though I suspect that there will be fewer "chickens" than you expect.

We have a political landscape taking shape that carries with it several possibilities and opportunities. On the one hand we have, as Bill has pointed out at times, a Republican Party begining to fissure between conservatives, "neo-cons" and vaguely Right-leaning "moderates". While it has a long way to go before it reaches a critical mass, the Party could fracture.

On the other hand we have a Democrat Party that may well be in its death throes. Left-wing-nuts are steering the direction of the Party and alienating much of the "moderate" base of the Party, driving them away.

What is a "moderate"? Someone who doesn't know what they believe. Someone easily influenced. While they represent the majority of voters they never drive the debate. Moderates merely react.

So we have the possibility of essentially three major political "poles" in the near future, with some play between them and plenty of room for numerous viewpoints that don't fit perfectly with any of the three.

1) True conservatives, which is to say real small-government, low tax, mind our own business types. Pat Buchanan conservatives if you will. Very traditional, stick with what works. If your gonna change something you better convince them it's necessary.

2) Neo-Conservatives. A Bush-esque viewpoint which incorporates conservative social principles, liberal spending and a willingness to use American power for ends other than immediate defense. "Spreading democracy" is justification for war, a mildly crusader mentality. Save them from themselves by introducing them to the wonders of representative government. Prone to fanaticism on occasion, but capable of realistic pragmatism.

3) Enviro-Socialists. It's an idealogy of self-loathing in many respects, resting on the idea of intent over effect. Admittedly I have a particular disdain for this strain of memes and therefore will refrain from commenting further on it. Suffice it to say, we know one when we see one.

It's the foaming at the mouth and the Nazi-like glimmer in their eyes.

Each one of these appeals to a relatively small percentage of the population. The vast bulk (the so-called moderates) simply follow whichever is most agreeable to them at any given time. Many have become used to voting one way, millions of people vote "D" or "R" for no greater reason than they always have.

Take those old familiar options away and the "moderates" split into two groups as well. One wakes up and starts to think, the other is up for grabs to whomever appeals best to their desires and baser emotions.

So in response to Bill's statement, the chickens are already coming home to roost. Bush will have plenty to deal with but at the same time the Liberal lawn is filled with big, fat hostile birds of their own. It's part of why the Democrats have been losing bad these past years.

Break one of the Parties and the other will in all likelihood clean up. Break both and we have a chance for real progress, albeit with a little chaos and hostility.

We got chickens. Get your skillet out, we're about to break some eggs.

Palomar · 2005-05-02 10:47:03

Though I suspect that there will be fewer "chickens" than you expect.

*I hope so, but I seriously doubt it.

What is a "moderate"? Someone who doesn't know what they believe. Someone easily influenced. While they represent the majority of voters they never drive the debate. Moderates merely react.

Disagree. I consider myself a Moderate and my definition of "Moderate" is seeing both sides of an issue (or trying to), taking the best from each and rejecting the worst of both, then attempting to bring together the best elements for the best possible outcome. Also, avoiding the trap of going to extremes and avoiding the politics of "Taking Sides."

IMO, it's the most rational and balanced way of being.

Not that I'm the epitome of it, though. LOL! But I try.

Moderates only "fail" because everyone else is completely sold out on One Particular Way Period.

We got chickens. Get your skillet out, we're about to break some eggs.

We've enough broken eggs and enough scrambled eggs.

DonPanic: So sorry, http://isaisons.free.fr/muguet.jpg]http … muguet.jpg this as an apology...

How lovely. Thanks! Voltaire said he won't haunt you anymore.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-02 10:59:01

Disagree. I consider myself a Moderate and my definition of "Moderate" is seeing both sides of an issue (or trying to), taking the best from each and rejecting the worst of both, then attempting to bring together the best elements for the best possible outcome.

A valid definition, though I'd argue it doesn't really fit the reality of politics in this country at present. In my experience, most "moderates" don't understand the issues, are highly susceptible to suggestion and vote on an emotional rather than rational basis.

So while you are certainly no extremist, I wouldn't call you a moderate. You know what you believe and more importantly, can back it up with reason and if that fails are willing to re-examine it.

On another level, everyone thinks they're moderate on some level. Very few people think of themselves as being fringe extremists, even when they are.

