Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 08:00:23

Cobra wrote, quoting:

I cannot recall ever hearing a democratic, or even a socialist, politician make the claim that, on the whole, the rich in America became rich by cheating the poor.
Of course not. A politician would know it isn't going to fly. That, and politicians are often rather well-to-do themselves. But I've known far too many liberals that actually believe that on some level to just dismiss it as conservative rhetoric.

Wise rich people will recognize that by helping to enrich the poor, they further enrich themselves because they will sell more after creating more demand thereby making themselves even richer.

A recursive bootstrap of demand lifts all boats.

The Henry Ford $5 dollar day is an example.

Many rich people are too short sighted to see this.

= = =

The federally insured FHA mortgage was a huge engine for creating economic wealth in the American middle class and consumer spending by the American middle class created our current economy.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-29 08:05:07

Wise rich people will recognize that by helping to enrich the poor, they further enrich themselves because they will sell more after creating more demand thereby making themselves even richer.
A recursive bootstrap of demand lifts all boats.
The Henry Ford $5 dollar day is an example.
Many rich people are too short sighted to see this.

Can't argue with that. Prosperity for the greatness number helps all.

But too many people see economics as a zero-sum game. A gain for one is a loss for another. If we get this little bugger out of our collective heads we'll be much better off.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 08:09:27

Wise rich people will recognize that by helping to enrich the poor, they further enrich themselves because they will sell more after creating more demand thereby making themselves even richer.
A recursive bootstrap of demand lifts all boats.
The Henry Ford $5 dollar day is an example.
Many rich people are too short sighted to see this.
Can't argue with that. Prosperity for the greatness number helps all.
But too many people see economics as a zero-sum game. A gain for one is a loss for another. If we get this little bugger out of our collective heads we'll be much better off.

Game theory wonks have proven that cooperation often beats competition, but not always.

But to argue which is "better" IMHO is like arguing that the (+) phase of electric current is better than the (-). Nonsense.

We need both.

That said, a crude (faulty) social Darwinism inhabits the minds of too many on the Right, at least IMHO. And a simplistic hand holding Kumbaya signing inhabits the minds of too many on the Left.

Fair enough?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-29 08:14:07

That said, a crude (faulty) social Darwinism inhabits the minds of too many on the Right, at least IMHO. And a simplistic hand holding Kumbaya signing inhabits the minds of too many on the Left.
Fair enough?

Fair enough.

What great choices we have to lead us! :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-07-29 08:44:56

Okay, lets push this consensus stuff and see where we can go.

Government economic regulation is like motor oil. Dirty oil screws up the engine. No oil causes the engine to seize.

One example is patent law. No patents or copyright (which can only come from a government) and innovation is stifled. Bad patent law and innovation is stifled.

Product labeling. Allow manufacturers to lie about the alloys used in metal parts (Buyer Beware!) and every buyer will need to test every screw or alloy construction beam at great expense. Impose government penalties for selling rust-prone steel as stainless and economic efficiency increases.

How to tune the engine can be debated, but an economy cannot run without transparent effective rules which are like clean motor oil.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-29 08:59:16

Okay, I'm with you so far. Now to push the consensus to the breaking point I suspect.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 09:40:50

Okay, I'm with you so far. Now to push the consensus to the breaking point I suspect.

Nah. Not today. I must choose my words carefully.

= = =

Bill & Cobra, Twin Ceasars of America!

Morris · 2004-07-29 14:47:01

Perhaps some of my long replies to Cobra should have been on this thread instead. Sorry.

In any event I need to ask where to go if something seems to be wrong with the operation of the board. Both a Mr. Edwards and I have replied to the Obama thread since Cobra's last post but neither response is can be shown on my screen. These two are apparently on page 3 of the responses but when I click on page 3 I come up with a blank. Are you guys getting this response too?

Also, is this phenomenon related to why this thread is called "missing posts"?

clark · 2004-07-29 14:50:04

The New Mars Troll eats the missing posts.

You can notify the administrators (Josh Cryer or Adrian) about the situation, but this happens from time to time.

Maybe the posts go where the missing Mars probes go...

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-29 15:45:40

I locked the other one, tried to rebuild, didn't work.

Anyway, Bill, I renamed this "Obama continued" even though the topic has changed somewhat, I hope that's okay (suggestions for a name for this is welcomed though). I got around to seeing the Obama speech at C-SPAN, it was really great, and I don't really have any comments to add except what you said yesterday about it.

clark · 2004-07-29 16:00:27

Obama... Osama... Hmmmmm :laugh:

Morris · 2004-07-29 16:05:18

The New Mars Troll eats the missing posts.
You can notify the administrators (Josh Cryer or Adrian) about the situation, but this happens from time to time.
Maybe the posts go where the missing Mars probes go...

<chuckle> Thanks. I won't be too concerned.

Palomar · 2004-07-29 16:09:44

Bill & Cobra, Twin Ceasars of America!

