What the Rest of The World Thinks of America

[Relentless]

from what i gather, his support was selected in a way that there would be competition of sorts within. that is, there will be more deliberation than bandwagon mentality. gonna read up on this more in the morning.

[ruaidhri]

An Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at President Bush. Iraqi's consider this an extreme insult. Certainly it reveals how many Iraqis view our President and probably the U.S. and Americans in general.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTki_d652tvHLYQvaRlelGq64GoQD952T2IG0

Personally, I'm angry more than insulted. Because our President represents every American including those who don't support his actions, the reporter's insult was also directed at us. He insulted every American serviceman and Servicewoman that left the safety of their home to bring security and freedom to Iraq. He spat on every American casualty's grave. What would have happened to Iraq and its people if they were defeated and occupied a hundred or more years ago? What would have happened if it had been Iran instead of the U.S. that had occupied their country? Many of our actions were certainly ill advised and some actions poorly executed but our intent was to bring democracy and freedom.

I can't help but focus on the fact that the journalist threw his shoes at my President. It doesn't make any difference that I never voted for George Bush and I opposed him throughout his Presidency. George Bush is still my President. I'm saddened that America's image throughout the world has suffered under George Bush's leadership. I hope President Obama can change that image.

[archdukezeb]

Personally, I'm angry more than insulted. Because our President represents every American including those who don't support his actions, .

Yeah but one angry Iraqi journalist doesn't represent Iraq, not to claim that I know what the approval rating of Bush is in Iraq. I was more impressed by Bush's ninja reflexes. That shoe just comes out of nowhere in the interview but Bush moved out of the way in a split second proving he thinks quick on his feet. What more do you need in a leader.

[Silent Dob]

He has a high physical intelligence, like a dextrous gorilla. Sadly, his brain intellect is equal to that of a dextrous gorilla. Or, probably, less than that. I'd certainly feel safer if a dextrous gorilla ran our country than I would having Bush do it.

[Charrington]

An Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at President Bush. Iraqi's consider this an extreme insult. Certainly it reveals how many Iraqis view our President and probably the U.S. and Americans in general.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTki_d652tvHLYQvaRlelGq64GoQD952T2IG0

Personally, I'm angry more than insulted. Because our President represents every American including those who don't support his actions, the reporter's insult was also directed at us. He insulted every American serviceman and Servicewoman that left the safety of their home to bring security and freedom to Iraq. He spat on every American casualty's grave. What would have happened to Iraq and its people if they were defeated and occupied a hundred or more years ago? What would have happened if it had been Iran instead of the U.S. that had occupied their country? Many of our actions were certainly ill advised and some actions poorly executed but our intent was to bring democracy and freedom.

I can't help but focus on the fact that the journalist threw his shoes at my President. It doesn't make any difference that I never voted for George Bush and I opposed him throughout his Presidency. George Bush is still my President. I'm saddened that America's image throughout the world has suffered under George Bush's leadership. I hope President Obama can change that image.

I have to disagree about the president representing every American. Only around 50 percent of voters voted for him, and quite a large amount of people don't or can't vote. His policies represent the far right of American moderate conservative politics. In other countries with an approval rating as low as his he would have been replaced by now. Furthermore, if a former president of ours who happens to be his father hadn't supported Saddam Hussein with funding and the like Saddam never would have been so successful as an oppressive dictator. And if he had never been successful an oppressive dictator we wouldn't have had to invade iraq and kill like double the amount of civilians Saddam did. Looking at this I would probably throw shit at American politicians if I was an iraqi too.

[Roxie]

You know, what bothered me more was the way he just laughed it off, like "Oh ho, that was nothing serious! Isn't if funny?!"

[h2orowe]

What COULD he do though? "LOL, you'za bitch." Not making a big deal out of it is the more mature route because it won't encourage any further shoe throwing. "Oh, it doesn't affect him that much, nevermind."

I don't really feel disrespected by that happening. I mean, it's a dumb move on the reporter's part, but I can sympathize with him. It doesn't matter if the person occupying your country has good intentions or bad intentions, they're still occupying you. Your country isn't free. Things are still bad and they won't stop being bad for a while.

It's like if your neighborhood watch leader didn't like your abusive step dad, so, he called the cops on your step dad. However, now because of that, your mom had to let your wild uncle move in; he sells your stuff for drug money and makes a mess of your house. You're not being physically abused anymore, but the situation is still crappy.

[Roxie]

I would've preferred he'd taken it seriously rather than joked about someone who VERY EVIDENTLY had a serious grievance with him, but I guess that would be asking too much.

[archdukezeb]

I would've preferred he'd taken it seriously rather than joked about someone who VERY EVIDENTLY had a serious grievance with him, but I guess that would be asking too much.

Every leader of every country is gonna have a lot of various people that hate them for whatever stupid reasons. They can't decide to take time out to adress each one that manages to physically attack them. Would Obama have to do the same if someone decided to burn a cross on the White House lawn or even if a guy chucked a shoe at him? Just because you agree with the man's sentiment doesn't mean his act wasn't stupid and immature and should be dismissed as such.

[Charrington]

I would've preferred he'd taken it seriously rather than joked about someone who VERY EVIDENTLY had a serious grievance with him, but I guess that would be asking too much.

I would have preferred it if he hand hopped over the podium and kicked the guy in the ass. It projects a strong image. Plenty of pundits and politicians have praised him for the way he handled it. What would you have done, exactly? When a large part of the world dislikes you what can you do but laugh it off?

[Beowulf]

What would you have done, exactly?
Not invading Iraq for starters.

[Charrington]

Not invading Iraq for starters.

Awesome solution if you can travel through time. Otherwise, after you've invaded Iraq and are in the situation Bush is in now and some dick throws a shoe at you how do you gracefully respond to it?

[puzzo]

Whip it out and urinate on his now bare feet.

seems perfectly graceful to me:cop:

[Beowulf]

Awesome solution if you can travel through time. Otherwise, after you've invaded Iraq and are in the situation Bush is in now and some dick throws a shoe at you how do you gracefully respond to it?
Resign in disgrace.

[japanat]

While I dislike Bush, I think his reaction was perfect. "You cast your worst insult at me (literally), and I just laugh it off. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. It was just a size-10 shoe."

Ruaidhri,
As far as it being an insult to all Americans: you're right, of course, but I think it's an understandable insult. And I've been insulted far worse when traveling in other countries (spit on, for one), just because I'm American.

[ruaidhri]

Japanat, you’ve accurately touched on the main topic of this thread: “What the rest of the world thinks of America”.

I also dislike Bush, never voted for him and opposed both our invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act. I don’t approve of much of what he has authorized to fight terrorism. It was George W., not the terrorists, that tore up the bill of rights. Still George W. is our President and as such represents each and every American regardless of whether they voted for him or supported his actions. And, likewise, when an American is spat upon in a foreign country that American represents every action of George W.

What saddens me is this is not the image I want for my country. I voted for Obama and every day following that vote I have been happy with how he has handled himself. I have high expectations for Obama and believe he will live up to his promise.

I don’t expect people throughout the world to love the U.S. but I certainly don’t want them to hate us. Hating the U.S. means they hate me, they hate my family and they hate my neighbors. It means that reporter threw his shoe at each of us and that many of his neighbors hate us so much they would just as soon kill us as insult us with a shoe. That is not something to cheer or laugh about.

[stsparky]

I think everyone overreacted here. The angry Iraqi journalist has been tortured and some ribs were broken. And he'll be put on trial. And the idiot chimp is unscathed. I would love to see Americans start to throw shoes at W starting now. In fact, I would love for all Americans in the DC Metro area to discard of their old shoes by pelting the White House with them until the criminal scum vacate on January 12th. W is the the acme of the Bush Crime Clan and deserves the world's scorn. I would love to see water balloons full of crap thrown at the man after he leaves office; and then have him sent to Federal prison.

[Plekto]

Careful... throwing stuff at the White House will get you likely shot. They don't respond well to stuff like this. A better option would be to wait until he leaves office and do nothing. You know that the lawsuits are coming... He'll be stuck in courts for the next decade and likely blow a large chunk of his money defending himself.

Seriously. The man is shaping up to be another OJ. There's really nothing that we can do to him as he's really done it all to himself already. Who's going to hire him? Who's going to even hang around him? Who's going to buy any of his books or be stupid enough to ask him to speak somewhere? Once he leaves office, he'll be the most famous nobody in America. The guy everyone knows but wishes they didn't. And for a guy like Bush, that's perhaps the best punishment of all, since his whole life revolves around being popular and successful.

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, I really hope you're correct. I hope people do ignore Bush Jr., however, I don't expect that will happen. First, there will be attempts to indict him all of which I also expect will be unsuccessful. Second, he will remain the friend of the religious right. He will probably join his father and Bill Clinton to support charitable functions. And, he will speak at political and other functions and he will live a far easier life than any of us will enjoy. Sometimes there is no justice.

stsparky, We agree on many issues and I do understand the intensity of your opinions. Your wishes for Bush will never come true but, of course, you know that. Remember, even Richard Nixon regained respect by the time he died.

The best we can do is to move forward with Obama. Perhaps the people of the world will give us another chance and learn to not hate us quite so much.

[Charrington]

Japanat, you’ve accurately touched on the main topic of this thread: “What the rest of the world thinks of America”.

I also dislike Bush, never voted for him and opposed both our invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act. I don’t approve of much of what he has authorized to fight terrorism. It was George W., not the terrorists, that tore up the bill of rights. Still George W. is our President and as such represents each and every American regardless of whether they voted for him or supported his actions. And, likewise, when an American is spat upon in a foreign country that American represents every action of George W.

What saddens me is this is not the image I want for my country. I voted for Obama and every day following that vote I have been happy with how he has handled himself. I have high expectations for Obama and believe he will live up to his promise.

I don’t expect people throughout the world to love the U.S. but I certainly don’t want them to hate us. Hating the U.S. means they hate me, they hate my family and they hate my neighbors. It means that reporter threw his shoe at each of us and that many of his neighbors hate us so much they would just as soon kill us as insult us with a shoe. That is not something to cheer or laugh about.

IMO this is the mentality that leads to people believing all muslims are terrorists. I've got a number of foreign friends that intensely dislike the US, but they don't hold it against me and we're still friends. Of the foreign nationals I've spoken to there have been some that do dislike me because of my nationality, but they're the minority. I don't see any benefit in grouping people together like this. The us vs. them mentality won't do us any good in this situation.

Seriously. The man is shaping up to be another OJ. There's really nothing that we can do to him as he's really done it all to himself already. Who's going to hire him? Who's going to even hang around him? Who's going to buy any of his books or be stupid enough to ask him to speak somewhere? Once he leaves office, he'll be the most famous nobody in America. The guy everyone knows but wishes they didn't. And for a guy like Bush, that's perhaps the best punishment of all, since his whole life revolves around being popular and successful.

Not really. Are you familiar with the quote "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal"? The president can pardon people for anything, so for all intents and purposes he really is above the law. When was the last time a president was prosecuted for what he did in office? I abhor what he did to the bill of rights and other things but I would still invite him to my house party. He doesn't really need to worry about getting hired because he's about retirement age and he's got a pension and plenty of money. Even then, he's still got a broad support base nationally and internationally, especially among the rich. Case in point, Carter was unpopular when he left office and now he's globally well liked because of his humanitarian efforts. Nixon was unpopular when left office and still is, but he never served a day in jail. Besides, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars haven't ended yet and how they end will play a major part in his legacy.

[stsparky]

The best anti-Bush poster I've seen is:
Why can't someone give this schmuck a blowjob?

Poppy Bush was famous for the ones he got from Jennifer Fitzgerald going around and around Dupont Circle when he was VP.

[Plekto]

The critical difference is that when he's no longer in office, he has only Secret Service protection. This isn't likely to be enough if he travels overseas to stop him from getting arrested on war crimes charges(especially in Europe where they are prone to do this sort of thing to ex-leaders). So he's effectively stuck inside the U.S. forever. He also won't be successfully tired, but neither was OJ. Both, though, had to spend a lot of time in the courts dealing with it. I suspect that he'll be buried in legal crap for a decade at least.

He's going to be another Nixon. There but not really anything at the same time. And it's going to likely start him drinking again. I see a downward spiral in his future.

Lastly, a Presidential pardon is only effective after someone's been convicted. And by the time he does get convicted of something... the person in charge by then likely won't give enough of a damn to even bother saving his poor butt.

[Charrington]

The critical difference is that when he's no longer in office, he has only Secret Service protection. This isn't likely to be enough if he travels overseas to stop him from getting arrested on war crimes charges(especially in Europe where they are prone to do this sort of thing to ex-leaders). So he's effectively stuck inside the U.S. forever.

Obviously there's case to prosecute him for war crimes, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. IIRC, usually when the EU/the Hague prosecutes a former leader for war crimes it's someone relatively insignificant like a former African leader directly responsible for a genocide, or Nazis who are on a completely different level than Bush. Blair is also responsible for most of the same war crimes, out of office and a brit and I haven't heard a word about the EU or the UN trying to prosecute him. A foreign body prosecuting an American president in unprecedented. Besides, even if he couldn't travel to certain countries I doubt it would bother him much.

He also won't be successfully tired, but neither was OJ. Both, though, had to spend a lot of time in the courts dealing with it. I suspect that he'll be buried in legal crap for a decade at least.

Tell me, what US law did Bush break? Even if you can name one it doesn't mean he's going to be prosecuted for it. The problem is, among others, that there are countless secret executive orders passed by him that we don't know the content of, much less how many there are. Also, the administration is designed with scapegoats at every level. Even if there is domestic prosecution against the administration it very likely won't reach to the highest levels.

He's going to be another Nixon. There but not really anything at the same time. And it's going to likely start him drinking again. I see a downward spiral in his future.

I don't have any thing else to say about his future popularity or employment prospects. We'll see what happens.

Lastly, a Presidential pardon is only effective after someone's been convicted. And by the time he does get convicted of something... the person in charge by then likely won't give enough of a damn to even bother saving his poor butt.

The point is that once someone can excuse someone from a murder conviction by signing their name, they're pretty much above the law.

[MurphBurger]

Nixon got away with his situation that was kept secret until dumbasses fucked up. DO you people really think that anything will happen to Bush? No, because he basically said exactly what he was planning up front to the world, thus he did nothing of impeachable offence, no matter how you force it.

[MurphBurger]

The critical difference is that when he's no longer in office, he has only Secret Service protection. This isn't likely to be enough if he travels overseas to stop him from getting arrested on war crimes charges(especially in Europe where they are prone to do this sort of thing to ex-leaders). So he's effectively stuck inside the U.S. forever.

Wrong, NATO is working with the US offensive so Bush could travel freely through Europe

[japanat]

Lastly, a Presidential pardon is only effective after someone's been convicted. And by the time he does get convicted of something... the person in charge by then likely won't give enough of a damn to even bother saving his poor butt.I don't think this last is accurate. Ford pardoned Nixon, but Nixon was never convicted of anything.

Wikipedia
In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:

shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.[4]... ...One of the more famous recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal... ...The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.

I don't think Bush will ever be charged with a crime, and Obama would be likely to pardon him if necessary. If not, he would be basically admitting that the US is in an illegal war, which would set it up for insane amounts of lawsuits in the international courts.

[stsparky]

The war is "legal" sadly - though the case for it may be grounds for action. Trampling FISA and the rights of Americans over vague terror threats can be the initial reason we bring this lame ass excuse executive and his puppeteers to Justice. I like the idea of tricking him to a foreign embassy and holding the "war crimes" trial then and there.

[Plekto]

I didn't say that the charges would be legitimate. But there are tons of people who I bet have nothing better to do than to pummel him with endless legal challenges and paperwork.

The real problem isn't Bush, though, it's Cheney. When Cheney gets brought up on charges(and there appear to be many things he did that were illegal), he's very likely to start a domino effect of people also being blamed and charged, and so on.. I don't see any solidarity in their ranks and nobody seems the type to fall on someone else's sword as it were... so it should get interesting as to how many people get caught up in it and whether it includes Bush or not.

[glowinthedarkcheese]

Bush is not going to get convicted of anything. There's nothing to convict him of and no one will succesfully get him to court for a noncommited crime. That would be like going to the police & accusing your neighbor of blowing up New York City. Still, I'll be glad to see Bush out of office, though I have a bad feeling about Obama that I can't seem to get rid of. Odds are, nothing bad will happen. I'll just have to wait and see what happens:us:

[puzzo]

Bush is not going to get convicted of anything. There's nothing to convict him of and no one will succesfully get him to court for a noncommited crime. That would be like going to the police & accusing your neighbor of blowing up New York City. Still, I'll be glad to see Bush out of office, though I have a bad feeling about Obama that I can't seem to get rid of. Odds are, nothing bad will happen. I'll just have to wait and see what happens:us:

I have a feeling like that too, but whenever I tell it to someone they automatically accuse me of being racist.

Oh NOEZ I has a bad feeling, I must be teh racistorz. Who doesn't love assumptions.

I don't think bush would or should get convicted of anything. His biggest fault is the silly Americans elected a retard into office who can't see all the people around him manipulating him for their own agendas.

[glowinthedarkcheese]

I agree: I hate those people that when I say I don't support Obama I'm racist. Apparently I don't not like Obama because all of his plans suck, the democrats (and Murtha) have made it clear that I'm a republican because I'm racist.:bored:
Also, everyone also hates Bush because we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. The problem is with trying to find something like those, you've gotta send troops over, which, at the time, Iraq and all those places would've called it a war. So, to avoid that being considered a war of aggresion, we have to get approval from the majority of the rest of the United Nations. There are approximately 192 countries in the U.N. By the time we get the army to Middle Eastern Asia, the terrorists have known for months what we were after, and have therefore had months to move the weapons

[Roxie]

there are lots of other reasons to not like Bush.

[ruaidhri]

glowinthedarkcheese, obviously, we don’t agree on most anything because first you’re a racist (by your own admission) and second you’re a Republican because somehow you’ve tied that to your racism. I actually feel sorry for you. You are going to have to live with a leader that is both black and a Democrat.

You wrote that you have a “bad feeling” about Obama. Well, we sure can take that to the bank. Can’t we? Now, if anything happens you can say, “I told you so!” You write that “all” of Obama’s plans “suck”. Of course, you’re so much smarter than the rest of us, especially Obama. You know exactly what should be done in all instances.

What I know from a lifetime of experience is that something will happen. Something good will happen and something bad will happen. Some of Obama’s plans will work and others will fail to achieve their goal. The problems our new President faces are monumental. I’d much rather have Obama in the White House than you or any of your fellow travelers.

I expect President Obama to return the U.S. to more strict regulation of industry and investments. I expect him to focus more on the average man and woman than the billionaires and their large corporations. I expect President Obama to have the intelligence to understand the issues and to guide his advisors rather than simply serving as a rubber-stamp for their decisions.

glowinthedarkcheese, face it! America is changing! The pendulum is swinging back again toward the left. Citizens are realizing that unfettered capitalism is the problem, not the answer. Government helped alleviate the pain of the last depression in the 1930’s and it will again under President Obama. Be prepared for a more Socialist nation.

[Charrington]

glowinthedarkcheese, obviously, we don’t agree on most anything because first you’re a racist (by your own admission) and second you’re a Republican because somehow you’ve tied that to your racism. I actually feel sorry for you. You are going to have to live with a leader that is both black and a Democrat.

You wrote that you have a “bad feeling” about Obama. Well, we sure can take that to the bank. Can’t we? Now, if anything happens you can say, “I told you so!” You write that “all” of Obama’s plans “suck”. Of course, you’re so much smarter than the rest of us, especially Obama. You know exactly what should be done in all instances.

What I know from a lifetime of experience is that something will happen. Something good will happen and something bad will happen. Some of Obama’s plans will work and others will fail to achieve their goal. The problems our new President faces are monumental. I’d much rather have Obama in the White House than you or any of your fellow travelers.

I expect President Obama to return the U.S. to more strict regulation of industry and investments. I expect him to focus more on the average man and woman than the billionaires and their large corporations. I expect President Obama to have the intelligence to understand the issues and to guide his advisors rather than simply serving as a rubber-stamp for their decisions.

glowinthedarkcheese, face it! America is changing! The pendulum is swinging back again toward the left. Citizens are realizing that unfettered capitalism is the problem, not the answer. Government helped alleviate the pain of the last depression in the 1930’s and it will again under President Obama. Be prepared for a more Socialist nation.

??? His post was about him having a bad feeling about Obama regardless of his race. The point of the post was, in fact, that he hates it when people assume he's racist because he doesn't support Obama.

[ruaidhri]

Charrington, if glowinthedarkcheese’s intent was to claim that he is not a racist then he should be careful exactly how he words his disclaimer. In post 1031 he wrote:

"I don't not like Obama because all of his plans suck, the democrats (and Murtha) have made it clear that I'm a republican because I'm racist."

glowinthedarkcheese’s statement was indeed confusing (don’t, not and suck). So, what did he mean? Apparently he does believe all of Obama’s plans suck but that’s not the reason he doesn’t like Obama. He continues" “the democrats (and Murtha) have made it clear that I’m a republican because I’m racist.” What does that mean? From my reading of the sentence the conclusion the democrats and Murtha made was that glowinthedarkcheese is a Republican because he is a racist. Glowinthedarkcheese did not dispute that conclusion. He did not write that they “incorrectly” believe he’s a racist. Instead, he factually stated that he is a racist and the “incorrect” assumption is that he is also a Republican.