But then politics is hardly an exact science and words have fluid meanings in such a context. One man's moderate is another's flaming commie.

BWhite · 2005-05-02 11:54:59

Here is the biggest chicken, IMHO. Actually its a goose. :;):

America's prosperity since the end of WW2 very much rested upon the success of the so-called middle classes, the vast middle of the bell curve of total income and wealth distribution. In recent years US consumer spending has drievn the world economy.

Under Clinton, the concentration of wealth & income began, began to change the bell curve into one where a vanishingly small fraction of society controls essentially all of the meaningful wealth. This process began under Clinton yet ahs been supercharged under Bush.

Warren Buffet (hardly a commie stooge) has called this the "sharecropper society" where the elite cronies from Yale, Harvard et. al. consist of 0.5% of the population and control 99.5% of the wealth.

Karl Rove's political masterstroke was to unite the lower classes (using gay baiting, race baiting and Bible thumping) with the uber-rich to begin the destruction of the American middle class.

But that goose will come home to roost since it was middle class spending that has been driving the American economic engine. And Bush has just killed the goose that was laying golden eggs and served it as supper to his rich cronies.

It will take a few years before all the consequences are seen, but we will be paying for this current deficit and massive reverse Robin Hood event for generations.

= = =

Here is the litmus test. How many paychecks can your family afford to miss before genuine poverty strikes?

We will increasingly see a tiny, tiny class of uber-wealthy that owns everything. Everyone else will be those who cannot afford to miss a single paycheck. And unless you attended Yale and were in the right clubs, forget about joining the upper class.

Oh, and to balance the budget deficit? Cut social security benefits. Seize power and steal the pension plan. Typical corporate raider mentality. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1115056678

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-02 12:13:18

Warren Buffet (hardly a commie stooge) has called this the "sharecropper society" where the elite cronies from Yale, Harvard et. al. consist of 0.5% of the population and control 99.5% of the wealth.

Yep, I'm not disagreeing with that. A small group of uber-rich people (not all Republicans, BTW) control the vast bulk of wealth in this country. On the planet, in fact.

Karl Rove's political masterstroke was to unite the lower classes (using gay baiting, race baiting and Bible thumping) with the uber-rich to begin the destruction of the American middle class.

Ah, the class-war card. That's the other side of the coin here, Republicans tend to favor business-friendly policies, which at times screw the littel guy. But Democrats not only use and amplify class divisions but by backing government-centered "solutions" they also screw the middle-class worker to the same degree. Or to put it another way:

Here is the litmus test. How many paychecks can your family afford to miss before genuine poverty strikes?

Great example. To answer the question, not long. Why? Pay is limited not only by greed of those above me in the chain but by burdens unnecesarrily placed by government. Further, what pay I do get is pilfered to pay for services I neither need nor desire, yet the very act of having to pay for them increases the odds I may need them.

It's not just the "uber-rich Republicans" that threaten to screw me and countless others over, but supposed Democrat champions of the working man as well, backed by their own "uber-rich" benefactors. Trying to lay blame for the plight of the middle class on one political party is either shameless political pandering or just flat out delusional.

So after we make a few omelettes how 'bout we split that goose?

BWhite · 2005-05-02 12:22:38

I find the classic liberal-Democrat party "answer" to be unacceptable as well. I just do not want either party - - donkeys or elephants - - having unfettered control.

Is John Kerry one of the "elite" - - damn straight.

= = =

The class card? Bush is the one who advocates pre-emptive war, right?

What better then launch a massive reverse Robin Hood class war assault and then loudly accuse your opponents of playing the "class war" card?

Newt Gringrich developed this strategy. Choose a plan. Then loudly accuse your opponent of doing exactly what you intend. Then execute the plan.

Scream "no class war" then launch a class war. :;):

= = =

Ah, the "food stamps for vodka" welfare queen. Reagan's masterstroke of frame-shopping and BS public relations.

Great example. To answer the question, not long. Why? Pay is limited not only by greed of those above me in the chain but by burdens unnecesarrily placed by government. Further, what pay I do get is pilfered to pay for services I neither need nor desire, yet the very act of having to pay for them increases the odds I may need them.