*Okay. And I'm Cindy: Mother of the Solar System (while I'm alive!). :;):

Actually the first "Obama" thread has no disappearing posts. It simply collapsed. All posts are still available for reading in it. Simply click into it then click on +Add Reply button and scroll down. Can read posts in backwards order (descending). Can also copy and paste, bring to and reply *here.*

Nothing's lost.

--Cindy

Morris · 2004-07-29 16:24:09

Liberalism in general is like a steroid. If taken in small doses it can make a society stronger and more productive. But if overused, it becomes cancerous.

This is a great analogy which also works if "government" is substituted for "liberalism".

Morris · 2004-07-29 16:25:17

Bill & Cobra, Twin Ceasars of America!
*Okay. And I'm Cindy: Mother of the Solar System (while I'm alive!). :;):
Actually the first "Obama" thread has no disappearing posts. It simply collapsed. All posts are still available for reading in it. Simply click into it then click on +Add Reply button and scroll down. Can read posts in backwards order (descending). Can also copy and paste, bring to and reply *here.*
Nothing's lost.
--Cindy

Ok, I'll give this a try. Thanks.

Morris · 2004-07-29 16:29:49

Bill & Cobra, Twin Ceasars of America!
*Okay. And I'm Cindy: Mother of the Solar System (while I'm alive!). :;):
Actually the first "Obama" thread has no disappearing posts. It simply collapsed. All posts are still available for reading in it. Simply click into it then click on +Add Reply button and scroll down. Can read posts in backwards order (descending). Can also copy and paste, bring to and reply *here.*
Nothing's lost.
--Cindy
Ok, I'll give this a try. Thanks.

Sorry Cindy, when I go back to the old thread there is no "Add Reply" on my screen but instead a button which says "Locked".

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-29 19:45:25

Yeah, I tried that initially, I was going to copy-paste the last couple of lost replies here. Sorry for the trobules Morris, it seems to happen inexplicibly (although making really long posts seems to be correlated, now that I think of it, so perhaps it would be a good idea to save your really long posts into the notepad before posting).

Morris · 2004-07-29 19:52:33

Back to Obama. The New Yorker article http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fac … fact1]here also comments on Jack Ryan, Obama's opponent for the U.S. Senate.

Ryan made his fortune at Goldman, Sachs, but he left the firm in 2000 to teach for three years at an all-black, inner city Catholic boys' high school in Chicago. During each of those years, Ryan points out, every graduate of the school was accepted in college.

Bill, do you know if this is one of the Jesuit schools you were referring to when you were commenting on Martian curricula?

More disturbing is this additional information.

Another Ryan campaign worker started making news last week. Justin Warfel, a young man with a shaved head, suddenly attached himself to Obama, and, armed with a video camera and a tape recorder, began following him everywhere around Springfield. His mission, according to the Ryan campaign, was to "make sure Obama has a consistent message," and a campaign spokesperson called it "standard practice in national politics." Warfel's methods, however, were unusually aggressive. He followed Obama's every movement, even private conversations, holding his camera, according to the Associated Press, "less than two feet from Obama's face, barking questions." Tom Massey, who has been the pressroom manager in the Springfield statehouse for twenty-five years, said, "I've never seen anything like it before. This is a new low in Illinois politics." The Republican leader of the state senate, Frank Watson, was also critical, telling the A.P., "I don't care if you're in public life or who you are, you deserve your space."
Obama told local reporters, "Everybody knows politics is a contact sport," and he told me that he felt sorry for Warfel, but it was obvious he was angry that even his phone conversations with his wife and daughters were being monitored. "Scorched-earth politics," he said, "Precisely the kind of politics I want to change." When I called Ryan's press secretary, Kelli Phiel, she was unapologetic. "I guarantee you that if Mr. Obama were to ask Justin to step back a foot or two, Justin would do so."

My question here is, while we do want public figures to be accessible to the press, do we want to continue the tradition that they have essentially no legal protections against libel or slander, or against this type of harrassment. Is Mr. Warfel performing a public service or does he need to be spending 60 days behind bars with a restraining order awaiting him when he gets out?

clark · 2004-07-30 09:01:44

A public figure in a public space should expect no privacy. He could always get in a car, close a door, or get a restraining order if he really needs to escape this one individual.

Or should politicians have the right to only allow flattering press interview them, or follow them?

It's all moot anyway, since Ryan's divorce papers went public (what about that invasion of privacy?) he has been forced to drop out. 7 of 9 didn't like those sex clubs he did. :laugh:

I might add, that both Jerri Ryan (his ex wife) and Jack Ryan opposed the release of those documents by the court.

Morris · 2004-07-30 09:11:27

Yeah, I tried that initially, I was going to copy-paste the last couple of lost replies here. Sorry for the trobules Morris, it seems to happen inexplicibly (although making really long posts seems to be correlated, now that I think of it, so perhaps it would be a good idea to save your really long posts into the notepad before posting).

Thanks, Josh

Good idea. And maybe I should switch strategies and make more shorter posts <g>.

BWhite · 2004-07-30 09:13:20

Bill, do you know if this is one of the Jesuit schools you were referring to when you were commenting on Martian curricula?