What do I believe? Not personally knowing glowinthedarkcheese and not really knowing what he truly believes I can only go by what he says or writes. I do know that sometimes it is the Freudian Slip that reveals the most about an individual.

[Trump]

I thought it was fairly clear that he was annoyed by the people that assume you are racist when you do not support Obama. The double negative did not help anything, but oh well. It seems human nature to try to press some of the worst faults into someone simply because they believe differently. You villify them and all of the sudden it doesn't matter what they believe because they are evil.

[stsparky]

Jeepers! I had an idiot homeless nutbar try to get in my face while I was walking with the wife and tot. When I ignored him he started in how he thought I was "white" oppressing him for being Black. I just walked away ... but as he claimed he was Airforce I almost called him a disgrace of an Airman.

[glowinthedarkcheese]

[QUOTE=Trump]I thought it was fairly clear that he was annoyed by the people that assume you are racist when you do not support Obama.

It looked obvious to me that I meant what Trump said, but maybe not to others. You don't know how many people will ask who I supported, and if I don't say Obama I'm immediately dismissed as being an idiot, racist or both.

I also said I had a bad feeling about Obama. I meant simply that, and not that I go around trying to get people to vote republican because of that particular feeling. If I hear something against Obama, I look it up and make sure it's true before I bring it up in a political conversation with someone.

And last, the "bad feeling" I mentioned was because when you look at history, most of the big socialist countries have collapsed. Look at the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany (Yes, they were socialist). The few countries that are still socialist are small or have had something that effected its foreign outlook, such as North Vietnam (War in Vietnam) and Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis, along with poor human rights). Did I say that the world was going to blow up because of my bad feeling? Hell, I didn't say what the feeling was (until now) because it would probably mean nothing

[archdukezeb]

And last, the "bad feeling" I mentioned was because when you look at history, most of the big socialist countries have collapsed. Look at the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany (Yes, they were socialist). The few countries that are still socialist are small or have had something that effected its foreign outlook, such as North Vietnam (War in Vietnam) and Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis, along with poor human rights). Did I say that the world was going to blow up because of my bad feeling? Hell, I didn't say what the feeling was (until now) because it would probably mean nothing

Your pretty much just talking about "communism" and only bringing up countries that are fucked up in large part to us fucking with them. Research how many successful socialist countries and governments their have been in Europe in the past 50 years. I'm not supporting socialism at all but it still does definitely not just equate all our Cold War enemies.

And besides how is Obama that socialist at all. The only people he's really pissed off so far are the super liberals.

[Kai]

And last, the "bad feeling" I mentioned was because when you look at history, most of the big socialist countries have collapsed. Look at the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany (Yes, they were socialist). The few countries that are still socialist are small or have had something that effected its foreign outlook, such as North Vietnam (War in Vietnam) and Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis, along with poor human rights). Did I say that the world was going to blow up because of my bad feeling? Hell, I didn't say what the feeling was (until now) because it would probably mean nothing

Whats funny is the Nazi parties biggest rival before taking power were the Marxists which they stamped out quite ruthlessly. I'm not sure what you meant by difference in foreign outlook in countries like North Vietnam (Vietnam now) and Cuba which still remain very Communist. Vietnam has opened up more to the west.

To comment on the upcoming president. I don't support most of his policies but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt to see what he does in his first year or so before really judging him. Was raised in a Republican family so I've tended to lean towards the right on many issues.

And besides how is Obama that socialist at all. The only people he's really pissed off so far are the super liberals.
Don't forget the far right.:P

[japanat]

I find it endlessly ironic that the most socialistic of programs in the US over the last 60 years end up being Republican...

[ruaidhri]

Does opposing Barack Obama make a person a racist? Of course not! I did not support Obama in the primaries. Following the primaries, I was angry because so many Democrats had supported Obama because he was Black rather than because he was the best possible candidate. Personally, I believe supporting a candidate because of their race is as racist as opposing a candidate for that same reason.

In the end, I decided to vote for Obama because I didn’t like who McCain had become and because I couldn’t imagine even the slightest possibility of a President Palin. As time went on I acquired more respect for Barack Obama himself. I am very happy he won the election and rather than hoping for his failure, which would also be America’s failure, I wish him total good fortune.

What was my objection to glowinthedarkcheese’s statement?

"I don't not like Obama because all of his plans suck, the democrats (and Murtha) have made it clear that I'm a republican because I'm racist."

First, (s)he is stating that all of Obama’s plans suck without offering what makes them suck and without presenting viable alternatives. Second, (s)he is stating that the Democrats (and Murtha) made it clear that they believe (s)he is a Republican because (s)he is a racist. It doesn’t make any difference that glowinthedarkcheese’s is not in fact a racist. That is what (s)he wrote.

I assume glowinthedarkcheese took English Composition in High School if not in College. It is important to pay attention to what you write and the message it conveys.

Now, in one of my above responses I suggested that America will become more Socialist under Obama. It will! Government will play a larger role in everyone’s life just as it did in the 1930’s. Regulation will return. The government will hold ownership of much of America’s industry. I would even go so far as to say that no President would allow America to implode, which is what would happen if we allowed the market to correct itself.

[Trump]

I get really frustrated... all I hear about right now is "spend spend spend spend!!!" I want them to fix things not just bandaid over them with more money, but I don't ever hear anything else =/

[ruaidhri]

Trump, I’m glad I’m not going to be the next President. How can any President fix the problems we face without spending money we don’t have?

I believe the President should demand we enforce the regulatory laws that currently exist. I also believe the President should examine the need for new regulations to prevent future misdeeds that harm all Americans. Now, regulation costs. It costs the government to run the bureaucracy regulation creates and it costs the public to cover the expenses that industry will undoubtedly pass on to the consumer.

Then, there are the industries that are critical to our economic survival. Can we let them fail? What about the workers? What about all the industries that supply these critical industries? What about their workers? Can we let them also fail? How much will that cost society? At least with a bailout there’s hope that the costs can be retrieved.

I certainly don’t know the answers to our problems but I do know that we can’t ignore them because doing nothing is in itself an action with consequences.

So, where’s the money to come from? Before this is over the government will spend billions if not trillions of dollars while reducing taxes. The answer: They’ll print more dollars.

[Trump]

The problem lies in who decides what industries are critical to our economic survival. The problem lies in who decides what a "failing business" is. The problem lies in what those people decide to do about it.

Take this auto bailout. What would be wrong with letting the car companies file for bankruptcy? It isn't like that means they are going to close shop and stop making cars. No, it means that the company gets a repreive from its debts until it can reorganize in a more profitable way. But what did we do? We just gave them a huge loan with almost no incentive to actually fix their problems. A bailout... exactly what it sounds like. Instead of letting a ship sink (car companies) and get repaired you have an army of unaffliated people (tax payers) just start bailing out the water before the ship sinks. Great, we do all the work and they get off free. The Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae thing was the same. Instead of placing the burden on the companies investors and leaders, the tax payers shoulder the load. I can put patterns together. It's going to keep happening and we aren't going to fix anything the way things are going. And the presidents speech today made it sound like he had nothing to do with the "loss of trust" that has happened when he's been right there in the middle of it the whole time. Sigh...

[Plekto]

Don't worry, though... the real crash is coming in a few years.

Subprime? Try Prime loans going under. 420 Trillion in debt worldwide and growing. When that hits, trust me on this... only hard currency will mean anything.

In fact, most of the U.S. public have no idea, but the dollar is now tied again in an inverse way to silver and gold, thanks to the Silver Eagle and Gold Eagle. $1 in silver(legal currency, btw), is exactly one ounce as well, so when the dollar does plummet, it'll end up being exactly worth what the difference in ratios between its price in paper and an ounce of silver. (gold isn't as good - the government will very likely declare gold eagles not valid currency at some point due to the massive price difference between the metal and the coins)

With silver and gold at 10-20x the coins printed value, give or take(and climbing), that's a good indication of exactly how bad things could get with inflation. Long-term, paper money is going to be a bad investment. Now, a decade ago, I'd have said otherwise, but the government seems to be all but trying to mess things up and be forced to print tons of money at this point.

Obama's recent admission about our looming debts for the next few years make this clear - at some point, likely right after he leaves office, those loans will be called in. Hyperinflation.

But for now, the insanity will continue, much like how the musicians still played while the Titanic sunk. In the mean time, start moving your assets to bonds and silver, and keep at least 500-1000 silver eagle coins if you can(the rest can pretty safely be in bullion) in case you need access to services and to pay bills in case of a collapse.

I wish it was good news, but I really doubt it. Time to batten down the hatches and get ready for the coming storm.

edit - since there's still 3-5 years at a minimum until it all comes crashing down, there's no huge rush. But planning now will be easier than when prices double or triple as it gets closer.

[darighaz]

How the hell do "prime loans go under".

That doesn't even make sense.

Loans dont go under, PEOPLE go under.

So long as people have money, and a job to make more money, no loans will "go under".

What is it with you and the value of the dollar in like every post you make about the economy? You know why no one knows what the dollar is tied to? Because its completly irrelevent. If Farmer A decides he wants to sell his corn for 20 dollars, and someone is willing to sell meat for 20 dollars, and some other guy has 40 dollars, it doesn't matter for shit what the money is backed by, or tied to, or any of that shit. All that matters is how much of it people want.

Heres a real fact for you.

When the shit hits the fan
and everyones out of a job
No one will care how much silver you have
They will care how much FOOD you can give.

And even if they DID care how much silver you had, odds are you dont Physically have it sitting in your house, so if the market dumps, you wont ever get it. And even if you DID have it all physically, Who exactly are you going to give it to. No one else is going to want shiny metal. They're going to want Matches, and Coats.

You wanna make a real investment? Learn to Sew.

Clothes gonna be a premium when the whole country implodes because the banks done fucked up.

Barter societies care little for shiny metal, and when everything breaks down, thats what economy is all about, barter.

Fun fact. We dont need a govt banking system. Andrew Jackson took the whole thing down once, and we miraculously kept on going.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, I believe we have a difference of opinion here. I don’t like to see companies go bankrupt especially large companies such as GM, Ford and Chrysler. When large companies go bankrupt for whatever reason, including bad management, they create a domino effect.

A large company’s bankruptcy puts their many suppliers at risk regardless of the management skills of those smaller companies. The large companies’ bankruptcies also threaten the solvency of their many workers, both white and blue collar. And, it threatens the solvency of the smaller companies’ employees. More debts go unpaid, more homes and cars and livelihoods lost. Property values drop, stocks drop and confidence drops as more and more people stop spending. More businesses go bankrupt and more people lose their jobs as the people stop spending. Meanwhile government loses tax revenues from the unemployed as it pays out unemployment and welfare. Where’s that better than trying to stop the first domino from falling?

Plekto, I don’t believe we are going to face a complete collapse of our economy. Darighaz is correct; goods and services back our dollars. People are not going to carry gold or sliver in their pockets. If the dollar would ever fail other fiat currencies would take its place or people would simply barter.

I remember back in the early 1970’s. The markets weren’t good, the dollar was bad and gold and silver were skyrocketing. The doomsayers were claiming that we were facing a total crash and a return to money backed by gold and silver. Silver was up around $40.00 and ounce and gold was brushing $1,000.00. Remember, this was back in the early 1970’s when the dollar, although down, had considerably more value than it does now.

I bought into the fear and bought lots of gold and silver before it rose to such heights. I put that gold and silver into safety deposit boxes where it has sat for the last 30 plus years doing nothing for me or for my family. Now, if I had been smart I would have sold the both at the height of their value.

Yes, we are facing a tough time ahead but I believe we will survive intact. What we’re going to have to do is both help ourselves and help others. We’ve done it in the past and we’ll do it now.

[Trump]

Gold and silver isn't money, they are investments just like stocks and bonds. Everyone makes mistakes, but it is better to learn from others mistakes than to make them yourself. We definately appreciate your experience and hindsight Ruaidrhi. I know, I won't be putting any money into gold or silver except as a medium-term investment.

As to the car bailout... I was doing a little reading. The more I look at it, the only reason the bailout is a good idea is psychology. Economically, they should file for bankruptcy and then work their way out of it. The airlines have done really well. Almost all of them have filed for bankruptcy in the past 7-8 years and most of us haven't noticed a single difference. Bankrupcty allows companies to take drastic measures and make sweeping changes without having to worry about making the bills for a couple months.


From http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/12/well-fly-the-ba.html

General Motors and Chrysler could be out of money by the end of the month, creating the very real possibility that one or both of them could go down. The Bush Administration has raised the possibility of forcing the two companies into a managed bankruptcy to prevent their collapse. Some say bankruptcy is the auto industry's best chance to remake itself, and they note that Chapter 11 has saved many airlines. Once those struggling airlines restructured their debts, rewrote their labor contracts and repainted their planes, they're usually came back better than ever with consumers generally none the wiser. Why would Detroit be any different?

Because people are used to airlines going under, says Philip Graves, a market researcher who specializes in consumer psychology. They know a bankrupt airline will come back. Detroit is uncharted territory. Seeing it go under would make people very nervous because buying a car is a far bigger deal than buying a plane ticket.

...

The media blitz and national discussion that would accompany a Big Three bankruptcy would have consumers pondering every factor that pushed the automakers to the brink and compel them to think twice about buying. "Maybe their cars really are terrible," they'd think. "Maybe they won't be back. Why risk it?" Thanks to a phenomenon known as social proof - what might be called the herd mentality - it could create a domino effect leading to a collapse in sales.



I guess I just have trouble relating... I know what bankruptcy really means, and I know that it would be fine to buy their cars. I know that after a restructuing period they'd be back out of bankrupcty and doing fine. Their cars and business case has been improving over the years, but just not fast enough to keep up with the hole they find themselves in.

But, I'm independant and make my own decisions. I do my research and learn what I need to. So crap like this "herd mentality" (and it is crap... but all too real) just makes me sad that others cannot do the same.

[Plekto]

Plekto, I don’t believe we are going to face a complete collapse of our economy. Darighaz is correct; goods and services back our dollars. People are not going to carry gold or sliver in their pockets. If the dollar would ever fail other fiat currencies would take its place or people would simply barter.

I remember back in the early 1970’s. The markets weren’t good, the dollar was bad and gold and silver were skyrocketing. The doomsayers were claiming that we were facing a total crash and a return to money backed by gold and silver. Silver was up around $40.00 and ounce and gold was brushing $1,000.00. Remember, this was back in the early 1970’s when the dollar, although down, had considerably more value than it does now.


The difference here is all of the credit and bad debt in the world - over 400 trillion that wasn't there in the 70s, and China.

If China converts to a gold standard again, they won't give a rats ass if the rest of the world's fiat currency goes up in flames. Their money will be worth the same as it currently is, but everyone else will have to cough up enormous sums to buy the previously outsourced products. win-win for China, because it makes them instantly the #1 superpower in a world of bankrupt nations.

They currently have about 15% or their currency backed by gold and are buying every ounce that they can get. I suspect when their money is about 25-30% backed, they'll try to make a move.(doubly so since the Yuan is vastly overvalued)

I just don't see how we're getting out of this in one piece.

[darighaz]

If it gets too expensive to make shit there, we'll just... Leave

Stop making things there. Make them here instead. Dont buy their junk.

You cant give the world the middle finger and expect the world to just go along with it.

[Trump]

Pletko, that last argument makes no sense at all. Right now, there is simply more money than gold, period. We absolutely cannot go back to a gold standard. Money represents goods, not gold. $1 represents a certain amount of rice, or a certain amount of pasta, or gasoline, or cloth fabric, or silicon, or ..... There simply is not enough gold in the world to represent all the manufactured goods in the world. Like you said, China might be up to about 15%, and they've bought A LOT of gold. Do you think they can buy enough to cover their whole money supply? And you can't just decide to convert to a gold standard if you can't back up all the money with gold. I mean, that's the point. They would need 100% and that just isn't going to happen. So really, if they keep buying gold, the price will go up because they will have cornered the supply. But will that help them in the long run? Only if they are using it as an investment and plan to cash out later when the price has gone up. As Darighaz said, the only reason China's economy is doing so well right now is because they are cheap. They have less government controls on industry and they have more people than they know what to do with making production and labor cheaper over there. If their currency strengthens, that will no longer be the case and we will start making things here again as it becomes profitable.

[ruaidhri]

I agree with darighaz and trump. We will not return to a gold standard. I also do not believe China would return to a gold standard. There are simply too many goods and services and too much currency to back for the standard to be effective. Even if China held enough gold to cover 30 percent of their currency they would face a run on their gold whenever their money supply increased without a corresponding increase in the gold they held. That's what happened to the U.S. in the late 1960's when we pegged gold at $35.00 an ounce. I was in Paris in 1967 and they had special stores for purchases in American dollars because they could covert them to gold at $35.00 an ounce. They knew the U.S. couldn't support every dollar. I believe the same would happen to China.

Production and labor costs determines which country manufactures our goods. If their currency strengthens causing costs to go up in China production will move elsewhere.

edit spelling

[Arctic_Slicer]

I never understood the desire to go back to the gold standard. It's value is based on speculation and "perceived" worth as anything else; it's only valuable because we choose to make it so, same as a dollar. Honestly what's gold good for anyway? Other than being somewhat of an uncommon metal it really isn't anything special. Right now there has been many people afraid the dollar is going to collapse so they are buying up gold to somehow "maintain" their wealth. Problem is they traded something that is easily spendable, dollars, for something that only has value to those who deal with gold; making it even less efficient to have. Honestly if they are that freaked out by the current economy they should be investing their money on cans of soup and other non-perishable foods. If we really do come into another great depression at least you will be left with something you can actually eat instead of something you can look at and say "it's shiny!"

[glowinthedarkcheese]

Like Arctic Slicer said, if the economy crashes, gold won't be worth as much as people think, and the paranoids should buy stuff worth their money. You can't eat gold, you can't plant gold, and in a depression people won't buy your gold. Most people realize this, so the chances of going back to a gold standard are very, very low, if not impossible.

[Trump]

Gold has many uses. Check out wikipedia for a nice list.

[glowinthedarkcheese]

Well, yes, it has uses, but if we were to go into an economic crash, and everyone badly needed food, having a chunk of shiny metal probably won't help

[Plekto]

But a nice hunk of shiny metal IS worth much much more than a piece of paper with some pictures on it. One has real intrinsic value. The other has nearly none.

Btw, the U.S. has already gone back to a silver standard. Just most people don't know it. If you look up "Silver Eagle", you'll see a $1 coin that is one ounce of silver. It's legal tender, actually, so it sets the price at that level. Of course, it was originally worth about $2-3 in silver when it was minted. It's the last decade or two's insanity and inflation that has made it worth so much more versus paper money.(about $11-$12 an ounce of silver last I checked)

It's good to have at least a few thousand in hard assets, just in case.
(note - this could be silver, gold, copper, gemstones, or whatever - just Gold and silver are easy to trade/have a long historical basis of being used as currency)

[stsparky]

Rather be secure in having food than rare metal. You could aiways barter services for food?

[archdukezeb]

Today on Mad Money: BUY SPAM! LOTS AND LOTS OF SPAM! INVEST IN SPAM!

[ruaidhri]

This gold, silver, food argument is beginning to border on the ridiculous. I do believe that part of Plekto’s argument is that gold and silver are good hedges in tough economic times. He’s correct. They are specifically because they retain their relative value against a currency on its way up and on its way down.

Obviously food, clothing and shelter are most critical to our survival during any economic times. All of us buy food. We all need it for our daily survival. But, how many of us are farmers? Far fewer Americans claim farming as their profession today than during the last great depression in the 1930’s. Back in 1930 a full 25 percent of America’s population lived on 6 million family farms. They produced much of the food they ate. Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that of the 285 million people living in the United States that only 2 percent of our population live on farms and only half claim farming as an occupation with only half that number claiming it as their principal occupation.

How many members on OP9 even have a vegetable garden? I do but then considering that I’m retired my wife and I have plenty of time to work it and plenty of land to grow it, we’re not average. But even then, we certainly couldn’t produce enough food to even support our own two bodies.

Let’s go one step further. How many farmers do you know with whom you could barter the services you possess for the food they produce? We need some form of currency. So, where does gold and silver fit into this equation? Considering their constant value they would be of value to the producers and distributors of food, clothing and shelter. Also, they don’t spoil. In today’s economic mess, they’re insurance because if the U.S. dollar tanked, gold and silver would have value in whatever fiat currency that replaced our dollar.

So, in my opinion, Plekto’s suggestion that we hold several thousand dollars in gold, silver or some other commodity of intrinsic value makes sense. Where I disagree is with his belief that the United States or any other country would return to the gold or silver standard. It just won’t happen.

[Roxie]

How many members on OP9 even have a vegetable garden?
We do. We grow okra, collard greens, different types of tomatoes, and watermelon. We'll be doing more this year.

we also go to a strawberry field for all of our strawberries (when in season).

[Jetsetlemming]

How many members on OP9 even have a vegetable garden?
I've got a pineapple growing on my kitchen counter. :V

I used to grow peppers in the yard, but the garden was killed off by a nearby tree, essentially. We murdered the tree in revenge (accidentally knocking out a neighbor's phone line in the process. Not my fault!) but we haven't bothered to redo the garden. Grass has taken over the space.