Some sleazy mother trades $1000 in food stamps for vodka. Everyone goes ape-shit. Lets bail out the airlines, oil companies whatever for billions and billions. Just bidness, got a problem with 'dat?

Regulations? What regulations? America is the least regulated business society in the world. (Except maybe for some tiny ones here or there.)

Edited By BWhite on 1115058789

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-02 12:34:23

I find the classic liberal-Democrat party "answer" to be unacceptable as well. I just do not want either party - - donkeys or elephants - - having unfettered control.

While in the long-term I want both the Donkey and the Elephant beheaded and buried, for the time being I lean towards the one that is most likely to leave me alone. Generally it's the Republicans.

They can call me a heathen and curse me to Hell all they want as long as they don't take more of my money, deny me the means to protect my family and tell me I'm an uncaring greedy worm for complaining about it.

Scream "no class war" then launch a class war.

All while the foe fires salvos and professes innocence. :;):

Stupid game.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-02 12:40:33

Lets bail out the airlines, oil companies whatever for billions and billions. Just bidness, got a problem with 'dat?

On the one hand I don't give a damn if some corporation folds up and dies. On the other, if it employs thousands of Americans it isn't just the suits in the corporate offices that get hurt.

If we're going to have an expensive welfare apparatus I'd rather it be used to keep people working than in a futile effort to sustain them after the damage is done.

Regulations? What regulations? America is the least regulated business society in the world. (Except maybe for some tiny ones here or there.)

Sure there are worse places, but we're getting progressively worse here as well. We could do much better by being a bit more. . . American in our approach.

BWhite · 2005-05-02 12:50:47

Sure, there are worse places for doing business.

Heh!

Name a better place for doing business. I dare you.

= = =

Good business regulation is good. Bad business regulation is bad. Telling the difference can be difficult.

But we are the least regulated large economy in the world. Much of the "regulation bashing" is a trick for more money for the elite and less money for everyone else.

Edited By BWhite on 1115060076

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-02 13:05:06

Name a better place for doing business. I dare you.

What would that prove?

"Hey, stop complaining about conditions here at Gitmo, there are worse places to be in prison."

The current business climate treats corporations alternately as vast pots of gold to be tapped or evil beasts preying on the hapless peons. Yeah, some corporate bigwigs are crooks, but you know what really feeds on others? Government.

You want to fight unemployment and poverty? There's an easy first step that'll make a huge improvement all by itself.

Ready?

Get rid of income tax.

Okay, I can see how that might be too hard to adjust to. How 'bout this, the only "income" that can be taxed is that gained by interest. A usury tax. Wages aren't "income", they're an even exchange. Monies from sales of a product aren't income, then an exchange of goods, a trade.

Business can get on with business, including employing people, without paying out vast sums for no gain and employees can actually keep what they earn, how's that for a concept?

And then, if we get rid of the property tax even if someone loses their job they won't be completely screwed.

Not a radical idea, everytime a state or city is trying to lure business what do they eventually do? Huge tax breaks! No property tax for five years, reduced income tax or a combination of the two. It works, and it costs nothing if the government can control the urge to splurge.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-04-30 03:12:12

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#102 2005-04-30 17:50:09

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#103 2005-04-30 19:57:51

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#104 2005-05-01 03:21:30

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#105 2005-05-01 06:16:29

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#106 2005-05-01 06:52:51

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#107 2005-05-01 07:12:48

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#108 2005-05-01 07:39:42

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#109 2005-05-01 08:27:20

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#110 2005-05-01 08:58:08

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#111 2005-05-01 17:46:31

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#112 2005-05-01 18:08:05

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#113 2005-05-01 22:56:37

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#114 2005-05-01 23:17:45

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#115 2005-05-02 06:46:25

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#116 2005-05-02 10:38:51

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#117 2005-05-02 10:47:03

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#118 2005-05-02 10:59:01

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#119 2005-05-02 11:54:59

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#120 2005-05-02 12:13:18

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#121 2005-05-02 12:22:38

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#122 2005-05-02 12:34:23

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#123 2005-05-02 12:40:33

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#124 2005-05-02 12:50:47

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#125 2005-05-02 13:05:06

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Board footer