In Chicago, the Catholic school system is very strong.

Morris · 2004-07-30 09:52:44

.

Or should politicians have the right to only allow flattering press interview them, or follow them?

Who said Mr. Warfel was a reporter? I got the impression that he was a private individual who simply decided to follow Obama around with the support of Mr. Ryan and his office. Even a private citizen can "bark questions". Trying to talk to someone while someone else is constantly yelling at you may intimidate one or more of the parties so that business cannot be conducted.

However, a part of the issue does apply to reporters. How aggressive can/should they be? How much time should a candidate give to one reporter before allowing other reporters to have a turn? You may have heard about Mrs. Kerry telling a reporter to "shove it". Only much later in the story was it told that she had responded to that reporter several times and he refused to stop asking her questions or accusing her of being a liar. That's when she made her remark. These issues have nothing to do with only talking with favorable reporters or other evidence of bias. They do have to do with interference with the ability to conduct daily business.

It's all moot anyway, since Ryan's divorce papers went public (what about that invasion of privacy?) he has been forced to drop out. 7 of 9 didn't like those sex clubs he did. :laugh:
I might add, that both Jerri Ryan (his ex wife) and Jack Ryan opposed the release of those documents by the court.

<APPLAUSE> It's my understanding that unless the records are sealed for some unusual reason, court proceedings are public information. They should be released. IMHO, there is an increasing tendency of judges to issue gag orders or seal records even when there is no overweening public interest in doing do.

clark · 2004-07-30 10:08:59

You want it both ways? :laugh:

On the one hand we have a public figure, running for office, who is hounded by a man with a camera, to record any instances of waffiling on his campagin stances. In this instance, at least an argument can be made that this is somewhat in the public's interest.

Now, on the other hand, we have the disolution of a marriage between two individuals, and the lurid details of the divorce pulled out for the general public to gawk at. At no time does any of this have any relevance upon any of the issues related to the political arena.

This isn't criminal court, this was a divorce proceeding, I fail to see why that should be available for public consumption, especially when both individuals expressley do not want to share that information.

Apparently private individuals should be restrained, but the government should tell all...

How aggressive can/should they be?

How timid would you like them? Nothing but soft ball questions and fluff?

How much time should a candidate give to one reporter before allowing other reporters to have a turn?

A simple, "no comment" or "nothing further" or just simply ignore them should suffice. Should a time limit be set?

You may have heard about Mrs. Kerry telling a reporter to "shove it".

Yeah, and I applaud her comment. I'm not one to get upset by people being people. Some do, but that's what you get in the midwest. :laugh:

They do have to do with interference with the ability to conduct daily business.

What business is being interfered with here? Talking to reporters is part of daily business, isn't it?

Morris · 2004-07-30 11:03:49

Now, on the other hand, we have the disolution of a marriage between two individuals, and the lurid details of the divorce pulled out for the general public to gawk at. At no time does any of this have any relevance upon any of the issues related to the political arena.

Character is not relevant to holding public office?

How aggressive can/should they be?
How timid would you like them? Nothing but soft ball questions and fluff?

Has nothing to do with the "hardness" of the questions. It has to do with intimidation, denial of service, interference with the ability of others to interact with the candidate, etc.

How much time should a candidate give to one reporter before allowing other reporters to have a turn?
A simple, "no comment" or "nothing further" or just simply ignore them should suffice. Should a time limit be set?

But that's the point, it should suffice, but it doesn't. What then?

They do have to do with interference with the ability to conduct daily business.
What business is being interfered with here? Talking to reporters is part of daily business, isn't it?

The abilility to talk with other reporters in an equitable fashion, to be efficient in their duties to greet constituents, get from one place to another in a timely fashion, deal appropriately with their obligations to their families, etc.

Clark, we should go on the road. You make a wonderful "straight man".

Gennaro · 2004-07-30 11:04:30

My long post to Bill White also disappeared with the breakdown of the last thread. It wasn't in the rear but got eradicated all the same.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-29 08:00:23

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#2 2004-07-29 08:05:07

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#3 2004-07-29 08:09:27

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#4 2004-07-29 08:14:07

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#5 2004-07-29 08:44:56

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#6 2004-07-29 08:59:16

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#7 2004-07-29 09:40:50

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#8 2004-07-29 14:47:01

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#9 2004-07-29 14:50:04

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#10 2004-07-29 15:45:40

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#11 2004-07-29 16:00:27

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#12 2004-07-29 16:05:18

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#13 2004-07-29 16:09:44

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#14 2004-07-29 16:24:09

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#15 2004-07-29 16:25:17

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#16 2004-07-29 16:29:49

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#17 2004-07-29 19:45:25

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#18 2004-07-29 19:52:33

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#19 2004-07-30 09:01:44

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#20 2004-07-30 09:11:27

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#21 2004-07-30 09:13:20

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#22 2004-07-30 09:52:44

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#23 2004-07-30 10:08:59

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#24 2004-07-30 11:03:49

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#25 2004-07-30 11:04:30

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

Board footer