[stsparky]

Mother-in-law has farmland. Though that's in Japan. I can fish. I still can bring down birds with a sling. I know how to survive. Food, shelter, and clothing are things I have covered.

[ruaidhri]

May I impress on all who look with a skeptical eye on the seriousness of our economic crisis that your and your families’ survival will largely depend on your preparedness. With more and more major layoffs and an ever-increasing list of retail bankruptcies both large and small popping up every day, I suggest you begin to question your own security. The point I was making in my above post was that holding a small amount of gold or silver was not a stupid act.

With the number of dollars America will spend to get us out of this mess inflation is a real threat. If it happens each dollar will buy less and less at a time when people don’t have jobs. That’s called “stagflation”. This is the insurance holding gold or silver provides. It maintains a constant value against a falling currency. It is an insurance policy. Is it necessary? Probably not; but then …

Gardens, hunting and fishing are all good. They would help. But, what about the individuals that don’t have the knowledge, space, ability or inclination to return to the basics of survival? How many could riot, steal or die.

Personally, I’m happy that Barack Obama is our President. I believe he is the man for the times. I don’t believe his skin color defines his character, ability or promise. What I see is a young man with the ability to inspire people to work together. That’s what I believe, is necessary to survive this economic mess, a willingness to work together. I believe Barack Obama was and is the best person for the job.

May I suggest to all of you to hold onto your seats because this is going to be one hell of a ride.

[Jetsetlemming]

The worse the economy gets the better my family does. Last year we could barely keep food on the table and pay the mortgage.

[Ichisan]

America is the only developed country in the world where seemingly educated people take the notions that global warming is a myth and evolution is a hoax seriously. I mean, honestly, wtf?! Are you insane?

[Ichisan]

You cant give the world the middle finger and expect the world to just go along with it.

You can do whatever you want, if you're backed by force.

[Charrington]

America is the only developed country in the world where seemingly educated people take the notions that global warming is a myth and evolution is a hoax seriously. I mean, honestly, wtf?! Are you insane?

I'm pretty sure America is far from the only developed country where this happens.

[Black Dog]

You cant give the world the middle finger and expect the world to just go along with it.

You can do whatever you want, if you're backed by force.

As long as your enemies can't hit back...just beacuase you can use force, doesn't mean your walk away unscratched...:karate:

In this world "the strong eat the weak."

[Plekto]

May I suggest to all of you to hold onto your seats because this is going to be one hell of a ride.

Good post. I'd also like to recommend a few more basic things as well.
- First off, get some basic books on cooking, repairing, and making stuff. Like they used to have a hundred years ago. Do you know how to make clothing or maintain your place by yourself? Do you have the basic tools to, say, actually make stuff and fix it? Don't forget items like a sewing machine or a lathe. They are cheap but very useful to have in your garage.

Note - this also means being able to hunt and fish and cook without being connected to the grid. It could be as simple as a .22 rifle, a fishing pole, and a smoker/grill. But it's amazing how many people don't even have a tent or even emergency supplies in their car. A flat spare tire does you no good, after all.

Part of this is good common sense in case it hits the fan. Part of it is that when nobody can afford to pay a repair person or pay for the heat...

- Get a diesel vehicle as a backup. When gas gets to $5-10 a gallon, being able to run vegetable oil in a pinch might save your family some serious money. You might laugh, but during the gas crisis in the 70s, those with diesel vehicles literally laughed at the miles of people with no gas at all who were waiting or walking. It has happened before and therefore could very well happen again. Bonus points if it's a pickup or suv with 4x4 - that's an emergency vehicle as well in a pinch.

- Obviously get some sort of protection. The Police won't be worried about you if rioters come. Won't happen? Talk to the people of Los Angeles who one day woke up with a good chunk of the city in such a situation.(Rodney King riots) You don't need some mountain compound, but security should be on your mind. At least make sure your doors can't be easily kicked in. Most rioters won't break down walls or climb in secured windows for fear of cutting themselves, but they WILL kick a flimsy door in if they can.

- Get off the grid if you can manage it and are in a rural area. A well and solar power might seem odd to some, but being able to survive without any help for days or weeks is good.

Also, if you watch the news, those poor people in Arkansas... Bad weather shut down services for almost two weeks. Just the damn weather. Those who had simple supplies like wood stoves, gas lanterns, and so on got through it. The rest had a miserable time until the government came in a and get things together.

Now, I know this as well from personal experience. 1994. Northridge, CA. Middle of the second largest city in the U.S. It took a a week for electricity to get working again, two weeks for water and gas, and nearly two months to clear the rubble out of the streets. When things get bad, it takes Uncle Sam ages to respond. And that's in a best case scenario. If everything goes south, well, nobody's coming to help at all.

[Charrington]

Here's this http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.08/tshtf1.html and this http://www.army.mil/usapa/doctrine/31_Series_Collection_1.html . I doubt anything will happen, though. If it does I'd just take advantage of the milquetoasts in Canada.

[Kai]

All this talk of preparedness is sounding like the good old Y2K days again. I personally don't think its going to be as severe as pointed out. This economic situation in the end will resolve itself. I am prepared for the hunting, fishing and other basic survival aspect though.

Get a diesel vehicle as a backup. When gas gets to $5-10 a gallon, being able to run vegetable oil in a pinch might save your family some serious money. You might laugh, but during the gas crisis in the 70s, those with diesel vehicles literally laughed at the miles of people with no gas at all who were waiting or walking. It has happened before and therefore could very well happen again. Bonus points if it's a pickup or suv with 4x4 - that's an emergency vehicle as well in a pinch.

That would be great if diesel could remain cheaper than petrol. Diesel vehicles are great. I've even thought of buying a diesel Jetta but the problem remains that the price of diesel continues to be kept at a higher cost then normal gas which adds to its lack of appeal in this country unfortunatly.

[Trump]

You make it sound like civilization will completely implode on itself and people won't even be able to trade or barter with each other.... talk about going overboard.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

You make it sound like civilization will completely implode on itself and people won't even be able to trade or barter with each other.... talk about going overboard.
Dude, it's Plekto.

[Plekto]

Lol. I meant an old ratty diesel that you keep in the garage just in case. Like a 1970s Mercedes sedan. The problem isn't the cost so much as what happens if there's just no fuel at all like happened in the 70s? Also consider a small generator as well, preferably diesel, for the same reasons. I know of a lot of my friends who have old 4x4s for this same reason. If it's paid for and runs, there's no reason NOT to keep that old truck. Registration on anything over 15 years old or so is usually $50 a year or less. Insurance is a couple of hundred if it's not driven.

As for the books, even those old Time/Life series on home repairs are a godsend - and cheap as dirt to get a full set off of Ebay. Why pay some idiot $60 an hour to do simple repairs on your house when you can do it yourself?
(fixing your car, even moreso..)

I don't think things will completely fall apart, but then again, does it really hurt to have some supplies in your garage and a backup plan? I do know that in the last 6 months, silver has jumped more than 50% in price and shows no signs of slowing down. Bad things are happening with our economy right now.

edit - that link above to the guy living in Argentina is good. But there are few things to add to his list:

- Lightbulbs(or replace main lights with LEDs)
- A dot matrix printer. Why? Ink. You can use a bottle of ink to re-ink ribbons for years. $10 at a garage sale beats looking for a highly expensive printer cartridge. 12V power supply/wall wart if possible.

- A 56K modem. Cable and DSL will die quickly in a crisis. telephone will work and an old-school Supra or Hayes type modem is a godsend as it works with any computer. Find one with 12V if possible. Note - Earthlink dial-up service is $10 a month. Even if that trippled, it would work while DSL/Cable... well... Cable TV's already at $60+ a month and rising...

- He mentioned charging with solar panels or a generator. I highly suggest considering making a small low-power netbook type computer that uses 20-30W total. This is low enough power to run off of an inverter or a power supply adapter connected to a 12V battery.

Make a small netbook or similar low power computer to get on the net. The new Intel Atom boards are dirt cheap and work for this. Connect to a PicoPSU. This works off of a 12V wall adapter and is good for 50W. Connected to a deep cycle battery, we're talking about weeks online without power. Remember, the phones have their own power. The monitor is another issue, though... I'll have to look into that... Possibly get an eeePC or similar...

- Get a manual dial touch tone phone(old type, circa 1980). When all else dies, these will work off of the phone line power. My dad has all sorts of phones in his house. But one is an old-school phone that still works when the power goes out. 911 is useless if your phone works off of a wall wart only.

- Consider an old-school air piston airgun for getting meat. A tin of pellets lasts years and so do the guns. Fun for the kids to shoot as well. Even an old pneumatic Benjamin/Sheridan model for $100(less used of course) is a no-brainer. Load with BBs if you have to... I still have mine from my childhood and it still works after nearly 25 years.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=9222902
$3 for 1500. Copper coated so it's safe for food and to handle.

http://www.pyramydair.com/p/crosman-760-pumpmaster-air-rifle.shtml
$40. This also works quite well. Cheap and simple. Big 5, Sport Chalet, and others have the same thing for about the same price. Takes care of rats and vermin as well as the occasional bit of foraging/food gathering.

- Bullet molds and reloading equipment is a snap to get used. People are literally giving it away. He complains about $20 a box ammo? Ammo is already $20 a box in the U.S. in most stores. Reloading .223 or 308 is probably the simplest thing to do and the cases are good for 5-10 reloads if you run slightly lower power loads.(ie - 85-90% factory power is nearly infinite case life and 99% as good in actual use)

- A motorcycle/dirtbike. Unless it's literally hit the fan like in that guy's case, a motorcycle is a good thing to have. Currently people are throwing away dirt bikes and such as useless yuppie weekend toys... Idiots, to be sure. $200-500 for a dirt bike is a godsend when the roads are in bad shape and gas is nearly impossible to afford. Most small displacement ones also get 100+mpg as well. Just take a look at Mexico. Loads of people have motorcycles/scooters/etc because they are cheap to fix and run. The U.S. won't turn into Argentina, but it WILL likely turn into Mexico.

Note - this is even better than an old diesel car. A bike should be very high on your list unless you know you'll not end up one of the poor.

[Trump]

If cable internet fails, why would you put forth that much effort want to get on the internet? Half the internet will be gone so what's the point?

If your power is out and cable is out, 911 won't be there, who needs a phone? Earthlink won't be there either, so why pay for it now? Almost all of your suggestions are based off assumptions that would lead me to believe things will be too far gone for your suggestions to make any difference. You are not helping people, you are simply inspiring fear.

[Plekto]

Well, I'm not talking about a total wasteland so much as, say, conditions in the poorer areas of Mexico. Intermittent power, iffy water, food is expensive relative to your budget...

Phone will still work. Internet servers will work for email and the like. Cable won't reliably. Your appliances won't either.(ie - power will be on at the servers at the ISP, but at your house?). Case in point - my work has 24/7/365 power generation on-site if need be. The utilities and telephone and so on will work - IF you can connect to them that is. 911 won't be there, true, in a total SHTF situation, but in a third-world or disaster type scenario, you might have a medical emergency and need a phone. You can pick up an old line-powered 1980s era phone for $5 at a garage sale. Good to have in any case in a power outage.

Being crippled by a 14V wall-wart or similar is a problem. 12V can be charged easy by comparison if by no other means than by having a second battery with quick connect cables in your vehicle while you drive to work and back.(note - this is similar to living out of a boat or RV, which some people do)

[stsparky]

I think having a diesel-powered SUV is an essential back-up one needs as a start. I have more than that - but reliable transport is what one needs in random emergencies.

My plan is a generator and a well-stocked gun safe.

[Ichisan]

America is the only developed country in the world where seemingly educated people take the notions that global warming is a myth and evolution is a hoax seriously. I mean, honestly, wtf?! Are you insane?

I'm pretty sure America is far from the only developed country where this happens.

Erm...where else does it happen then?

N.B. Note that the question refers not to the phenomenon of these claims happening at all, but to said claims being taken seriously by the educated.

[ruaidhri]

Ichisan, I believe you have confused educated with smart.

I believe there are stupid people, regardless of education, throughout the world.

The U.S.A. is no different, no better, no worse.

[Charrington]

Erm...where else does it happen then?

N.B. Note that the question refers not to the phenomenon of these claims happening at all, but to said claims being taken seriously by the educated.

Every other country in the world? Do you think the US is somehow exceedingly different than the rest of the world? That the people are of a different species? In England, where Darwin was born and where his face is on the currency only 57 percent of the population "believe" in Darwinism.

Besides, according to most studies the majority of the top colleges in the world are American, and the US is the fourth largest country in the world by population. There are bound to be differences of opinion.

[glowinthedarkcheese]

[QUOTE=Ichisan]Erm...where else does it happen then?

It happens in just about every place in the world. If you think that the U.S is the only country with this opinion, then if you live in the U.S you should travel more, if you don't live in the U.S you should meet some new people, and should over all not lie to yourself that America is the only place where people argue.

[japanat]

Plekto and Sparky,

Your advice would be good if things really went to pot, no doubt. What I find funny, though, is where you live. Sparky, you live in Santa Monica, right? Plekto, just what in the hell are you going to hunt with your pellet gun... ... in the middle of the LA basin? You and about 10 million other people going after those poor squirrels...

If you really believe that things are going to crash hard enough to need your diesel 4WDs, battery-powered PCs, wall-powered phones and all the rest, then really the first order of business should be getting your ass the hell out of Dodge. Move to a place with a lower population, somewhere that such preparations would actually mean something. Because if things crash like Argentina, you really wouldn't want to be anywhere near LA, San Francisco, San Diego or any other large city.

My father moved us into the Colorado mountains a little over an hour southwest of Denver in 1971 when he was convinced that the recession that was beginning was going to be the death-knell for America. He had about 2 years of survival food in big 40-gal paperboard drums which would then become temporary toilets, we had 3 22s, a 20-guage, a .38 for close-in work, numerous pellet guns, big dogs, and no neighbors. And thankfully, in the end we had no need for these things, either.

[ruaidhri]

japanat, I really enjoyed reading your post. It reminded me of the hysteria of the 1970's. Yes, I had dried food in the basement. I bought a gun. I bought gold and silver. The gun is now rusted. The food spoiled and I still pay rent for safety deposit boxes to hold the gold and silver.

The world didn't end in the 1970's and it won't end now. Our economy will recover. We'll have to wait for another armageddon, perhaps 122112.

[Plekto]

Well, I did say that its not going to "hit the fan" for several years. Until then, making as much money as I can in a large city is a very good idea.

And I do have the 4x4 and can move in 48 hours if need be. I have a sister who lives in Port Angeles, WA, and it's a decent enough place to hole up should the need arise.

[stsparky]

Heh - it's access to the ocean. I want to be able to deploy this:
http://www.solarsailor.com/images/products/Emerald_Cruiser_PLAN.jpg

A workable boat that is solar powered - seems a good deal.

[japanat]

Port Angeles, WA, and it's a decent enough place to hole up should the need arise.Heh, have you ever read Footfall (http://www.amazon.com/Footfall-Larry-Niven/dp/0345418425/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236034618&sr=8-1)? They fly Orion out of Port Angeles...

[mawande]

*perplexed* Did someone watch Jericho recently or something?

[Plekto]

Heh. Nice reference.

Of course, almost any place along the coasts will be ideal. It's the big cities that are the potential problem when power is on for only half the day and everyone has a hard time finding food. Yet 50-60 miles up the coast and life is somewhat normal...

Or I could go out to one of my many relatives' farms out in Missouri. World could end and nothing much would change out there. Weather sucks, though...

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, you have to stop being such an optomist. People will get the wrong impression.

[MNJetter]

Wow, you guys are still on the subject of how to survive if the country goes kaput? I'm impressed. I only visit this thread like once a month.

I guess 1,000 posts or so takes it far enough where the original thread's subject has been hashed out to death.

I think that anybody with relatives out in the sticks will be able to survive just fine should society as we know it implode. My mother's parents have about 2,000 acres of forest/farm land in Wisconsin. I'm guessing that if we suddenly became an agrarian nation again, they would suddenly be very wealthy people. That much land would be more than enough to start up a self-sustaining lifestyle for everybody in the family, at the very least. Though I imagine that if urban folks start an exodus to the country, the property's borders would need to be protected.

[Plekto]

Plekto, you have to stop being such an optimist. People will get the wrong impression.

Heh. I'm actually being quite optimistic about all of this. The fall of the American Empire around the world will happen. Life will be forced back to more basic levels. A perfect example was how the U.K. lost its empire and was forced to live at a more basic and sustainable level.

Most of us will survive just fine. One does need to plan a bit, though, because there will be a few years(might be a couple of decades) where resources are tight and crime and unemployment is much worse. Now, you don't need to get all survivalist and hole up in a bunker or anything, but keeping some emergency supplies and making sure that you can remain mobile and have assets is a prudent course of action, IMO.

We're entering another Great Depression and those who see it coming and plan will weather it out just fine. Those who continue to live like yuppies and don't save anything, well, they'll be the first to be homeless.

[stsparky]

I'd expect Plekto to have enough fuel to make the trip to Washington. I'll have my solar powered boat ready long before we see the West collapse. I do have an emergency backup plan until then. I don't want a dramatic shootout with heavily armed thugs all along the 5 Northbound. It looks like this:
http://www.yachtsurvey.com/boatreviews/Tiara31open.JPG

[Gorlam]

I'd expect Plekto to have enough fuel to make the trip to Washington. I'll have my solar powered boat ready long before we see the West collapse. I do have an emergency backup plan until then. I don't want a dramatic shootout with heavily armed thugs all along the 5 Northbound. It looks like this:
http://www.yachtsurvey.com/boatreviews/Tiara31open.JPG


Impressive, Impressive... But how will you survive the zombie apocalypse of 2020?

[stsparky]

Impressive, Impressive... But how will you survive the zombie apocalypse of 2020?
Isn't there an earlier one due 2012 because of either Rush Limbaugh and Michael J. Fox? I have non-lethal superball ammo for my highpowered slingshot. I did plan on getting two of these for the boat.
http://www.efour4ever.com/m2_50cal.JPG
But remanufactured AK47s with synthetic stocks seem more easy to get -
http://www.ioinc.us/graphics2/stgcollapsibletxt.jpg


I want to be smarter than those who fall prey to the "charnel house" dilemma - though I tend to substitute looter for zombie. Looters are a bigger worry.

[ruaidhri]

Plekto and stsparky, it almost appears that both of you take pleasure in anticipating disaster. You claim to be prepared and are anxious to use your toys to defend yourselves against the great, unfed, masses.

I bought into that hysteria myself back in the late 1970’s. It was baloney then and it’s baloney now. There is no doubt that the economy is down but it is not out. I have faith in our leadership that we will recover. If it’s time to do anything that something is to buy stocks now while they are down. I wish I had done that instead of buying gold and silver back in the late 1970’s.

[stsparky]

It's responsible to plan for the worst but hope for the best. I'd buy bargain stocks that pay dividends.

[volomavi]

I'm not so much concerned with America as with Moldavia. After another rigged election people are starting to rebel.

Romania is taking Moldavia's side, but Russia has no plans of letting go. Looking back at the Georgia incident, Russia will probably mobilize forces. Romania will do the same, but they are also part of NATO.

So then what? Someone screams for freedom/democracy/bacon and guns go off.

WWI deja vu.

[ruaidhri]

Hmmm. This situation in Moldavia could become more dangerous very quickly. From what I understand international observers of the election of Communists that support Russia originally claimed the election was above board. Now, some are suggesting they should have left a crack in the door implying that there might have been some rigging.

Romania's involvement could involve NATO, which could be catastrophic. Yes, this is a seemingly insignificant incident that could explode and affect the entire world.

volomavi, do you have any personal involvement with this part of the world?

[stsparky]

The answer is to get Russia to join NATO. Sadly Moldavia's Twitter Rebellion was anticipated by the Communists.

[Plekto]

No, more like the Communists have been itching for a fight for nearly 20 years. Expect a very large hammer to be used in response.

[volomavi]

If you are calling russia a bunch of communists, you better still be calling germany a bunch of fascists. I like you Plekto, you should become a fireman.

After some digging, the root of the problem is (as always) economical.

Moldavia has two influences, russia and romania.

Some people in moldavia declared the recent political election to be rigged (whether it was or wasn't is 50/50), because there are parties that could greatly profit from a union with romania. So people inside the country are pushing for a revolution, and romania itself is trying it's best to support them from the outside. Ergo the capture of government buildings by those people. Russia wishes for status quo to remain and is using the diplomatic means to do so.

No matter what happens, the country of Moldavia will still remain poor.
Corruption at it's finest.

[Plekto]

No, if you read up a bit on Russia today, you see a picture of the KGB and its former employees and leaders essentially running Russia as a giant mafia of sorts. Same people different names is all.

Sorry - I should have said ex-communists-and-KGB-who-still-are-in-power-just-with-a-different-set-of-names

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200407/ai_n9409132/
A very sobering article(originally from The Economist, I think, but their site is now pay-to-view). I don't see good things in Russia's future. Or those who try to break away from their influence.

Very, very dangerous. And itching for a fight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekism - A good primer on understanding how Russia currently is operating. I'd wager 99% of people in the U.S. have no clue how much if a looming disaster this all is.

[Trump]

Why has CNN only had 1 tiny article on this whole thing? Is it not news in the US or something?

[japanat]

I've had problems with CNN ever since they embedded their reporters with US units at the start of the 2nd Gulf War, but didn't carry any news from the Iraqis or from countries with dissenting opinions such as France. They no longer provide balanced overviews of issues, and pretty much ignore anything outside of the US's influence. Not as bad as FOXNews maybe, but getting there.

I go to the BBC for any non-US news, as well as for alternative views of what's happening in the US.

[volomavi]

So much for the Moldavian discussion, but if you haven't noticed Russia has always operated like this. From the time of kings and queens, people have always been in power. Some people abuse it more than others. Bush administration much? Same people different names, kind of.

The last serious situation which required military force was Georgia, which was started only because the president (fucking asshole started a war during the olympics, previously all wars have been put on pause during the time, but noooo) had good ties and started killing Russian people near the border. So that when Russia responded, he could have said: "oh no, the Russians are coming and we're in desperate need of defense, send us resources".

As of current, they have absolutely no intention of stepping over Ukraine to settle matters in Moldavia, just like America, oh wait no, that kinda did happen. Except you know, the whole atlantic ocean and then some.

Your estranged belief that the KGB still functions like the supreme organization that governs Russia, is about as acute as believing in the Illuminati and their iron grasp over America.

Yes there are people in power, yes they try to provide prosperity to their nation, their level of greediness varies, but that can be said for any nation.

[stsparky]

I've family friends from Moldavia. The squashing of the populist rebellion - that was being organized via Twitter was on NPR earlier in the week.

What do you want to talk about?

[Trump]

So, if it was being organized over public channels, how did the government not even know about it?

[stsparky]

How six people in Moldova possibly saved an election (http://grinding.be/2009/04/16/how-six-people-in-moldova-possibly-saved-an-election/)

Posted by m1k3y on April 16th, 2009 in activism, mobile, rage against the machine

Quoting nearly the whole article here, because it’s fascinating. From The Guardian:

Natalia Morar, 25, a Moldovan who has already been banned from Russia for opposing the Kremlin, told the Guardian she feared arrest after organising a flash mob which ended with 20,000 people storming the parliament building.

Morar, who was tonight reported to be under house arrest, said she had not slept for two nights and was shuttling from one apartment to the next to outwit the police. “They have staked out my house and my mother’s,” she said. “They entered my apartment without a search warrant. If they find me they will arrest me – and what happens then, no one knows. I haven’t spoken on the phone or gone online for two days for fear of being traced.”

It was “ironic”, she added, that the tools she used to launch a revolution could now potentially betray her whereabouts.

The protests began after a conversation between Morar and six friends in a cafe in Chisinau, Moldova’s tiny capital, on Monday 6 April. “We discussed what we should do about the previous day’s parliamentary elections, which we were sure had been rigged,” said Morar, speaking at a secret location.

The elections brought a larger-than-expected victory for the incumbent Communist party. “We decided to organise a flash mob for the same day using Twitter, as well as networking sites and SMS.” With no recent history of mass protests in Moldova, “we expected at the most a couple of hundred friends, friends of friends, and colleagues”, she said. “When we went to the square, there were 20,000 people waiting there. It was unbelievable.”

The demonstrations continued into Tuesday peacefully. But later that day, with no response from the government, protesters swept police aside to storm the parliament building and the towering presidential palace opposite. Fire broke out in one wing of the parliament, and the young protesters vented their fury by wrecking computers and office furniture.

“Not only did we underestimate the power of Twitter and the internet, we also underestimated the explosive anger among young people at the government’s policies and electoral fraud,” said Morar.

This morning election officials in Moldova began a recount of votes, which was ordered by President Vladimir Voronin following the protests. The results of the recount will be announced on Friday.

Moldova, with a population of 4 million, is Europe’s poorest country, and a large number of young people are forced to find work in the west.

“The discrepancy between what they see and learn there, and what they come back to in Moldova, has just grown too much,” said Morar.

Despite controversy over the *damage caused, Morar is “proud of young Moldovans” for having shown courage and taken to the streets.

She does not believe the current vendetta against her is purely the work of the Moldovan authorities, but sees the Kremlin’s hand in it as well: “It was when Russia expressed strong support for Moldova’s position on the elections, and condemned the protests, that they started targeting us.”

Morar was expelled from Russia in 2007 after writing a series of articles accusing top Kremlin officials, including Alexander Bortnikov, the current head of the Russian security services, the FSB, of being behind the murder of Russia’s central bank deputy head Andrey Kozlov in September 2006.

[Druid]

I remember reading an article about a pro-anarchy professor in Russia that was dismissed after 10+( I recall it being 20, but best to be conservative) years of unblemished service to the college. Apparently the supervisor for the college received word from someone in the government that they wanted him gone, so they(the Rusky version of the board of Education)forced him to resign. I can't fined the article, but apparently things like that have been happening with considerable frequency as of late.

[ruaidhri]

America the beautiful, the land we love. Strong, wealthy and a world leader with its arms and hearts open to the world.

Or is it? Have you ever asked yourself: What is America’s future? If you think about it the answer might be frightening.

We’re in a deep recession. Heck, I’d call it a depression. More and more people are out of work and many of those with jobs are working fewer hours. Major industries are facing bankruptcy. Choosing the right investment is a crap shoot. Housing values are tanking as banks question high home assessments and refuse to lend money for what they consider overpriced sales.

The problems aren’t only federal. Our 50 states and countless counties, cities, villages and towns are rapidly running out of money and options. Meanwhile services are being cut while we all pray nothing worse happens.

What happened? America buys but it doesn’t manufacture. We live in a world economy where the lowest cost and the greatest profit trumps all other considerations. We hate blue collar union employees earning a good wage but envy and aspire to be the corporate managers earning hundreds of times the average worker’s salary. We want to live in good, safe and prosperous communities but resent having to pay for it with higher taxes. We certainly don’t want to take money out of our pocket and put it into the pockets of others regardless of their need.

The surest way for a politician to lose their next election is to propose a tax increase. Yet, that is exactly what may be needed if America is to survive as a prosperous nation in the 21st Century.

Let’s consider some of the factors that made America strong.

> A strong work ethic;
> an educated workforce;
> a willingness to accept risk for greater profit;
> a responsive government;
> a willingness (often begrudging) to pay taxes; and
> a strong infrastructure.

It’s the collapse of our infrastructure that could very well spell our doom and I’m not talking about the long term. Oh, we’ve all noticed the potholes in the streets and the rush hour traffic jams that never seem to end. They’re a part of it but what I’m referring to is everything that makes America a great place to live.

The American Society of Civil Engineers 2009 grades for infrastructure of the United States are:

2009 GRADES
D Aviation
C Bridges
D Dams
D- Drinking Water
D+ Energy
D Hazardous Waste
D- Inland Waterways
D- Levees
C- Public Parks & Recreation
C Rail
D- Roads
D School
C+ Solid Waste
D Transit
D- Wastewater


http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2009/grades.cfm


What does our D GPA tell us? We need a $2.2 Trillion dollar investment over the next 5 years.

What is the risk of doing nothing? We could quickly become a third world country.

[Swede]

Interesting post Ruaidhri, always good to hear from you. This is definitely something I've thought a lot about myself, something that worries me more than just about anything, is what sort of position the U.S. will find itself in in the coming years.

I think you hit a major point when you talk about having an educated work force and a strong work ethic in particular. In my opinion, education leads to innovation, and that's going to be just about the only way to stay on top like we have been. That and rewarding actual work, rather than rewarding those on wall street who are just trying to play the game and make a quick buck, rather than actually producing anything that moves the country forward in any significant way.

I don't think that we have to go back to being an industrial nation or anything like that, but if we heavily invest in infrastructure like you say, and that includes researching and developing new, more efficient sources and uses of energy, I think it would do us a lot of good. Not just in that we'd be more self-sufficient, but also in that we'd have a valuable export that may help put off the massive trade deficits we have at the moment.

[Kyletherealninja]

We certainly don’t want to take money out of our pocket and put it into the pockets of others regardless of their need.

Wrong. I'm quite willing to make donations to private charities, I just don't want the government taking my money and deciding what to do with it. On average I take 10-20% out of my paycheck for charitable donations.

The surest way for a politician to lose their next election is to propose a tax increase. Yet, that is exactly what may be needed if America is to survive as a prosperous nation in the 21st Century.

We don't need a tax increase, we need the government to make better use of the taxes it already collects. Eliminate expensive welfare programs and bureaucratic hubris and use that money for the supposed infrastructure problems.


What does our D GPA tell us? We need a $2.2 Trillion dollar investment over the next 5 years.

Considering the fact that this nation's national debt has increased astronomically just this year due to bailouts that didn't work, among other ridiculous government action, this sounds like an awful idea. I'm far more concerned about hyperinflation brought on by excessive borrowing destroying the value of the dollar and making the USA's currency completely worthless. This is a far more pressing concern than park quality.

I'm certainly bothered by the fact that so many people are obsessed with getting high-paying finance jobs. I have a lot more respect for blue collar employees who actually contribute something to society than glorified gamblers. Wall Street has always seemed like an unnecessary hoop to jump through in the digital age, when people should be able to directly invest in companies without a money-grubbing middleman, but I'm far from an expert on the stock market so I won't ramble about that. :frypan:

[Trump]

I'm curious if the infrastructure has actually gotten any worse over the years or if we've just been maintaining it where it is. I mean, roads and bridges get beat up but they get fixed too. I don't feel like they are any worse than they were 10 years ago. Are the levees and dams that were built to last hundreds of years really in such a state of disrepair? Or more so than in the past 10-20 years? I mean, the levees in New Orleans would have failed if Katrina hit 30 years ago.

I'd love to see a better investment in our infrastructure, from energy production to distribution, mass transit and everything, but the rewards for doing so seem to outweigh the risk.

[ruaidhri]

I agree, an educated workforce with a strong work ethic is critical to America’s future prosperity. Past leaders recognized the value of education when they offered the returning WWII veterans the opportunity to go to college. That changed America.

But that was a different time. America was on the move. We had just won the war with our cities and industry escaping unscathed. Today, we have more graduates than jobs. Today, many employers, if they’re hiring at all, don’t recognize the value of the well-rounded Liberal Arts education. Sadly, today, the job search is difficult for all new graduates even those with the preferred focus in business, finance, sales, the sciences and engineering. Today even those with graduate degrees and experience have difficulty finding good jobs.

The problem is American industry can’t offer enough good jobs to our educated workforce. This makes education less important, which threatens America’s prosperity.

I don’t pretend to understand all the nuances of Wall Street. I know that we need investors willing to risk their wealth for profit. I’m one of those investors. Still, I firmly believe we need to strictly regulate the markets to prevent the skullduggery that brought them to their knees. I also believe manufacturing is important for America’s prosperity. Without production we simply would not have enough jobs to support our population.

Taxes are a difficult subject to discuss. Republicans like to assert that Taxes are the bogeyman that will get us in the night. That’s their sole platform. It used to be the Communists and now it’s taxes. They have their scapegoat for everything that’s wrong; which they constantly repeat until people begin to believe all their problems would be solved if there just weren’t any taxes. They even propose reducing taxes, which benefits the poor and middle class by pennies while increasing the wealth of the rich by thousands. And we fell for it. Then they start a war without having the means to pay for it without borrowing money. Now, the government has less money coming in than going out.

We pay federal, state, county and local taxes. We pay taxes on our income on our homes, on our personal property and on the items we buy. We even pay taxes on top of taxes. Still, our governments often spend more than they receive. It’s frustrating.

What happens when the government doesn’t have enough money to finance the services they provide? They can, of course, increase taxes. The federal government can simply print more dollars, which taxes us in a different way by making each of our dollars worth less. All governments can borrow money through bonds, which means that some of the dollars collected from other taxes are spent servicing the debt. And, of course, they can eliminate services.

Social welfare is usually the first target for elimination. It’s awfully tough for anyone to accept the government’s hand in their pocket taking money for people that don’t want to work. But what if they can’t work? What if they have mental problems? What if they alone with small children? What if they are not able to earn a salary sufficient to support their family without help? Should we just let them beg on the street or die?

My wife was a case manager for mentally ill clients. The county’s objective is to keep the clients out of the hospitals and in the community. They provide money and case managers to keep them in homes and apartments, taking their medication and taking care of themselves. Without these services the clients would act out resulting in police action and transportation to a mental hospital or jail both of which cost the county far more than keeping them in the community. What would you have the government do?

Personally, I object more to corporate welfare than social welfare. From my perspective, corporate welfare is nothing more than blackmail. We take money from taxpayers and give to rich corporations in the hope that they will stay in or relocate to our communities. Even if we win we have no guarantee they will live up to there part of the bargain. And, for every victory some other community loses.

So what else can we eliminate? California closed down many of its parks and recreation. They are closing health clinics. They are talking about the early release of prisoners. Our roads are ignored and quickly turning into one big pothole, which will certainly “tax” us by increasing repair and fuel costs. Heavy rains flood our basements as sewers overflow due to lack of maintenance. Water mains break because they also have been ignored and are often over a hundred years old. Bridges, dams, levees and aqueducts are disintegrating having reached the end of their expected lives. We aren’t replacing them. We aren't even attempting to maintain most of them. How much will it cost us, all of us, when they fail?

Nobody likes taxes but they are necessary to keep us out of the dark ages because that’s exactly what would happen if our government and our infrastructure failed.

[stsparky]

We may ship prisoners to MI.

[Charrington]

Regarding manufacturing in Ruaidhri's post, I don't know a great amount of practical economics (I find economic ideology much more interesting for contrast) but I've heard from quite a few prolific economists/politicians/authors/etc that to maintain our (US as a whole I mean) position in the world economically and otherwise that we should make our economy more based on the sciences (medicine, technological innovations etc).

I'm not educated enough in the subject (because it bores the shit out of me) to debate it with you, but I do find their opinions quite logical.

[japanat]

While I do agree with you that the sciences are very important, they are also the area where America is showing the greatest declines in education.

[ruaidhri]

Yes, science and technology are important for the economic survival of the United States. But, not everyone has the desire, ability or finances to compete for the appropriate education or jobs in that limited area. Should they remain jobless? Should our government feed and clothe them if they can’t find work?

And, for those with the appropriate educations what do we do when following years of preparation even those students in technological, science and engineering face foreign competition that pushes their job opportunities and salaries down?

If we fail to provide opportunities for all our people and we create a greater divide between the haves and have-nots the result will eventually be revolution. We need jobs for all talents and American industry has traditionally provided common workers the opportunity to earn living wages. Take that away and I fear we will create a huge population of the permanently unemployed that are both angry and dangerous.

[Charrington]

Yes, science and technology are important for the economic survival of the United States. But, not everyone has the desire, ability or finances to compete for the appropriate education or jobs in that limited area. Should they remain jobless? Should our government feed and clothe them if they can’t find work?

And, for those with the appropriate educations what do we do when following years of preparation even those students in technological, science and engineering face foreign competition that pushes their job opportunities and salaries down?

If we fail to provide opportunities for all our people and we create a greater divide between the haves and have-nots the result will eventually be revolution. We need jobs for all talents and American industry has traditionally provided common workers the opportunity to earn living wages. Take that away and I fear we will create a huge population of the permanently unemployed that are both angry and dangerous.

Sciences may have not been the right word. Basically, what I mean is manufacturing is a 19th/20th century venture. If my memory serves no other developed nation's GDP relies so heavily on manufacturing. The nations that are overcoming us (China, India etc) are doing so because their students have better, more modern education than ours. We have, as a country, failed to adapt, and this is what has brought down the majority of great empires.

Even if we do make all the necessary changes it will only soften the blow, in my opinion. We are quite capable of having the best education system in the world, but even if we appropriated the funding and corrected the system there would still be some Indian guy who will work for a pittance because he lives in abject poverty. The way international interactions used to work is not sustainable in our globalized world. The way I see it the world is slowly shifting to a state similar to what the US' is now, with the majority as middle class with the lower and upper classes in the minority.

As far as your question about whether or not I think we should take care of the unemployed etc, that's a tough question for me to answer. Ideologically everyone being taken care of is great etc etc, and I could be ideologically described as a social democrat (european meaning of that term). But realistically I find that I'm quite misanthropic and really don't want most people to be taken care of. I were or were dictator of the world or something of the sort, I'd institute a free, excellent education system and socialist policies for people in need up until they finish their education. After that I'd let them fend for themselves and if they can't acquire their own daily bread I'd have no problem letting them starve to death.

Sorry if I rambled in this post.

[Trump]

I do not mind taxes. However, I believe our tax money is being spent totally irresponsibly. The corporate bailouts (specifically the car companies) were the biggest mistake I've ever seen a government make.

Welfare I think is handled completely wrong. We should not provide money to anyone, only services. You lose your job? Don't make enough? Well, come down here and you can get food. Come here to gas up so you can get to job interviews, the utility company fees and mortgage are waived this month. We should NOT send people money to do with as they see fit. If people had managed their money wisely in the first place, they wouldn't need the money now.

In terms of our economy, I think the biggest thing that would help is fixing our work ethic. I think many people feel entitled to things now because they live in the US or have a degree or have experience. That doesn't mean anything unless you work hard and take pride in your work.

[ruaidhri]

No matter what action any President and any Congress take it will always have its detractors. Certainly, President Obama and Congress took bold action to combat the most severe worldwide economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. They followed the advise of their expert advisors knowing full well no matter what course they took other experts would disagree. Personally, it’s all far too complicated for me. Like others I also have doubts and fears, but the government has taken action and at this stage there is little we can do but offer our support.

On July 2nd The Times reported that in June, 2009, the U.S. employment rate hit 9.5%, a 26-year high. During June alone 467,000 people lost their jobs. According to The Times, economists expect one of out ten people to be jobless within a few months. Since last December 6,500,000 people lost their jobs. The Times’ attempt to balance the article with some good news was, at best, a stretch.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6623953.ece

Bottom line people are hurting. Many are searching for jobs in a shrinking market. How many are taking a job, any job, outside their areas of expertise and are earning far less income? How many have exhausted their unemployment insurance and now depend on the welfare of those that are working? These are the very same people who last year went to work everyday, paid taxes and had high hopes for their and their families’ futures.

I am not a religious person but I do believe I am compassionate. I have been called a “bleeding heart liberal” but don’t consider that a bad thing. Considering the “bleeding heart” is a reference to Jesus, I am honored. I would rather have my tax dollars spent putting food in the mouths, clothing on the backs and a roof over the heads of the needy than spent on bullets.

I believe it would be unnecessarily demeaning to force any welfare recipient (including those looking for jobs, single mothers and single fathers with small children, handicapped and mentally ill patients) to wait in long lines at distribution centers and then transport whatever back to their homes. It would also be far too expensive to set up the distribution centers, transport the food and clothing to the centers and manage the distribution. If we did that, I believe welfare costs would rise, not fall.

There is no doubt that the U.S. is in a tight situation right now. It would serve us far more to pull together than to pull apart. Yes, everything is costly but we can’t lose sight of our neighbors in need.


edited to correct data

[Trump]

I understand where you are coming from, but I believe there should be a balance. The people on welfare are getting things for free. Is it too much to ask for them to put a little effort into it? If you don't have a job, you surely have time to go pick up some food. We aren't here to make everyone happy about their situation. So, it's a little demeaning to be on welfare. GOOD!!! You should be motivated to work at contributing to society instead of leeching off it. I have no problem helping people out, but I believe they should also want to help themself. Obviously, it isn't a blanket solution, short term unemployment is probably a good example where cash may be more appropriate, but I just see the government throwing so much money around stupidly right now it really frustrates me. I just wonder how we have so many smart people in this country yet some of the simple things we can do are totally overlooked.

[japanat]

I understand where you are coming from, but I believe there should be a balance. The people on welfare are getting things for free. Is it too much to ask for them to put a little effort into it? If you don't have a job, you surely have time to go pick up some food. We aren't here to make everyone happy about their situation. So, it's a little demeaning to be on welfare. GOOD!!! You should be motivated to work at contributing to society instead of leeching off it.While I do understand your meaning, and do agree that welfare shouldn't be so easy as to give no reason to get off it, I think the way you've phrased this is rather unfair to the folks who are not on welfare of their own choice. While there are definitely welfare leaches, there are also lots of people who would prefer to do almost anything, but still end up needing public assistance for a time.

My mother chose to stay with my father until about a week after I, the youngest, went to college (7 or 8 years after their relationship went to shit) because she knew she didn't have the job skills to get a good 9-to-5 that would make her enough money to support us and still leave her home in the evenings to care for her children. Many stay-at-home moms, faced with abusive or cheating husbands and out of the job market for years and facing the same choices, choose welfare over working long hours where they can't see or help their children as they grow up. Not to mention that some folks just can't earn enough with their current skills to even equal what they can get on welfare.

You need to acknowledge that many people on welfare, especially in today's near-depression, are not there of their own choice, and don't have the time to jump through all the hoops. Hell, if you want people to get off welfare, then make it easier for them to look for work or to retrain. Don't make them waste time and money trying to get to the welfare center, time and money which could help them in their job search.

[ruaidhri]

Outside of the argument against the unnecessary harshness of forcing those needing help to openly receive alms, I believe the associated costs would be prohibitive. Instead of issuing an electronically prepared check or bank transfer, the government would need to set up an entire bureaucracy to purchase, transport, dispense and manage distribution of food and clothing items. The police would have to manage the long lines of people waiting their turn. It would, without doubt, be very costly, especially if it were to be repeated many times over as it would in a large city. That, I believe would be a very high price to pay in order to embarrass welfare recipients.

But, really, the point of my June 29th post was to express my concern about America’s rapidly disintegrating infrastructure.

Consider how America’s prosperity would suffer if bridges failed preventing travel of people good and services. Consider what would happen if dams and levees failed flooding our homes and making the land uninhabitable. Consider not having reliable electricity at the flip of a switch or potable water at the turn of a faucet.

The question is: What kind of America would exist without our infrastructure? And then what would happen if it were suddenly lost? We are in danger of that happening. If it did, we could find ourselves living in a third-world country without crossing the street.

Why has this happened? Low cost bidders cut corners and used low cost materials. Planners designed for 50 to 75 years life spans, which are now expiring. We saw our population explode increasing demand and stretching every section of our infrastructure to its very limits. On top of that, we failed to properly maintain what we had. It cost too much. Now, it’s all coming apart.

What can we do? We certainly don’t have the $2.2 Trillion dollars the American Society of Civil Engineers project it would cost to restore our infrastructure. I expect we’ll continue with applying band aids and praying nothing happens as we do little to nothing.

I suggest we all hold onto our hats.

[japanat]

national priorities.org
To date, $830.2 billion dollars have been allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, $77.1 billion dollars have been requested in the recent supplemental that further fund these wars, for a total of $907.3 billion dollars.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
washington post
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
There's enough money to cover the infrastructure costs, right there. I'm sorry, but I hope the history books roast the son of a bitch who cost us so much money.

Rather than using bandaids to do near-useless slapdash repairs, the Iraq funds saved from our pullout need to be allocated to a 15- or 20-yr project to fix infrastructure. The highway system, especially, is critical, since so much of America's food is shipped by tractor/trailer.

[Trump]

I'm still trying to understand how you say the infrastructure is deteriorating to such a state. I cannot speak about dams, levees, etc, but in terms of roads, I see road construction everywhere. All over the town I live in, they are repairing or improving roads. Last trip I took driving the interstate through 4 states, I saw road construction going on everywhere. How do you say the infrastructure is so bad and getting worse, yet all I see is it being maintained? Furthermore, the infrastructure won't fail all at once. A small part of it will fail at a time, and it will get fixed. Take the bridge collapse 2 years ago in Minneapolis. It was a disaster that should never have happened, but did the economy of the area completely fail? No, within a year they had replaced the bridge and traffic flows returned to normal. Even during the interruption, people were inconvenienced, but life went on. I fail to see this looming disaster you speak of.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, you asked a fair question. What exactly is wrong with America’s infrastructure? Primarily, it’s old and not designed for today’s demands.

Each year the American Society of Civil Engineers gives grades for America’s infrastructure. Here’s a link to their 2009 Report Card. The web site has an interesting video covering a number of infrastructure needs.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Here are the actual 2009 Grades. Each item is a hyperlink to more information.

Aviation (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/aviation) D
Bridges (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/bridges) C
Dams (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/dams) D
Drinking Water (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/drinking-water) D-
Energy (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/Energy) D+
Hazardous Waste (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/Hazardous-Waste) D
Inland Waterways (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/Inland-Waterways) D-
Levees (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/Levees) D-
Public Parks and Recreation (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/public-facilities-public-parks-and-recreation) C-
Rail (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/rail) C-
Roads (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/Roads) D-
Schools (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/schools) D
Solid Waste (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/Solid-Waste) C+
Transit (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/Transit) D
Wastewater (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/Wastewater) D-

America's Infrastructure GPA: D
Estimated 5 Year Investment Need: $2.2 Trillion

Each state is different. You live in Florida and reported that highway building is strong and your highways are in great condition. That’s not the way it is up north in Wisconsin where we have freeze-thaw cycles that attack our highways and bridges. Many of these highways and bridges are not the interstate arteries but rather federal, state and county highways and city streets. Many of our small bridges and dams are in serious need of repair. What’s most evident are the potholes. They are difficult to avoid and they can do a job on your tires and your car. Many of the sewers and water pipes in Milwaukee and the surrounding small cities are over 100 years old and leaking. Heavy rains cause basement to flood and foundations to crack and fall.

What's the state of your State's infrastructure? http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/states

Actually, what raised my concern was a program on the History Channel titled The Crumbling of America http://www.history.com/shows.do?episodeId=452430&action=detail. Yes, it was sensationalized but you don’t have to look too far to see it’s based on truth. It’s more than our freedoms that make us strong; it’s also our infrastructure.

[volomavi]

For a country with so many advancements such as America, I am actually surprised the railroad system is non-existent. Or rather North/South America in general, the railroad system is pathetic.

I cannot say much about South America as I am not that familiar with their infrastructure, but compared to the countries of europe, America's railroad system is a joke. Especially in an age when we are looking to cut down petrol costs, europe is already trying to implement electro-magnetic railway system to travel between countries.

It is much cheaper to implement those systems instead of trying to find more and bigger sized airplanes to transport goods from one coast to another.

[Trump]

Air planes? Trains are still widely used for transporting goods, but I think trucks are slightly more prevalent. Most people in the US have a car. Given the choice, most people would drive themselves rather than wait for a train (assuming traffic wasn't too bad) so the railroads wouldn't get used so much. In big cities where traffic and parking are problematic, the train systems are well developed.

The report card was interesting. Florida I think just spends a lot of money on roads. I know we get potholes all the time too, but in about 2-3 days they get patched. If it gets too bad, eventually the road gets repaved. Apparently Florida's has 12% bad roads and Wisconsin has 30%. Maybe it has to do with the tourists and keeping up appearances?

The information about the dams in florida makes me wonder... high hazard dams? I've only ever seen maybe 3 dams that were more than 3 feet tall.

[ruaidhri]

volomavi, Before retiring, I spent 36 years in corporate transportation working for Miller Brewing. When I started back in 1966, we had one brewery in Milwaukee. When I retired in 2002, we had breweries in Milwaukee, WI; Eden, NC; Albany, GA; Trenton, OH; Fort Worth, TX; and Irwindale, CA.

All transportation was heavily regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission and by state regulatory boards for intrastate traffic. Regulation required rail carriers to treat everyone equally. They couldn’t charge a large shipper less than a small shipper. They couldn’t establish a higher rate for a shorter haul over the same route as applied to a rate covering a longer haul over that same route. They even had an Aggregate of Intermediates Rule where the railroads couldn’t charge more than any rate you could find using a combination of rates via any route from origin to destination.

Back in 1966, we shipped about 80% of our beer in rail boxcars. In 2002, we shipped less than 5 percent by rail. What happened? First, the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 deregulated rail transportation and their management didn’t know how to prosper in a free market. Second, Miller produced beer at six breweries instead of only one. And, third, the railroads that survived the 1980’s didn’t want boxcar traffic. They didn’t want to compete with trucks. They didn’t need to compete on bulk commodities moving in tank cars and hopper cars. Generally, bulk commodities move longer distances and truckers can’t begin to compete with rail rates.

If packaged goods are shipped via rail in the United States they are most likely shipped in a trailer or container on a rail flatcar for delivery by truck. That’s both efficient and low cost. Today, fewer and fewer customers have rail sidings for delivery. They receive all their products by truck.

I believe Trump answered your question regarding rail transportation of people in the United States. We are in love with our cars and plane fare is low and a lot faster than a train. What is growing is cheap and dependable commuter passenger rail transportation between cities such as Milwaukee, WI and Chicago, IL where people live in one and work in the other.

[ruaidhri]

I believe the availability of good paying jobs is the key to economic recovery. This includes jobs for citizens at all levels of education. My problem is that I have no idea how to achieve that goal.

What I do know is the past. In my hometown of Milwaukee the Germans, Jews, Italians, Irish, Polish, Serbians all started out in factory jobs. The unions guaranteed them good wages. They bought houses and encouraged their children to go on to college. That same process started for our black citizens in the 1950’s and 1960’s. They also worked in the many factories that were Milwaukee. They also bought houses and wanted a better life for their children. Then, corporate greed and anti-union sentiment saw many of our good jobs fleeing to the South where workers didn’t join unions and weren’t paid as much. Of course the last hired with the least seniority were let go first. The blacks suffered most.

Then foreign competition started pushing most of the old factories out of Milwaukee. It didn’t make any difference how long the workers were there. They all lost their jobs. They all suffered, as did their children.

Today, more and more citizens are losing their jobs while fewer and fewer jobs are available. Employers have long lines of applicants for even the most basic jobs. College graduates are working in jobs that barely require a high school education. How’s the average person going to improve their lot when even a college degree is no longer a key to opportunity?

Many employers aren’t even interested in interviewing applicants with Liberal Arts degrees. Some don’t even want applicants with undergraduate degrees in business; they only want engineers, regardless of the job. Many employers even filter out those without top grades as if that alone will ensure they hire the best possible employee.

Where does all this leave those without any college degree? What about the children of the people not fortunate enough to have worked in Milwaukee’s factories like they did in years past? Should we look down our nose at them for failing to get off welfare and find good jobs? Even if they have High School diplomas they are often competing with desperate college graduates.

I believe the U.S., if it is to survive this recession, will have to consider how to create jobs at the lowest levels with pathways to education and better jobs. The question is: How can this be done?

[Trump]

That has been one of the major trends in the US recently. Our manufacturing sector has had a major decline as much of it has moved overseas. So what do we do? It is frustrating to me now to watch the government help the banks but then cut manufacturing jobs. They've cut jobs in space and defense, two key areas where we still do domestic manufacturing. They tried the auto-bailout, but that was doomed to fail before it started.

But then, look at why the manufacturing has left? Manufacturing thrives off lower paid, mostly unskilled workers. As the US has prospered, that type of labor has declined as people get better education and feel entitled to better jobs. So what do we do? Take that college degree and get a low paying manufacturing job? It is certainly a catch-22

[h2orowe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&feature=player_embedded
GOLD BASS AMERICE.

[Swede]

Dayum.

[Roxie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&feature=player_embedded
GOLD BASS AMERICE. Wow. I don't know how did that w/o exploding from rage or laughing hysterically. Like when he was explaining what Czars are and the older man asks in this rather accusing, vaguely angry & suspicious! tone HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?!

[stsparky]

None of them stayed awake in history class did they?

I'd invite them to go hunt with Cheney.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

I hate it when racist try to make the "It's all the black women having all the abortions argument." They''re using slanted statistics. The fact is the abortions are reported on much more often from black women that do not have the money to have it done at a private practice and have the procedures done in government run/funded centers. The latter must report every procedure while the former may choose to but rarely does so, for obvious reasons.

That argument is used often and it never made sense to me. From my personal experience, most, if not all of the black girls I knew of that got pregnant ended up having the baby.

[Plekto]

A few of my favorite quotes:

(same woman here)
A: "I'm just tired of the government trying to turn our country into a third world country" - Um... I don't think Obama had anything to do with that. Blame the last three Presidents instead.

B: "I'd like to see a Christian in the White House"

C:"I don't work any more..."(so she's getting Government money despite hating the Government...)

"McCarthy and John Wayne were right..." - No comment required. Really. OK - if you look carefully, her shirt ways "The cure for Obama communism is a new era of McCarthyism". Awesome fail.

"I haven't been here before. I just wanted to see the capitol and the White House - I had no idea this was going to be going on..(crazy normal protesting guy carrying a homemade cross down the street)" - Just too funny.

"Medicare as it is now has worked very well...I think that it could be expanded to more of the population."(old lady protesting the health care bill)

"Joe Wilson supported that? I'm not for Joe Wilson for President"(starts to take down his Joe Wilson for President sign)

(the interviewer to the camera):"Fascism, Socialism, Communism - these things are apparently interchangeable if you don't know what they mean..."

[Roxie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&feature=player_embedded
GOLD BASS AMERICE.
Here's some more (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48)from that day

[Vic_Rattlehead]

Haha, best thing I've seen in a good long while! I suppose the majority of these intelectual fuds are from the deep south somewhere??

[stsparky]

Haha, best thing I've seen in a good long while! I suppose the majority of these intelectual fuds are from the deep south somewhere??
Sadly - they are everywhere.

[Roxie]

Haha, best thing I've seen in a good long while! I suppose the majority of these intelectual fuds are from the deep south somewhere??
NO :frypan:
























































:gloomy:

[Swede]

Yeah, especially in the midwest. I live in Bloomington, one of the few areas of Indiana that isn't like that (others being maybe Indy and some of the other major college towns), but even on the outskirts of the college area people are backwards as all hell. Pretty scary.

[japanat]

Ah, the MidWest... Fundie Hell

But Sparky's right, they're everywhere. My cousin in Florida is one, unfortunately.

[Karthak]

Why is the president America called the leader of the free world? It seems extremely arrogant to a lot of people who would supposedly fall under his leadership.

[japanat]

Wikipedia
The Leader of the Free World is an expression, primarily used during the Cold War, to describe the President of the United States. The phrase implies that the U.S. president as leader of the principal democratic superpower of the time was, by extension, the leader of all the worlds’ democratic nations. Although it had a Cold War origin, it is still used.[1] In addition, the phrase is sometimes used satirically when either the president or the United States engages in behavior that other nations disagree with.

WiseGeek
The term free world originated from the Cold War, when it was used to distinguish between democracies, specifically the United States and Western European countries, and the communist Soviet Union and its allies. As the United States led the war against communism, the President of the United States came to be known as the “leader of the free world.” This term is often used today because of the hegemony exercised by the United States and the power of the presidency itself. As president, a leader can begin a war, overturn legislation, and build diplomatic relations among countries.

Much of the power inherently understood within the term “leader of the free world” revolves around the president’s role as commander-in-chief of the military. The US army currently has over 1.4 million personnel on active duty. US bases are found in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

The US also has the largest military budget in the world, which, as of 2006, is 441.5 billion dollars. This budget is six times larger than that of China, the country with the second largest military budget in the world. The number of troops within the US military is not as high as that of other countries, simply because conscription is no longer used.

Referring to the President of the United States as the “leader of the free world” is debated by other countries that also fought for democracy during the Cold War. There are also concerns about the use of the word "free". During the Cold War battle between ideologies, African, Asian, and South American countries, which cannot clearly be defined as democracies and therefore “free”, supported the United States and Western Europe. Currently, countries with non-democratic governments can be considered free.

Nevertheless, the term “leader of the free world” is still associated with the United States, although the international use of the term “leader of the free world” often refers to the country rather than the presidency. In addition to the military power that the United States has, the term also applies to the values and ideals for which the country stands: equality among all, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to pursue happiness. Therefore, the term “leader of the free world” refers not only to the President, but also to the people who maintain America’s loftier ideals, such as Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Ralph Nader, and Hillary Clinton.
When I was a kid, the phrase meant something...

[Karthak]

Thought that struck me today: Isn't it supposed to be the US congress who declares war? Then I checked and found that, yeah, I was right. Which raised my eyebrows a lot I can tell you since according to what I've heard the last time this happened was in world war 2 ( might be wrong there), and one look at the amount of wars American has been involved in or started since then without congress declaring shit , and it instead being the president who makes the decision to go to war makes me go "something's not right here Jake". Anyone who can enlighten an ignorant european?

[stsparky]

Didn't you know Vietnam was called a "Police Action?" ...

[Plekto]

The President has 60 days when he can bomb, invade, and flat out nuke off the planet anything he wishes to or thinks that he can get away with.

Then Congress gets involved, and to date, they have been such a bunch of gutless wusses that they have never said "no". So effectively we have the President deciding when and where we go to war since WWII. Combined with the fact that the entire military takes its orders from the President, Congress is pretty much not even in the discussion other than to reflexively pay up the bills.

If this sounds a lot like how a typical dictatorship works, well, you'd be absolutely correct.

[ruaidhri]

And, so, following a long silence, the OP9 conversation begins anew. The world and the USA are still in a mess and there is no apparent solution.

In my opinion Americans want nothing more than a scapegoat upon which to heap their hatred, anger and fear. That is, I believe, exactly what the Republicans provide. To hell with truth, justice and the American way. It's every man and woman for themselves because there's no one else you can trust.

From my perspective, Americans want instant gratification. They want everything to work immediately or dropped. They distrust everyone and are quick to believe bad rather than recognize good. If, as the Republicans suggest, it's the government that's our enemy than the enemy is truly ourselves. The only conclusion is anarchism. Here's where the electorates' hatred, anger and fear are confused with manufactured emotions that's only purpose is to win elections. Those who dare use logic are eggheads to be ridiculed.

My fear is that we will indeed go down the path the Republicans and Tea Party enthusiasts suggest and truly fall into the inevitable chaos with total economic collapse and potentially a civil war with only ourselves as the victims.

[stsparky]

The GOP pay to see our President identified as a "Secret Muslim" and have supplied their footsoldiers with a playbook that emphasizes the negative aspects of Islam. It like how FDR was called a Jew ...

[Trump]

So it's back? Wow, I'm not even sure what drove me to check here again.

In terms of political games, both parties are... ridiculous. The fact that people look to these people as leaders gives me nightmares. No one seems to understand what is important any more.

[h2orowe]

Election time is soon. Who are you all voting for?

[stsparky]

I vote blue.

[Swede]

I think the funniest thing is how Obama/Democrats are being accused of both being way too radical while also still not doing enough. I personally think Obama has been doing a pretty good job all things considered. The Republic strategy just seems to basically be to try and make the Democrats fail, or at the least try and block everything they try and accomplish.

While different studies vary, a quick look at any sort of study regarding wealth disparity in the US makes me baffled as to why people still think the answer to getting out of the recession is giving rich people more money. Though this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0rSXjVuJVg) may be simple, it kind of sums up how ludicrous the idea really is.

I won't really go on anymore than that, only to say that I think trickle down economics is bullshit, and so I'm probably gonna be voting straight blue in November. Dems are by no means perfect, but on a pretty fundamental I just disagree with the Republicans on nearly every issue that's important to me.

[Kyletherealninja]

I don't really know why I'm even going to bother with voting. Pretty much regardless of who's elected, this country is going down the toilet thanks to colossal debt and the housing/banking/financial crisis. About the best I can really hope for at this point is that the crazy survivalist guys' meltdown scenarios are wrong. Personally I will be quite satisfied if this country can avoid hyperinflation and merely stagnate Japan-style for a good decade or two.

It's clear the Tea Party-backed candidates are going to win big. I'm curious as to whether they actually live up to their talk about reducing the deficit and slimming down the obese government. Personally I expect the Republicans are full of lies and will go on duping their constituents into thinking they really are fiscal conservatives when the truth is quite the opposite.

Swede, who's advocating giving rich people more money? Don't you mean taking away more of 'rich' peoples' money? You talk almost as though some entity (presumably government) gives out money to everyone, and some people get more than their "fair share." If I started my own software company in the 1980s that eventually became a successful, multi-million dollar corporation, am I not entitled to the money I've earned? What about all those jobs I've created? If my company makes less money, am I going to hire more employees, or scale back? And are tax cuts really an act of "giving" me money, or taking less of what I have rightfully earned?

For the record, I am NOT a republican. I am closer to Libertarian than anything else (I am in agreement with liberals that the US's overseas military adventures have been an expensive waste of time.) And really, I would rather live with no vote under the rule of an enlightened despot than in a country that masquerades under the guise of freedom.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Voted Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer as far as the big elections go this year.

Swede, who's advocating giving rich people more money? Don't you mean taking away more of 'rich' peoples' money? You talk almost as though some entity (presumably government) gives out money to everyone, and some people get more than their "fair share." If I started my own software company in the 1980s that eventually became a successful, multi-million dollar corporation, am I not entitled to the money I've earned? What about all those jobs I've created? If my company makes less money, am I going to hire more employees, or scale back? And are tax cuts really an act of "giving" me money, or taking less of what I have rightfully earned?

Yes, but you're also obligated to pay more in taxes due to your increased wealth (The idea of a progressive tax in the first place) because you didn't start up that company of yours in a vacuum relying on nothing other than yourself. You'll pay through taxes to help improve and keep afloat the society that has allowed you to achieve that wealth. Tax cuts are basically taking away from this so that you can keep more of the money you make to the detriment of society at large in the way of social programs and the like. Trickle-down economics has never been proven to work and it will never work.

The Tea Party is the biggest crock of shit I've seen in a long time. It's fueled largely by racism against a minorities and a hatred of money going to poor people. The politicians its trying to help elect are a bunch of complete idiots (O'Donnell, Joe Miller who thinks unemployment benefits are unconstitutional for some reason, etc) Not to mention that every moron who is following the Tea Party and voting for it in lockstep is basically a puppet of the mega rich who are largely funding the tea party movement in the first place. The New Yorker had a very good article a couple months back I believe how the Koch brothers (Koch industries) are a couple of billionaires against any sort of government regulation (Their dad was also against the Civil Rights Act, go figure) and they've been doing a great deal of astroturf with the tea party movement.

The fact that a lot of tea partiers seem to be a bunch of old white people who are benefiting from social security and medicare is just amazing irony, but also depressing.

And one of our best senators, Russ Feingold (Only one to vote against the Patriot Act) is going to get voted out by some fucking idiot who denies anthropogenic climate change and believes it's caused by sun spots and a whole slew of other terrible opinions. Wisconsinites are dumber than I thought.

This is not a good time for politics.

[h2orowe]

If I started my own software company in the 1980s that eventually became a successful, multi-million dollar corporation, am I not entitled to the money I've earned?

Alright, Atlas Shrugged.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Things have gone so far right in America in recent years that the Marxist socialist Obamacare takeover that was the health care bill was essentially the Republicans' version when Democrats were discussing health care reform back in the early 90's. It was still largely a giveaway for the insurance companies.

It was also even further to the right than the health care reform proposed by the president in the 70s. President Nixon.

Edit: For the record, some tax cuts can help out during a recession and some Keynesian economists are for it (I believe Krugman is) but that's mostly when it comes to the middle class and there really isn't much reason to give priority tax cuts to companies and the rich when they're already far lower than they've been in a while.

[Swede]

If I started my own software company in the 1980s that eventually became a successful, multi-million dollar corporation, am I not entitled to the money I've earned? What about all those jobs I've created? If my company makes less money, am I going to hire more employees, or scale back? And are tax cuts really an act of "giving" me money, or taking less of what I have rightfully earned?


This is kind of what I'm talking about. Do you honestly believe that the thing keeping these people from creating jobs is tax cuts? People are legit starving, yet some of these major corporations are receiving bonuses in the millions, not to mention their salaries. This is the greed factor I am talking about. The thought process is something along the lines of, "you know what, I really need to hire more people, but I also really need to buy another yacht. DAMN YOU TAX CUTS!!!"

Yes, this means that overall the richest of the rich have less money. But to say that this money has to take away from jobs is ludicrous. I still think people should be rewarded for hard work and doing their job well, but that's not the way the system works anymore. The systems been based off of how badly you can fuck somebody out of their money in recent times, rather than anything resembling providing a good or service. People have this idealized vision of capitalism and how it is the most effective economic system around when there's no interference, but it just doesn't seem to have much of a basis in reality.

Call me crazy, but to me it makes more sense to actually have a progressive tax system that helps those of our citizens who are desperately struggling to make ends meet. If they can live more comfortably, than they can buy the goods produced by other businesses. About as simple as trickle down economics in theory, less dependent on treating the uber rich as our benefactors who we must appease in order for them to create jobs.

[Kyletherealninja]

This is kind of what I'm talking about. Do you honestly believe that the thing keeping these people from creating jobs is tax cuts? People are legit starving, yet some of these major corporations are receiving bonuses in the millions, not to mention their salaries. This is the greed factor I am talking about. The thought process is something along the lines of, "you know what, I really need to hire more people, but I also really need to buy another yacht. DAMN YOU TAX CUTS!!!"

There's been a lot of talk about this with the banks in particular, and here I'm in agreement that handing out huge bonuses to executives is just stupid when it's government-granted bailout money that they're using. I'm actually more in agreement with the libs that there are lots of problems with banks. But banks aside, your argument seems purely anecdotal, and it is very difficult for me to imagine how removing tax cuts would NOT harm the economy even further. A better idea would be to cut down government spending proportional to the amount of new income they would be receiving if the tax cuts expired. Ending much of America's unnecessary overseas military presence would be a good start.

The problem with progressive taxation is that it kills the motivation to succeed and advance if investing the time, effort, and money to become successful is met with diminishing rewards as taxation increases. When you get a nice government check every week and have a TV and cell phone, there's not much incentive to improve your station in life.

People have this idealized vision of capitalism and how it is the most effective economic system around when there's no interference, but it just doesn't seem to have much of a basis in reality.

Then what is the most effective economic system? Communism was a spectacular failure, and its little brother Socialism is only slightly more sustainable, with most of Europe crippled by astonishing taxes and stagnation as a result of the kinds of policies leftists want this country to follow. I am not going to be surprised one bit when one first-world country after another collapses under its own debt and overblown government ala Greece - only there's not going to be enough money to bail them all out. Capitalism is far from perfect, but given that it allowed the US to quickly achieve an incredible jump in prosperity over the past 150-200 years, it works. I challenge you to find a more effective system. Which would you prefer? Working in an agrarian society with no opportunity for advancement where you'll die as poor as you were born, or one where you work on an assembly line in hard labor but at least have some opportunity to rise above?

I am the son of middle-class parents. I have never lived in excessive luxury or spent any time around the uber-rich. I will be amazed if I ever make anything close to a six-figure income in my life (excluding inflation.) So it's not some sort of personal stake for me. But I don't hate the wealthy or resent them for their success, and I find it downright vicious how wealthy people are often demonized as some sort of villains for being successful.

And Joey, not really. My political views were pretty much fully formed before I picked up that book. I am no objectivist. When I start talking about how the US needs to reduce its military, bureaucracy, medicare/medicaid, abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard, and quit legislating morality, et al, both left and right get their panties in a bunch.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

The problem with progressive taxation is that it kills the motivation to succeed and advance if investing the time, effort, and money to become successful is met with diminishing rewards as taxation increases. When you get a nice government check every week and have a TV and cell phone, there's not much incentive to improve your station in life.

So will you explain to me then why social mobility in the United States is below countries in the European Union, considering they have far more progressive taxation and that they have also have fully functional liberal (capitalist) democracies still?



Then what is the most effective economic system? Communism was a spectacular failure, and its little brother Socialism is only slightly more sustainable, with most of Europe crippled by astonishing taxes and stagnation as a result of the kinds of policies leftists want this country to follow. I am not going to be surprised one bit when one first-world country after another collapses under its own debt and overblown government ala Greece - only there's not going to be enough money to bail them all out. Capitalism is far from perfect, but given that it allowed the US to quickly achieve an incredible jump in prosperity over the past 150-200 years, it works. I challenge you to find a more effective system. Which would you prefer? Working in an agrarian society with no opportunity for advancement where you'll die as poor as you were born, or one where you work on an assembly line in hard labor but at least have some opportunity to rise above?

This either/or scenario is an incredibly weak argument and a fallacy. The European Union and Canada are doing much better than we are in the face of this global recession and they have a much more generous welfare state for its citizens and heavier government regulation generally.

Krugman pointed out a while back that Canada, for example, which is more of a social democracy than we are, is doing far better than us in dealing with this mess.

I am the son of middle-class parents. I have never lived in excessive luxury or spent any time around the uber-rich. I will be amazed if I ever make anything close to a six-figure income in my life (excluding inflation.) So it's not some sort of personal stake for me. But I don't hate the wealthy or resent them for their success, and I find it downright vicious how wealthy people are often demonized as some sort of villains for being successful.

Claiming that they're always being painted as villains isn't an argument. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, but at least in the United States, compared to the progressive taxation systems of other first world countries, they are not paying their fair share for their success.

And Joey, not really. My political views were pretty much fully formed before I picked up that book. I am no objectivist. When I start talking about how the US needs to reduce its military, bureaucracy, medicare/medicaid, abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard, and quit legislating morality, et al, both left and right get their panties in a bunch.

Probably because some of those opinions such as reducing Medicare/Medicaid, abolishing the fed and returning to the gold standard make zero sense.

[Trump]

OK, question for people who want to raise taxes on the rich. If they are paying so much more in taxes, shouldn't they get a bigger say in how those taxes are spent?

[Swede]

As in just a straight up plutocracy? I think that kind of goes against the reasoning most people are advocating for a more progressive tax system in that it would just exacerbate the already existing problems of wealth inequality in the US to an even greater extent than they already are. It's not advocating that everyone should be making the same amount of money regardless of how successful they are, but I think FYP has done a good job of presenting the main argument so far.

[D-pad]

The problem with progressive taxation is that it kills the motivation to succeed and advance if investing the time, effort, and money to become successful is met with diminishing rewards as taxation increases. When you get a nice government check every week and have a TV and cell phone, there's not much incentive to improve your station in life.

I wish I had some Adderall to argue against this point myself...

But please, someone else has to see how terrible of an argument this is...:bang:

[Trump]

No, I'm not advocating a government where the rich control everything. However, if 1% of the people are paying 90% of the taxes with 1% of the say in where the taxes go, that simply isn't right either. At that point who is to stop the 99% from totally taxing everything the 1% has? We have to come up with some way to fix it, but tax increases targetting an income level alone seems unfair to me.

[stsparky]

This is a paraphrase of a better rant.

Most know the Tea Parties aren't independent as they began as part of Republican Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. They got co-opted by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, establishment Republicans working to elect other establishment Republicans, with the goal of just making the rich richer.

Care to explain how voting Republican is in anyone's economic self-interest? Because, it’s not. Real income for everyone, rich, poor and middle alike, grows more during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, and that’s been true since WWII. The only difference is that during Republican administrations the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, so by contrast the rich seem to have more money. During the Bush administration, real income for the middle class actually declined. You don’t have to scratch the surface of the Republican Party very deeply to understand that they are interested only in the financial wellbeing of giant corporations and the very wealthy.

How can vote for an idiot who goes along with the Republican line that “No” is the same as governing. We pay our legislators good money to go to Washington and make difficult decisions that keep the country moving. By voting “No” on every bill, by refusing to negotiate in good faith, by deciding that short-term political advantage was more important than the everyday lives of Americans, the Republicans set back our recovery, made needed reforms fall short, and put our lives and our economy at unnecessary risk.

[Druid]

Well, it's going to take a hell of a lot more suffering and discomfort before we actually get off our asses and do something. Public outrage and selfishness are normally what drives actual change, not the well being of a country. If we wanted to stop it, we would. But, since we don't, we haven't.

[Druid]

No, I'm not advocating a government where the rich control everything. However, if 1% of the people are paying 90% of the taxes with 1% of the say in where the taxes go, that simply isn't right either. At that point who is to stop the 99% from totally taxing everything the 1% has? We have to come up with some way to fix it, but tax increases targetting an income level alone seems unfair to me.
Your argument might hold water if we lived in a democracy as opposed to a republic, sir. Unfortunately, the reality is that a very small percentage of the population controls a large majority of the money. Almost intrinsically, this means that they have the most political influence. This can be demonstrated quite well in the when looking at the amount of funds that is required to run for almost any office or the exorbent amounts of money that lobbyists spend for their clients in order to get a desired outcome on a particular bill. I could go on, but the point seems almost self evident.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

At that point who is to stop the 99% from totally taxing everything the 1% has?

There would be no point in doing this and this isn't done in other first world countries with higher tax rates either.

[Trump]

Personally I feel that money should be completely uncoupled from politics. Of course all the politicians who make truckloads now will never vote for that. So it remains my pipe dream that government acts in the interest of the citizens instead of self interest and greed. It's like the boss who signs his own paycheck... except that in business if the boss is stupid his company collapses. That isn't allowed to happen with government.

[Swede]

sigh. Definitely could tell when I voted that not even close to as many people my age were voting as in 2008.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

This fucking country. Feingold gone, Murray losing, Sestak projected to lose, so much other B.S.

Idiot Americans.

[Swede]

Isn't it funny how cyclical politics can be?

[Trump]

Well, at least for the next 2 years nothing will happen instead of making things worse.

[Swede]

Except for the fact that with regard to a lot of issues right now doing nothing DOES make things worse.

[Trump]

OK, let me rephrase. No one agenda will progress as it ignores half the nation's disapproval.

The actually important issues like economic recovery will continue as no politician on either side will risk being blamed for holding that up.

THAT is why giving one side a blank check is stupid idea.

[h2orowe]

Hey, Trump, you're a peepee head.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

So now with their newfound super majority and re-elected Republican governor (Rick Perry, possibly one of the slimiest politicians in existence), Republicans in the Texas state legislature are currently crafting up how to get the state to opt out of Medicaid. You know, Medicaid, the government-funded healthcare system reserved for the poor and in the case of Texas, the super poor because of how incredibly hard they make it to qualify for it.

In case this isn't immediately clear to you, opting out of Medicaid and preventing all those super poor people from having access to healthcare is going to let thousands of people die.

[ruaidhri]

I've lived through a lot of elections, some happy others not so much. This election could qualify as the worst. Why? Because manufactured anger and hatred pervaded the entire process. Television and radio bombarded us with reasons not to vote for this or that person. Incumbents were attacked on twisted views of past votes. The fact is no matter how they had voted their votes would have been used against them.

All I can hope is that those elected based on false accusations that incited the electorate's fear of their own government will discover that once in office they have to actually do something and that they also will be criticized fairly and unfairly for however they vote and whichever policy they establish or promote.

My advice to the Democrats is that they take a page from the Republican's playbook. The only thing important to a politician is getting elected. They are nothing if they lose. Only by winning can they effect change. So, whatever the Democrats do they should play the Republican game and never, never give the opposition a win. Look what has happened to President Obama since he entered the Oval Office. The Republicans have become the party of no cooperation. Consider, if McCain had won. Would he have carried on President Bush's bailouts of the banks and critical industries? Would the Republican Party have objected?

Oh, and let's not forget those who say they are independents and vote for the candidate, not the party. How naive can they be? What happens to legislators that don't toe the party line? The party rewards and punishes with committee assignments and threatens opposition candidates in primary elections for those who step too far out of line.

[Swede]

Well put ruaidhri, I always enjoy reading your posts.

To put it more immaturely:

http://i.imgur.com/YMmZJ.jpg

[Trump]

Oh, and let's not forget those who say they are independents and vote for the candidate, not the party. How naive can they be? What happens to legislators that don't toe the party line? The party rewards and punishes with committee assignments and threatens opposition candidates in primary elections for those who step too far out of line.

Question for you then. What if each party has significant elements of their agenda you strongly disagree with? Sure each party has things I agree with too, but as it happens half the time both parties have the same stance on those issues. Right now I believe the bad points of each party outweighs the good.

So I really want no party to have total control. That is the only way to limit the damage each of them seems intent to create. The democrats had control for 2 years and what happened? They rammed through legislation that half the country strong disagrees with. Was there a better way? Absolutely! But because they had total control they didn't even have to think about compromising. The president is supposed to be the checks and balances for congress, but they are currently working for the same boss. How is that a good idea?

The 2 political parties have too much power and don't accurately represent the views of the people. How to fix it? I don't know, but for now I think I'd rather nothing happen than to make things worse.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

So I really want no party to have total control. That is the only way to limit the damage each of them seems intent to create. The democrats had control for 2 years and what happened? They rammed through legislation that half the country strong disagrees with. Was there a better way? Absolutely! But because they had total control they didn't even have to think about compromising. The president is supposed to be the checks and balances for congress, but they are currently working for the same boss. How is that a good idea?

What?

If you're referring to legislation like the health care reform law, then first of all health care reform in general is strongly favored by the majority of American citizens. Adding to that, if you take away the charged moniker of "nationalized healthcare" Americans have shown repeatedly in polls to favor a system similar to single-payer by 50-60+%. You only have a point if you specifically mean Americans weren't strongly in favor of the legislation that had passed, which is correct to an extent, for a variety of reasons.

No compromising? Are you serious? Any legislation that has passed since 2008 has been almost largely a game of the Democrats bending over to whatever the Republicans wanted and then the Republicans being complete obstructionists and refusing to vote for it anyway. The healthcare law itself is complete watered down trash that is practically exactly what the health insurance industries had lobbied for, and aside from okay statutes such as ending rescission (in theory), the best thing to come out of it probably is the expansion of Medicaid federally to 133% of the FPL, but that doesn't happen until 2014. Expansion of Medicare to everyone was never even seriously considered, and expansion of it to Americans 55 and over was completely destroyed by a senator caucasing with the Democrats in the Senate.

It was essentially everything the Republicans could want-- and in fact, was pretty much what they proposed to counter the Democrats back in the early 90s, yet maybe one or two Republicans voted for it at all. And the healthcare law is just one example. If you seriously believe that there hasn't been any compromising from the Democrats then you are simply not paying attention to the news and are buying into Republican propaganda.

[ruaidhri]

May I shout it loud enough for the entire world to hear: I am a Democrat!!! Further, for the most part, I am a liberal Democrat. I vote the party even when I don't exactly "like" the candidate. Why? Because as I stated earlier, the parties control the vote, especially the Republican Party.

The Republicans do punish those who fail to toe the party line. Their sole objective is to win regardless of the cost to our nation and its people. They use innuendo and outright lies to confuse and distort Democratic objectives with the sole purpose of denying the Democrats any success. I believe they would rather see America fail and its people flounder in an even deeper depression if it would further their cause to get elected.

Voting for a third party candidate is fooling only yourself. First, they rarely win and if they are elected they stand naked because they have no base on which to build anything. Meanwhile, the party that most closely agrees with your position on issues has one fewer vote. That, to me, is only a plan to lose.

Regardless of party or candidate, I doubt any citizen could totally agree with that party's or candidate's position on every issue. So unless we attempt the impossible and convert to a truly democratic system where everyone votes on every issue we'll just have to accept that the representatives we vote for will get it right most of the time. And, sometimes, we'll have to accept that getting a bill passed requires compromise that muddies the water and fails to totally satisfy anyone.

[Trump]

You only have a point if you specifically mean Americans weren't strongly in favor of the legislation that had passed, which is correct to an extent, for a variety of reasons.
That is EXACTLY what I mean. That bill was the biggest pile of garbage and should NOT have been passed. Or the president should have said "that's crap, no way". But no, he had to bow to his party pressure and pass it.

To be honest, I'm fairly liberal when it comes to social policies. I am totally for health CARE reform, not health insurance "reform" that simply makes the health insurance companies more money. I've heard many ideas about how to do thing differently. Doctors should not be allowed to charge different prices for the same service just because one person doesn't have insurance. Drug companies should not be allowed to use corrupt marketing practices (like buying pharmacists and doctors $100 dinners to try to sell their product). Or even something drastic like opening no-charge hospitals and clinics. Now THAT would be reform. But was any of that even on the table initially? Hell no! On the contrary, they simply created a new insurance company! I'd have been happier if the democrats had put together a decent legislation that had failed so at least they could blame the republicans.

No compromising? Are you serious?
If you think the democrats are less to blame for this mess you're totally wrong. They both messed up. The democrats weren't actually thinking about what people outside their party (and even many in their party) want. They had to live up to their wild (and stupid) claims last election that they'd get things done. And the republicans were bastards and totally uncompromising.

And that leads me to the main problem with our 2 party system. The minority party usually still has enough power that they can block everything. So why compromise? Let the majority party take the fall. The democrats can and have done the same thing in the past. And since the majority party can't get anything done, why bother compromising in the first place when they can at least look good to their supporters. It's a lose-lose situation.

So do I vote for the majority party who managed to accomplish nothing (or make things worse)? Or do I vote for the minority party who blocked everything? I agree about 3rd parties and usually don't even consider them. That's like having to choose between living outside in Alaska in the winter or outside in the Sahara in the summer. If only there was ANY other choice, it has to be better than those! Pretty ridiculous isn't it?

So right now, the president can veto anything stupid the republicans do, but with control of congress the republicans have to actually take responsibility for their failures. I figure that's the best outcome that could have happened right now. And if the same crap happens for the next 2 years I'll try my best to vote current office holders out again.

[D-pad]

So I really want no party to have total control. That is the only way to limit the damage each of them seems intent to create. The democrats had control for 2 years and what happened? They rammed through legislation that half the country strong disagrees with. Was there a better way? Absolutely! But because they had total control they didn't even have to think about compromising. The president is supposed to be the checks and balances for congress, but they are currently working for the same boss. How is that a good idea?

Hey, no new wars that many of the the majority party is "coincidentally" profiting from, no patriot act, no wall street bailouts... I say this term is winning since all we've really gotten is a car company and slightly better health care...

[Trump]

Hey, no new wars that many of the the majority party is "coincidentally" profiting from, no patriot act, no wall street bailouts... I say this term is winning since all we've really gotten is a car company and slightly better health care...
1) I didn't like when the republicans controlled all 3 parts of government either, they made some pretty stupid moves.

2) The wall street bailout was both parties cooperating to screw the US taxpayer.

3) Great, you also believe the propoganda. Care itself hasn't changed. there are no new doctors, no new hospitals, no new equipment, no new procedures or drugs, no new rules changing anything to with health care at all. Hell, the only thing that has changed is prices and who gets the money. The only good thing about it is that some few people will be able to get insurance and all the rest are forced to get insurance (not health care), thereby making the insurance companies more money. Wait, maybe that isn't as as they make it out to be.

[ruaidhri]

A great non-controversial American holiday Thanksgiving has arrived. Today is a day to give thanks, visit family, overeat and probably drink a little too much. May you all have a HAPPY THANKSGIVING.

[Dresh]

non-controversial American holiday Thanksgiving

You'd be surprised. I had a good one though, the standout being this year's dessert of Boston cream pies.

[ruaidhri]

Ahhh, America. Today, the day following Thanksgiving, is "Black Friday", or the day retail businesses hope to move from red to black and make a profit for the year. My son and his wife got up at 3:00 AM this morning to get the big bargains available in limited quantities. Huge discounts save hundreds of dollars. Personally, it's not worth it to me. Instead, my wife and I will go on a 5 mile hike with our hiking group. It's 12 degrees Fahrenheit but you do get warmer as you exercise.

Do you have a big shopping day where you live?

[harper]

My brother called me from Target at 5:30am to run through some of the dvd sets they had on sale to see if I wanted any of them. He and his wife had been shopping since 4am or earlier. I talked with him for a few minutes and then went back to bed until 9am like a sane person. :)

I did venture out from 12-2 to check out a couple of shops and do grocery shopping, but didn't buy much of the sale merchandise.

[Trump]

I feel sorry for anyone who went within 1 mile of a mall Friday. I agree with Ruaidhri, the day was better spent on other things. And despite the depressing political situation there is still much to be thankful for!

In keeping with the theme of the thread, what does the rest of the world think of American Thanksgiving food? =)

[ruaidhri]

More on topic, how does everyone feel about Wikileaks? Honestly, it kind of pisses me off. Diplomacy has always created confidences between the parties. Wikileaks' revealing those confidences could embarrass and even harm America and our allies. Does Wikileaks' action serve the purpose of responsible journalism as envisioned by our forefathers? Should the release be constitutionally protected as was the Pentagon Pagers?

I'm still forming my opinion because, while I don't believe the release was an act of terrorism, I do fear it could harm our security from terrorists. I do recognize and value freedom of speech and the press and do fear adding any exceptions that would probably harm more than help. It looks to me like we're between the rock and the hard spot.

[Trump]

I think there are 2 sides of things. 1) Honesty only helps a relationship between two people. 2) There are some things you keep to yourself to protect the feelings of the other person (things that really mean nothing). So I don't know what to think. From what I understand there were a lot of things released that fall into the second category.

[ruaidhri]

I've decided that freedom of the press trumps any government's right to secrecy. That doesn't mean that I don't support a government's right, and even obligation, to prevent such leaks from occurring. And, I certainly do support a government's responsibility to prosecute the source of the leak.

[MeneerDijk]

I feel double about Wikileaks also. A lot of the secret documents don't really serve a purpose to the public, and for some I can see keeping them a secret is in the best interest of us, the people. But I do think Assange hit a nerve on some level. Even though some things are kept secret, it shouldn't prevent people from being held accountable. If documents reveal criminal acts by members of the governement, the governement should take legal action themselves, and not cover it up. Some of these documents prove that we can't always trust governements to do the right thing.

Persecuting Assange won't solve the problem about the rotten apples within authorities, and I think we as a people should take steps to root them out.

[ruaidhri]

Yes, I agree, in a perfect world governments should not coverup crimes. But, we don't live in a perfect world and I doubt it has ever existed throughout history. As far as Assange is concerned, I don't belief he should be prosecuted for publishing the material but I do belief he should be held accountable if he paid or otherwise conspired to gather the material with another person that was entrusted to protect its confidentiality. It's important to note that Assange's current arrest has nothing to do with Wikileaks. Still, if the accusations are true, it does speak to his character.

[MeneerDijk]

The charges are a convenient diversion from the real questions that remain unanswered. I'm not sure if someone not being Assange would be given an international arrest warrant. Rape is a serious accusation, meaning nonconsentual sex. But several news sources report that tre actual committed offense is unprotected sex to wich the female party had second thoughts: http://hypervocal.com/news/2010/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested/

This doesn't mean he shouldn't be convicted if he's guilty, but one does wonder about these allegations, and if he can ever get a fair trial. But Assanges character should be left out of the wikileaks discussion.

I would like to see more transparancy in governement, my own included. Wikileaks did release some, more or less, embarassing things about my country, but not really things to lose any sleep over. The previously released army documents aren't all that shocking either i my opinion. Just regular army paper trail. I kinda think Assange could have chosen his battles better, to keep a moral high ground.

[ruaidhri]

True, Assange's guilt or innocence of the rape charge should have no bearing on his actions through Wikileaks. I also agree that if it were not for Wikileaks Assange would not have been arrested in Great Britian.

Good or bad, much of what governments do is through confidences. The same holds true for corporations large and small. Revealing those confidences can create volatile reactions that could harm innocent people. Still, I don't oppose freedom of the press. My problem is with the person with legal access to the material who released it to Assange. They, I believe, should be prosecuted.

[Trump]

I am sure they will be prosecuted. The government takes that sort of thing very seriously. I haven't personally worked with any classified data, but I had to learn all about how to handle it and what to do if we see it out of place. They also have rules about how to treat information from other companies and countries. There are rules about notifying securiy if anything might have been compromised, and if something does go wrong they handle it much differently if it is caught and reported rather than trying to hide it.

Being in another country I'm not sure what legal grounds the US has against Assange, but I'm sure he will never be allowed into the country nor allowed to do business here.

[h2orowe]

Woo! Health care bill might be made unconstitutional. Alright, I don't have to buy health insurance. This means I'm one step closer to not having to pay for car insurance! Yes! That means I can hit people all I want and not worry about rates going up. Take that Obama Bin Biden.

[ruaidhri]

h2orowe, I understand and sympathize with the point you’re making. I've long supported universal health care. Sadly, the bill President Obama and the Democrats managed to pass was so watered down that it is in my opinion more a national health insurance guarantee. Still, I believe, even when able to take only small steps we should continue to move forward. I supported what had been accomplished. I wanted it to be a successful base from which true universal health care could evolve.

There is no doubt that many Americans are vehemently opposed to any form of universal health care or any advance towards that end. The same held true in the 1930’s for Social Security with many still fighting that battle. Simply put, many Americans view social welfare as a tax burden where the government takes money out of their pockets and puts in someone else’s pocket. They also oppose any government taking away their individual freedom to decide their own fate.

So, now they have a victory, albeit only a foot in the door. A judge has ruled that that one small part of the act is unconstitutional. The question we should ask ourselves is: Could the judge be correct? Does the Constitution allow the government to demand that citizens engage in commerce? Certainly, many state governments require that drivers have auto insurance. What’s the difference?

The question then becomes: What is the difference between requiring car insurance and health insurance? I asked myself: Is driving a car a “right” or a “privilege”? The state requires that I have a license to drive a car. I had to pass a test to get that license and I was made aware that the state could take away my license if I failed to comply with laws governing the operation of a motor vehicle. From my perspective, driving a car is a “privilege”.

Now comes the same question regarding health care. I certainly don’t believe health care should be a privilege. I don’t believe anyone should have to pass a test to get health care. And, I don’t believe any government should be able to pass laws where non-compliance would take away any person’s access to health care. It should, in my opinion be a “right”.

The problem is health care costs money. Those lucky enough to have insurance have access to both preventive and emergency health care. Those without means also have health care, usually emergency care, which hospitals are obligated to provide regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. But, a person or family with means who can’t afford adequate health insurance is screwed. They also limit their medical visits to emergencies. When they have no option but to seek care, the hospital treats them and bills them. When they don’t pay the hospital and the doctors sue for their money.

So, without government involvement, affordable health care is only for the privileged, which raises the final question: If it’s a privilege why can’t the government require compliance? It will be interesting to see how this case is argued before the Supreme Court.

[h2orowe]

I definitely agree with you, Ruaidhri. I was joking with my statement. I believe the resistance against national health care is pretty ridiculous. More and more, each and every day, the GOP is trying to move this country farther and father away from progress, all for the sake of their own selfish monetary gain. I'm really hoping that their rejection of the 9/11 First Responders aid legislation comes back and bites them on the ass, considering how much the GOP exploits that tragedy for the benefit of the party.

What's sad is that the political right in America have created a discourse in which anyone trying to challenge them is either a socialist or a terrorist sympathizer. Due to Bush's poor performance and the already established distaste for the left, many moderates and moderate rights are just becoming disillusioned with the government, leading to scary, ultrapatriots like those in the Tea Party.

I'd talk a bit more in depth, but my brain is a little frazzled from finals week. I'm still not even caught up on wikileaks.

[The Divine Comedy]

The charges are a convenient diversion from the real questions that remain unanswered. I'm not sure if someone not being Assange would be given an international arrest warrant. Rape is a serious accusation, meaning nonconsentual sex. But several news sources report that tre actual committed offense is unprotected sex to wich the female party had second thoughts: http://hypervocal.com/news/2010/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested/


If you read that link closely, it says "According to sources at The Daily Mail, Assange claims the sex was consensual..." The Daily Mail is a glorified tabloid known for hyperbolic reporting. So I really would take what they say with an entire sack of salt. This post contains a quote of the statement given by the prosecution, saying that "Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." I don't think it's fair to his victims to try to minimize his crimes because he did something the internet community likes.
(Note: I'm referring to the news sources, not you)

[Trump]

Ruaidhri I think I agree with most of the things you are saying, especially regarding the differnece between health insurance and car insurance.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is judged unconstitutional. The federal government has the power to levy taxes, but this isn't a tax. It is a payment to a private company. How can they justify that as a power of the federal government? You can opt out of car insurance by not buying a car and taking the bus or biking. You can opt out of home owners insurance since it is usually only required by a lender to protect their collateral. But the only way to opt out of this insurance is to leave the country? Wait, if you aren't a citizen in another country good luck with that.

It would be different if it were universal health care, because then it is paid for with a tax and the federal government is responsible for the service. They may subcontract it out, but they are still ultimately responsible. Under the current bill the only responsbility of the government involves regulation of the private industry. And on top of that there are still copays and such, so even after paying for the insurance you have to pay more for the service. Instead of trying to figure out if it is illegal, it makes more sense to ask "How can people even think it might be legal at all?"

Either go for universal health care (where the government provides health care to everyone) or fix the private system. Right now we have the worst of both worlds.

[SlickWilly440]

Bill Gates States: New Vaccines, Health Care, & Reproductive Services to Reduce Global Population & Co2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=927Xa1VIVAk)

Bill Gates: End of Live Care to Save Teacher's Jobs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8)

Those are just some of of the reasons, we shouldn't trust the government, corporations, and healthcare. It is people like him who are in the inner circle and are part of the global control group who support the extermination of you, me, our families, friends, and loved ones. They use slow kill techniques, some which takes decades, hence "slow kill", such as:

1. Vaccinations that sterilize, cause cancer, lead to auto immune disease
2. Sodium fluoridation of the water.
3. GMO food that leads to cancer. Wheat, Corn, Soy, & Cotton are the top GMO'ed foods.
4. Chemtrails, which are dispersed through airplanes that contains barium and aluminum particles. The aluminum turns into aluminum oxide which is poisonous and increases the PH levels in soil, making plant life harder to grow.
5. Other methods that includes consumption and breathing, etc.

The health care bills was written to benefit the private insurance companies, doesn't include preexisting conditions, and reduced the level of care. We are being duped, and it's just another way to tax the American people, so we have less money, which equals to less freedom.

[MeneerDijk]

I'm sorry Slick, i'm going to sound a bit harsh here.

You are right, we shouldn't trust the governement. We should remain vigilant and brave to weed out the golddiggers and criminals.

Copypasting conspiracy nonsense is quite counterproductive as it distracts the critical mind. Keeping us ignorant in a way the bad people in power thrive on.

So please, stop trying to blame everything that's wrong in life on hokey stories based on bad science. And do something about the problems that plague your country. Study, debate and vote!

[ruaidhri]

MeneerDijk, I couldn't have said it any better. Thank you.

[D-pad]

I just remembered how bat-shit slick is...lol...

Though I suppose it's people like him that look out for people actually trying crazy mad scientist type shit...

[SlickWilly440]

Copypasting conspiracy nonsense is quite counterproductive as it distracts the critical mind. Keeping us ignorant in a way the bad people in power thrive on.

So please, stop trying to blame everything that's wrong in life on hokey stories based on bad science. And do something about the problems that plague your country. Study, debate and vote!

I'm sorry, I'm not quite following you. How is what I'm showing/saying "conspiracy nonsense"? How is knowing more than what the media is saying distracting to the critical mind? The more we know the better choices we can make and live longer, healthier lives. We can inform others about these problems that they might not be aware of and they too can do the same.

I'm not blaming, but trying to point out and inform others. I can't tell whether or not what I'm saying it already known to most of the audience, but if you don't know, then we (& family,friends) will keep thinking within the confines of the limited information and distractions that are presented to us.

[Trump]

The fact that you won't even consider that they are conspiracy theories is part of the problem. Do you honestly believe all of that is true?

You say we should ask questions and not trust what people tell us, so why aren't you? Why do you trust that information? Why aren't you asking questions about it before repeating it to us? Where do these people get their information about vaccines, water contents, GMO, and chemtrails? Are they experts? Do they have tests to back up their information?

You provide radical conclusions with no factual proof or logical reasoning to back them up, so that is why we call them conspiracy nonsense.

[SlickWilly440]

The fact that you won't even consider that they are conspiracy theories is part of the problem. Do you honestly believe all of that is true?

You say we should ask questions and not trust what people tell us, so why aren't you? Why do you trust that information? Why aren't you asking questions about it before repeating it to us? Where do these people get their information about vaccines, water contents, GMO, and chemtrails? Are they experts? Do they have tests to back up their information?

You provide radical conclusions with no factual proof or logical reasoning to back them up, so that is why we call them conspiracy nonsense.

So let me get this straight. I'm am expected to provide proof with my statements/claims, when the reader themselves have the full capability of the internet to look into the issues themselves? And if the poster (who is not an expert by any means) fails to provide that information (which is readily available on the net), their claims are false?

Okay, here is a Huffington Post Article Titled: Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html)

I trust the information about those issues because it comes from experts who have dedicated their lives to the field. Some of them having their careers destroyed by accredited institutions because they wouldn't back down from their tests and research that went against the interests of the institution and the stakeholders. The problem with putting to much trust into doctors, lawyers, professors, etc is there can be biases and conflicts of interests which discourage them from presenting information that doesn't flow with outside interests.

After looking into those issues through articles, documentaries, radio interviews from experts, etc why wouldn't I believe that it is true or their is should be a concern?

[MeneerDijk]

Ok Slick, here's why I don't go off running to my panic room (wich coincidentally is also my toilet, but that's besides the point. More of a convenience really)

In your original post you claim:


It is people like him who are in the inner circle and are part of the global control group who support the extermination of you, me, our families, friends, and loved ones. They use slow kill techniques, some which takes decades, hence "slow kill"

You list a number of 'methods' and you quote 1 article that supports 1 of your claims. This does not make the other claims valid, this also does not prove a worldwide extermination conspiracy.

The GMO article itsself is hardly proof of anything. Searching for the scientist in the article does not yield a single followup. Just tons of copypasted stories. The scientific report should've been out in juli, i'd think there'd been more of a stir up and new articles about the subject after this date. So I can't look at the technical details of his study.

Also a news site, even one like Huffington Post, isn't 100% trustable. They have a commercial interest, posting controversial stories feeds this interest.

Also, think about who benefits from this story? Monsanto is a big greedy corporation, granted. All corporations want profit, simple enough. Who's to say a Russian company doesn't want a piece of this pie and decides to cause a stir?

Bad things do happen, and people do bad things. I think their motivations are much simpler than wanting to eradicate the world though, that's way too much of a hassle. People are usually motived to do bad things because of sex or greed. This also translates to the world of global trade and politics.

[ruaidhri]

SlickWilly440, I understand that you believe you have found the truth. I find no benefit in arguing with you because "belief" trumps everything. You require no factual evidence for your belief and ignore all evidence to the contrary. The more anyone argues with you the more you plant your feet.

[SlickWilly440]

You list a number of 'methods' and you quote 1 article that supports 1 of your claims. This does not make the other claims valid, this also does not prove a worldwide extermination conspiracy.

Yes, I realize this. However, I don't understand, do the readers expect a poster to tell them and point them to all the information necessary to lead them to the conclusion? Shouldn't they do their part and look into some of the claims a poster makes?

A person does not even have to know or believe in some group trying to control the population of the earth. They just need to know and better understand the dangers of certain services and choices available, so they can make better choices and avoid the endangerment of their lives. In addition, they can voice those concerns that they weren't aware about before and create some real change in their local areas.

The GMO article itsself is hardly proof of anything. Searching for the scientist in the article does not yield a single followup. Just tons of copypasted stories. The scientific report should've been out in juli, i'd think there'd been more of a stir up and new articles about the subject after this date. So I can't look at the technical details of his study.[quote]

Yes, this is a problem with a lot of studies and articles; they don't point the original source. In addition, people just copy/paste stories to their own sites to add content and increase traffic in order to make money, so it's tough to find where the information originated from.

[quote]
Also a news site, even one like Huffington Post, isn't 100% trustable. They have a commercial interest, posting controversial stories feeds this interest.

Also, think about who benefits from this story? Monsanto is a big greedy corporation, granted. All corporations want profit, simple enough. Who's to say a Russian company doesn't want a piece of this pie and decides to cause a stir?

So I guess nothing can be trusted then. I guess we just have to wait for an elite person or person in power to come out and tell us their evil plan and their intentions, otherwise it does not exist. This scenario is never going to happen so transparently, because then they wouldn't be in control anymore, the masses would realize what is going on. Instead the best we can do is infer what their intension are based on their actions and the limited about of information they release.

Bad things do happen, and people do bad things. I think their motivations are much simpler than wanting to eradicate the world though, that's way too much of a hassle. People are usually motived to do bad things because of sex or greed. This also translates to the world of global trade and politics.

And along with that it can lead to further centralization of decision making and further influencing people in ways that are not in their bests interests. Not everyone needs to be aware of the overall plan in order for it to be carried out. This is done through compartmentalizing where workers only know enough information to complete their task.

SlickWilly440, I understand that you believe you have found the truth. I find no benefit in arguing with you because "belief" trumps everything. You require no factual evidence for your belief and ignore all evidence to the contrary. The more anyone argues with you the more you plant your feet.

What do you consider as being satisfactory as factual evidence? Because everyone has a different level of information that they require before thinking/believing that something is correct or consider something as fact. I'm not ignoring any contrary evidence, at least I don't think I am. I tend to look at all aspects of an in issue before making an informed decision/statement etc. I don't want to be like a religious person who only believes what is written in a book that only agrees on information that matches my beliefs, and rejects information that is contradictory to my beliefs.

Would you consider the following as factual evidence (on a different issue)? Here is video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBlABD01U0) of Zbigniew Brzezinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski) at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting talking about a one world government, aka "The New World Order."

[Pezonna]

SlickWilly440, I understand that you believe you have found the truth. I find no benefit in arguing with you because "belief" trumps everything. You require no factual evidence for your belief and ignore all evidence to the contrary. The more anyone argues with you the more you plant your feet.

I really like the way you worded this. My dad is obsessed with politics and loves to yell about whatever his radio program has been on about. It's gotten to the point where almost all of our conversations lead to him heatedly talking about politics. It's easy to have such one-sided opinions if you're only taking in information that supports what you already believe. I want to share this with him. Thankyou.

[MeneerDijk]

Ok, Slick. I'm just glad I don't live in your world.

[ruaidhri]

Sometimes I feel like I’m the rest of the world when it comes to America.

We like to view ourselves as leaders but we most often act like bullies. Advertisers easily lead us the nose whether they are selling soap, cars or political philosophies and candidates. We seldom, if ever, check out the facts preferring to “believe” anything that supports our preconceived opinions. We like nasty people who get ahead by pushing other people down. Our news media supports our preference to see, hear and read about the bad rather than the good. They learned a long ago that a good bit of dirt attracts attention, ratings and advertising revenue. Our news media has given up on responsible reporting in favor of talking head personalities reading the news with a smile and a stupid comment that demonstrates that they didn’t understand what they just read.

What has happened to my country? I was born shortly before WWII. I was a teenager in the 1950’s and I served my country in the military, went to school and got a job in the 1960’s. I loved my country then and I do now. But back then people were involved; today, not so much. Today, it’s too much effort to get off one’s duff if the issue doesn’t hit the pocketbook or directly impact the family.

I live in Wisconsin where our new Governor likes to create divisions rather than consensus. He has labeled union members, teachers and state and other government workers as greedy, self-serving and responsible for the mess we’re in. Their crime was that they traditionally chose benefits over salary in labor negotiations. Now, their benefits are better than others. So, the Governor’s henchmen are claiming it’s not fair that these union members get better benefits than the rest of the people. They even say the workers are overpaid, which is totally untrue as they serious lag behind private sector employees salaries. Doesn’t make any difference. The Republican controlled Assembly and Senate are following in lockstep behind their Governor. Their budget bill will limit the unions to negotiating only salaries, will turn Wisconsin into a “right to work” state and will require an annual vote on continued representation. Yes, there are protests. Yes, they are huge and vocal. Yes, thousands have written and called their representatives asking them to review the facts. Doesn’t make any difference. The Governor has the votes. Last November, the voters in Wisconsin put Republicans in charge of all branches of our government. There is no check no balance and no hope.

Mostly, I’m a liberal although I do share some opinions with conservatives. But, heaven forbid, there’s one thing I’m not and that is an independent. Why? Because the candidates that win elections are Republicans and Democrats and as long as they don’t think for themselves and consistently follow the “party line”, I view them all, regardless of party, as worthless. So, I vote Democrat because as I wrote at the beginning of this paragraph, “mostly, I’m a liberal”.

edit spelling

[MeneerDijk]

I've always been baffled by American opposition to unionising. Or working conditions in general. If I compare my job to an American counterpart, I have far greater security, benefits and more vacation days. (I have 49 days left currrently, with some transferred from last year because i couldn't find the time to take time off!)

Ofcourse, one has to realise that employees in my country are rather expensive compared to countries with far lower wages. So there's always a risk my job gets outsourced. but if that'd happen i'm assured of a good social plan to make the transition as easy as possible for me.

And yet, American laborers have to put up with these conditions because their employers have the politicians on their side. Elected into offfice by the eployees themselves. The world is confusing sometimes :S

[Trump]

I am a little shocked by the situation. I can't even understand what they hope to accomplish with this move. I mean, congress hasn't offered to take a pay cut have they?

[ruaidhri]

It's little wonder that Wisconsin's Governor and his budget have hit the national news. What is interesting is that the media outside of Wisconsin prints more of the news and is more sympathetic to the protestors. Here, in Wisconsin, the media is definitely to the right of center and is not going to oppose anything a Republican governor does. Here's what the Washington Post had to say http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021506022.html and here is what TPMDC wrote in their online blog http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wisconsin-gov-walker-ginned-up-budget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php?ref=fpb.

Yes, Wisconsin has got a great Governor. Here is a man of controversy from his days in college. He went to Marquette University here in Milwaukee and ran for Student Body President. He lost because of underhanded tactics. Angry, he quit school in his Senior year. That's right. When it hard to get a job even with a degree, Wisconsin's governor doesn't have one. He has never had a regular job. After dropping out of college he ran for Wisconsin's State Assembly in a solidly Republican district. He won and held that seat until he ran for Milwaukee County Executive following a special election caused by scandal. He won, cut services, put county employees on furloughs that amounted to 28 days per year. One thing he wouldn't do is find new ways to generate revenue. He deferred service and blamed the county workers. Wherever he could, he proposed privatization. Obviously, he wasn't very popular with the people that worked for the county.

Now he's our governor. He ran on the platform that he would create 250,000 jobs. The first thing he did was initiate tax cuts for corporations. He also turned down over $800 million in federal money for high-speed rail and now recently he turn down $23 million to bring broadband access to Northern Wisconsin http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/wisconsin-decides-return-federal-broadband-stimulus-funds/2011-02-15. And, just a side note about our Governor. He supports the environment by appointing a real estate developer as our new head of the DNR. The fox guards the hens.

So far the Democrats have prevented the budget from being approved by the Republican legislators. They are not interested in listening to the workers who are willing to sacrifice benefits for the state but want to retain their bargaining rights. Frustrated, the Democrat Senators fled the state, which prevented a quorum necessary for a vote. That's where we're at right now. Personally, I believe we'll lose but the Republicans have woken a sleeping giant. The affected workers and the students in Colleges and High School will, I hope, continue to object and protest.

[Trump]

The frightening thing is that is sounds similar to the situation in Egypt. Granted, I understand it isn't as severe. I mean no warships were called in in case they needed to evacuate US citizens...
But when the government loses sight of the fact they are there to help the people, what can you do except protest? It makes the elections in a year and a half seem VERY far away.

I still don't really know what I think about unions either.

[ruaidhri]

From my experience, the unions are not exactly saints. They never were. Often the leadership is more concerned with their own survival than they are about their members. But, at the very minimum, unions give workers a voice as to what's important.

I have direct experience with unions. After my discharge from the military in the mid 1960's, I went to work in an office. I didn't make much money and I was in an office workers union. At that time each department had a couple of managers and everyone else was a union represented employee. Many of these office workers had degrees and performed very important functions. Obviously, their salaries were far better than mine but also were in the union. Also in the union were many working women, young and older. At that time it wasn't that common for women to work. Normally, they quit when they were married. While they worked they were also in the union.

Every couple of years the contract would come up for negotiations. The men would get all riled up about salaries and benefits they needed to support their families. They'd get involved with the negotiating committee and oftentimes make ridiculous demands (to have something to give away in negotiations). Then the company would make an offer. The union would call a ratification meeting and recommend the members turn down the offer, which they would. Then the union called for a strike vote to "put some teeth into the negotiations". The members would agree and vote for a strike. A couple of days later the company would offer a very little bit more and the union would call another meeting. This time the company would talk to all the secretaries and women clerks and tell them to go to the meeting and vote for the contract. They did and the contract was passed.

By the early 1970's I was fed up with this routine. Also, the women in the offices were a new breed who worked because they had to and didn't just blindly follow what the boss asked them to do. I decided that no one was going to "fix" the union so it was up to me. I became active in the union and ran for chief steward and negotiator. I was also on the local union's executive board. When negotiations came up again I went to the library (we didn't have computers) to check out comparable salaries and benefits. I stuck to my guns and demanded more at a time when the company couldn't afford a strike. The company played the old trick by giving us a first offer (rejected with strike vote) and then a second offer with a little more. I refused to take the second offer back to the membership. I told the company it wasn't adequate and to expect a strike the coming Monday. Following a couple of tense days the company called me on Sunday and gave us what we wanted. Altogether, in addition to benefit improvements, I negotiated a 17 percent increase in salaries, which caught us up with BLS statistics.

Later my company was purchased by Philip Morris, Inc. and a lot changed. PM recognized the value of degrees and professionals. More and more jobs were established outside the union and there were far more opportunities for advancement. I improved my education specific to the department I worked for and was promoted to management, which, of course, was outside the union. An interesting side note was that my promotion was held up for three months by the Vice President of Human Resources. He was the man I played hard ball with. Finally my VP (who was a senior VP) went into the VP of HR's office and demanded he sign off on the promotion. I was paid back pay for the entire three months. I used what I learned from negotiating union contracts for negotiating with railroads and trucking companies and saved the company millions upon millions of dollars.

Like I wrote earlier, unions aren't always right but they at least afford the worker a voice. Another thing to consider is that if the Republicans are able to destroy unions the Democrats would have little chance of winning elections. How would anyone like a one-party system? I wouldn't.

[Trump]

Wow, you've definately seen a side of unions I have not.

Someone made an interesting point today. One of the original reasons for unions was to ensure workers received an equitable part of the company profits (through salaries, benefits, etc). How does that work for a non-profit entity like the government?

Overall, I know unions had a very important role when they were first created. But as time has progressed companies have become more responsive to the needs of their workforce. (due to a number of factors: competition, government workplace standards/controls, lawsuits, etc). I wonder how many of the unions still serve a purpose? And do the unions who still serve a purpose still have the power to be effective?

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Unions most definitely still serve a purpose in the United States. The original reason for unions was fair and equal pay for their work and reasonable protections in their jobs (especially dangerous ones). This includes not being overworked, getting breaks, not being paid like shit, etc., which applies just as well to government jobs. If the government wants to pay someone to do a certain task, then they need to be required to give a reasonable salary or wage for that job, otherwise the government shouldn't bother.

A lot of Americans seem to think that unions have outlived their usefulness and aren't necessary these days because of job protections these days, but it's incredibly naive to think that. If unions are phased out, there's no reason to think that unfair work wouldn't return. Along with banning public employee unions, Governor Walker also wants to bring in utterly malignant rules, such as banning three sick days in a row (And since there'd be no union, who would you have to fight for you?). Union dues help pay for legal representation as well, and they are your protection from being unfairly removed from your job. They help ensure that you have a good retirement fund (Especially now since baby boomers are retiring and realizing that their 401k accounts are almost useless), and even health insurance. Of course, if we actually had UHC in the US, maybe that last one wouldn't be a big deal.

I currently work at a white collar job in the medical devices industry. In theory, my job is specialized enough that I don't need a union, but this isn't true. I wish I had one, because since I don't, my employment is still legally "at will" which for you non-Americans means that my job can decide to fire me for any reason, or for no reason, outside of discrimination. If they fire me and don't give a reason, it'd be up to me to prove it wasn't done fairly, but I'd have no union lawyer to help me out. This happened to someone I know-- white collar job for 8 years, then fired and wasn't given a reason. He couldn't do a thing, and now he's SOL, especially so since he won't be getting a pension and will likely have to stop contributing to his 401k for now.

Along with fair pay and work, a union could also negotiate a minimum amount of vacation days for me. I would need a union for this because in the United States there is no law about a minimum amount of vacation time, and any vacation that your job has is by the good will of the employer and they can remove it any point, unless you have a union to fight it. 25% of employed Americans don't get vacation or holidays. The truth is that workers' rights in America are crap compared to the rest of the first world countries. We still need unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_coun try

[Trump]

25% of Americans don't get vacation or holidays, yet more than 85% of Americans do not belong to a union. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm) That's such a huge anti-correlation I am trying to understand what you hope to prove with that data. Just because you are in a union doesn't mean you have to have contractual vacation time, nor does being non-union mean you can't have contractual vacation time.

Being in a union does not protect you if there is no discrimination there to prove. I work at a large company where most of the white collar employees are non-union, yet the company is completely paranoid about discrimination lawsuits (especially age discrimination) when layoffs occur. If you feel you are being discriminated against you have to take personal responsibility to create records proving it, or the union couldn't do anything to help anyway. After the fact? Way too late.

Furthermore, what is "fair" or "reasonable" pay in a not-for-profit organization like the government? (Not debating whether the government is actually non-profit...)

I am not saying unions have no purpose, I am simply asking the question to spark debate. I believe any law removing the right for labor to organize into a union should be unconstitutional. However, I only have limited experience with current union activites, and I was curious to see any other viewpoints. I wonder if current union activities are causing more harm than good, especially in certain industries (automotive, aerospace, etc).

So does anyone have any recent experience with unions?

[ruaidhri]

I'm traveling to Madison, WI, this morning to join the protests against Gov. Walker's budget. Today, he's reported to be cutting the state's support for education by almost $1 Billion and to drastically cut Wisconsin's Badger Care, which provides basic health care for poor people. The education cuts will affect our universities (higher tuition and fewer and less qualified professors) and our public grade, middle and high schools throughout the state. My communities school district will not be greatly affected because the people that live here are wealthy enough to be fairly self-sufficient. Our school district gets little aid from the state. The poorer districts in Milwaukee County and in our northern and western counties will be crippled. Oh hell, what does education mean to poor people. They don't want to work and improve their lots according to the right wing bloggers. It turns my stomach to read the hateful, often racist, comments. I sometimes feel that I'm living in the deep south of the 1950's. Believe me there's still a lot of hatred only it's moved to Wisconsin.

Gov. Walkers has created scapegoats to place the blame for everybody's problems. Unions are number one and state workers, nurses and teachers are number two. He still plans on eliminating collective bargaining rights for state workers even though the unions have agreed to everything the Gov. wants except giving up their rights to collectively bargain. They even agreed to contribute to the pension plan when it is currently funded from portions of their salaries that were withheld from their paychecks. They agreed to double pay! Still, the governor won't even talk with them.

Anyway, my wife and I will be joining the protests. We have to do something. It is truly shitty feeling helpless. At least I can show up, carry a sign and record our objections.

[Trump]

I've been catching bits and pieces of the situation on the news. I can't understand what this guy is trying to do. It is so obviously not in the best interest of the people how can he justify that? Good luck in Madison, and stay safe!

[ruaidhri]

Going to Madison was quite an experience. I'm certainly not new to political activity or demonstrations. I was active in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Most of the people were young students with a few "cool" professors thrown in to stir up the crowd. During the 1960's and 1970's demonstrations against the Vietnam War most of the protestors were there because they didn't want to go to Vietnam and perhaps get shot or killed. I don't believe they objected to the war as much as they objected to serving. Myself, I joined the Coast Guard in 1962 as a way out of having to shoot anyone. I figured saving lives was a better option to taking lives, regardless of the country's flag they were born under. Having enlisted I served four years instead of the two I would have served had I been drafted into the Army. Still, I opposed the war, not because I feared going to Vietnam but rather because it was tearing America apart and our President was attempting to fight two wars, one in Vietnam and the other at home with his war on poverty. That wasn't working and only resulted in inflation. I figured the war on poverty was a better way to spend our money. As it turned out, we lost both wars.

There haven't been any real demonstrations against the government since the end of Vietnam. People are generally uninformed and uninterested in politics until it directly affects them. Even then they won't demonstrate until it angers and threatens to hurt them. That's what happened in Wisconsin. Our Governor's budget plan angers and hurts just about everyone. He wants dictatorial powers that permit him to bypass our legislative branch giving him the right to sell basically any state property including parks and power plants. He won't even have to ask for bids. He just picks his favorite corporate billionaire and makes a sweetheart deal while the citizens of Wisconsin sacrifice. The people are pissed.

In Madison, I was amazed to discover that the demographic of the crowd was not primarily young students. It was angry and controlled citizens of all ages. Most of all they were peaceful as were the police who supported the demonstrators. Everyone was constantly reminded to be respectful of every other citizen and to not become violent. The only ones that tried to create problems were the Tea Party members. It didn't work. The age group with the greatest representation was people in their 50's. Amazing. I even saw a woman in her 90's protesting.

Yes, we shouted. Yes, we sang protest songs. Mostly, we listed to people talk. They had a peoples' microphone and individuals would come up and tell the crowd why they were there and why they opposed the bill. There were many great speakers of all ages including a retired Army Colonel, business owners, a farmer, union members, teachers, mothers worried about how the bill would affect their children's schools, students worried about how they could pay higher tuition, and many, many average citizens just worried and angry about the governor's unwillingness to even talk to the people. Some of the speakers gave very emotional speeches while others were full of fire advocating persistence rather than violence. One of the most interesting from many perspectives was from a man that travelled from Detroit, MI. He was a phenomenal speaker and he was with the Detroit Socialist Party. Now, as long as I can remember socialist has been a bad word often associated with communist. What surprised me was that when this speaker finished the crowd both men and women, young and old broke into a spontaneous, loud cheer. They have had it with corporate greed and capitalism that benefited the rich while blaming the poor and middle class.

It was definitely an education. I will be going back again on Saturday and at least of couple of times a week for I don't know how long, a month, a year or even longer. We can't give up. It's our state and our country and we need to speak up and be heard.

[h2orowe]

Fill us in on it as it continues, if you would, please, Ruaidhri.

I tried to go to an anti-war protest once in my city. I showed up about 20 minutes after it had ended. It also ended up being only a candle vigil that was a lot shorter and smaller a number than I had thought, but uh, it's the thought that counts?

[MeneerDijk]

Kind of ironic that we only start appreciating democracy when it crumbles away under our feet. Today the provincial elections were held in my country. People regard them as unimportant and are overshadowed by national political parties because the provinces elect the people in the senate.

While writing this i have a look at the exit polls and see that voter turnout it significantly higher this year, and to my glad surprise I see that the conservatives, that hold congress majority, are being blocked from having a majority in the senate.

all these current events make me believe that liberals sometimes just need to get a conservative slap in the face to rise up for theeir beliefs and make true democracy happen.

I admire your willingness to march for what you believe in Joey and Ruaidhri. When the time comes, i'll happily do it for my country.

[Roxie]

I'll post here what I did in the "what are you reading" thread.
‎"The Handmaid's Tale" is creeping me out. Considering bills that have been proposed to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, call rape victims "rape accusers", make women prove that their miscarriages were accidents or otherwise face life imprisonment or a death sentence and now the new one where a fetus would be considered a witness--"The Handmaid's Tale" is feeling all too possible.

[Arvynia]

I'll post here what I did in the "what are you reading" thread.
‎"The Handmaid's Tale" is creeping me out. Considering bills that have been proposed to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, call rape victims "rape accusers", make women prove that their miscarriages were accidents or otherwise face life imprisonment or a death sentence and now the new one where a fetus would be considered a witness--"The Handmaid's Tale" is feeling all too possible.

I heard about this. Yikes. What am I coming home to...? 0.o';

[h2orowe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM

Got this from Roxie on Facebook. I always knew Orange County was the republican stronghold of California but it's still sad to see such hate around. Especially considering most of those protesters probably have kids who go to school with Muslim children and have experienced firsthand what actual Muslims are like: they're like people. Well, they're not like people, because they are people, but NOPE. Gotta HATE ALL DEM IZLUMS AND KIKK EM OUT OF AMERIKKA BECAUZ THEYRE KILLIN OUR KIDS WITH THEIR TERRORIZM.

[ruaidhri]

Disgusting. Racism and hatred have never been far from the surface in America. I've always feared that if any country could follow the path of Germany in the 1930's it's the United States. Violence is in our blood.

Still, I love my country because for the most part reason wins over hate. At least I'd like to believe so.

[stsparky]

Going to Madison was quite an experience. I'm certainly not new to political activity or demonstrations. I was active in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Most of the people were young students with a few "cool" professors thrown in to stir up the crowd. During the 1960's and 1970's demonstrations against the Vietnam War most of the protestors were there because they didn't want to go to Vietnam and perhaps get shot or killed. I don't believe they objected to the war as much as they objected to serving. Myself, I joined the Coast Guard in 1962 as a way out of having to shoot anyone. ... It was definitely an education. I will be going back again on Saturday and at least of couple of times a week for I don't know how long, a month, a year or even longer. We can't give up. It's our state and our country and we need to speak up and be heard.

You're good people, I'm glad I'm your friend.

[stsparky]

I'd despair if I didn't know the younger generation had great kids like Maria and Joey among them.

[Trump]

One of the amazing things about American blood is that we have a little bit of everything in it: violence and peace, passion and indiffierence, science and art. The thing that amazes me most however is that we can't seem to find a balance in our policies. We either swing all the way to one side or all the way to the other. I think if we could find balance and compromise we could do truly amazing things.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, I agree, Americans can and have done truly amazing things. My problem right now is that here in Wisconsin I am surrounded by such hate from the extreme right. It doesn't make any difference that the polls show the majority of Wisconsinites don't support Walker's budget and give him low marks. Our local newspaper, the JournalSentinel http://www.jsonline.com/ barely disguises its right-wing leanings while the reader comments in its online edition are filled with hate and stupidity. Walker has created scapegoats for all the problems facing angry people. Everything is their fault. Anything Walker does to hurt those people bring out shouts of glee. I honestly believe that many of his supporters would secretly support sending blacks, hispanics, jews, union members (teachers and state workers), eggheads (university professors, students and anyone else who disagrees with facts they can't dispute) and all who don't fall in lockstep behind their great leader Scott Walker, to concentration camps and the ovens. Yes, that is an extreme statement but after reading hateful comment after hateful comment I am truly concerned for the future of my country. I just heard that the Arizona state legislature passed a resolution supporting Governor Walker, which tells me that the sentiments extend beyond Wisconsin.

His budget bill is an attempt to remove in one fell swoop all Wisconsin's progressive accomplishments over the past hundred years. A small but meaningful example is Wisconsin's State Life Fund, which was created a hundred years ago by progressive Republican state legislators in reaction to insurance scandals. It is totally self sufficient and doesn't cost taxpayers a penny. Still the big insurance companies don't like the competition even though the State Life Fund only writes policies from $1,000 to $10,000. The insurance companies have tried for decades to get rid of the State Life Fund. All our past governors opposed ending the program. The insurance companies contributed heavily to Gov. Walker. Now, it's payback time and so there goes affordable insurance for the little guy. If you want to read more about this here's a commentary in the Wisconsin State Journal, a progressive Madison paper in a decidedly left-leaning city.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/dave_zweifel/article_5b9c269c-45cd-11e0-bcf3-001cc4c002e0.html

[Trump]

I think of myself as idealistic. I think there are a lot of things that can be done to make life easier for many people, from your life insurance example, to health care improvements, to the space program. However, recently (specifically the past 5 years or so) I've come to believe almost everything the government does has selfish undercurrents driving it. From this latest health care reform fiasco to union bargaing rights to ... the list goes on and on! Are there any politicians or political parties (with any power) that actually have the country's and people's interests at heart?

[Daishikaze]

Are there any politicians or political parties (with any power) that actually have the country's and people's interests at heart?


In a word? NO

[ruaidhri]

I believe Wisconsin had a honest politician, our former senator, Russ Feingold, who was defeated by big money advertising. Sen Feingold was a maverick who voted his conscience and not his party's dictates. He sought consensus and strived to make government work. He was also the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, not because he thought it was the political thing to do but rather the right thing. I was very proud to say that he was my senator.

So, what's he doing now. He started a new organization, not Democrat and not Republican. Wisconsin's original progressive party was originally an offshoot of the Republican party. Feingold's Progressives United (http://www.progressivesunited.org/) is a new iteration that's primary objective is to combat corporate influences in politics. Check it out. Maybe together we can change America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/russ-feingold-progressives-united-corporate-influence_n_816693.html

[D-pad]

I'd despair if I didn't know the younger generation had great kids like Maria and Joey among them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehIwN5h1atQ

[ruaidhri]

D-pad, what is the point you are making?

My wife and I did not make it to Madison this past Saturday. We fully planned to join the protestors but I hurt my back and could barely walk what less carry a sign in front of the state Capitol building. Well, I'm better now and we will go this Saturday. Farmers from all over Wisconsin will be driving their tractors to Madison to join the protest. That should be quite a sight.

Maybe, just maybe the people can win even when they are battling an intransigent governor who's backed by the Koch brothers.

[D-pad]

D-pad, what is the point you are making?

Point?

[ruaidhri]

D-pad, sadly, what started in Wisconsin and is spreading to other states is not a joke. Regardless of their position, citizens are very angry in Wisconsin. It takes a lot to get people of all ages to leave their comfortable couches and shiver in the cold and snow of a Wisconsin Winter. For many, they're fighting for their livelihood and they are not laughing.

I really would like to know your position. I've always respected you. I know you are intelligent and I know you care. I asked what your point was because being an old white man I don't understand the message in the Rap you linked and how it applied. I was more interested in what you had to say; not a flippant one word response.

[ruaidhri]

If you haven't seen this before it is worth watching in its entirety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNuSEZ8CDw

[D-pad]

Ick, you're asking me to break character...something I don't take lightly.

As "intelligent" as I am, I'm afraid I'm under-educated on the current happenings of Wisconsin. So, unless you'd like to provide me with some reading material that I can find some "fact" in, I refuse to blather on about my...opinion.

What I have gathered, mostly by accident, is that the governor of Wisconsin is simply doing silly little republican things in an effort to separate the citizens of the country even more. However, since this is all the republicans have ever done...it's almost silly for me to have said it at all.