I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Yeah people keep marriages together after infidelity. It happens. Don't assume you know something.
I believe Hillary has a very strong motivation toward Socialism, and hides it behind phoney token moderate conservativism.
I believe she attacks video games and flag burning because she sees them as the least damaging ways to make herself seem conservative, so that she can get elected and effect as much government ownership as possible.
Which is a shame because I do think that the time is quite past due for a female president, as well as one that comes from a racial minority.
Condi Rice 2012?
Not after this administration's taint. She needed to get out with Powell. Then the only thing that'd screw her would have been the Bin Laden memo. Unless she can pull some miracle and get peace in Israel or something.
Oh I can imagine why...I just wouldnt respect that decision, especialy when it is someone that wants to be responsible for the entire country. It's not like this is Old Lady Clinton, who has stayed at home her entire life and has to turn a blind eye to her husbands infidelity because she cant survive on her own.....
None of this has ANYTHING to do with her ability to govern and govern effectively.
I never said it did....but I consider it part of her character.....and though I dont want someone controlled by religious dogma and strict moral values, I also dont want a souless jackal that has no moral compass.
Try out this handy experiment at home. Tell your spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend that you are cheating on them, but just won the lotto and are going to be made King of a small European nation. Chances are that unless your married to/dating an opputunistic whore, they're going to leave you.
I never said it did....but I consider it part of her character.....and though I dont want someone controlled by religious dogma and strict moral values, I also dont want a souless jackal that has no moral compass.
Try out this handy experiment at home. Tell your spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend that you are cheating on them, but just won the lotto and are going to be made King of a small European nation. Chances are that unless your married to/dating an opputunistic whore, they're going to leave you.
It's amazing how you can divine all of this intimate knowledge of the feelings that the Clinton's hold/held for each other from the coverage of the Lewinsky affair. Wait, amazing isn't the word I'm looking for.
Oh I can imagine why...I just wouldnt respect that decision, especialy when it is someone that wants to be responsible for the entire country. It's not like this is Old Lady Clinton, who has stayed at home her entire life and has to turn a blind eye to her husbands infidelity because she cant survive on her own.....
None of this has ANYTHING to do with her ability to govern and govern effectively.
I never said it did....but I consider it part of her character.....and though I dont want someone controlled by religious dogma and strict moral values, I also dont want a souless jackal that has no moral compass.
Try out this handy experiment at home. Tell your spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend that you are cheating on them, but just won the lotto and are going to be made King of a small European nation. Chances are that unless your married to/dating an opputunistic whore, they're going to leave you.
So it's wrong for politicians to legislate their moral code, but you want your politicians to adhere to your moral code, even when the decisions you'd want them to make are strictly personal and have no bearing on their abilities.
Granted you wouldn't try to make political divorces illegal in the same way some politicians want to make things like pornography illegal, but there's still a judgement of others and refusal to understand or look past their positions and choices that ought to make you feel a little like a hypocrite.
And Jesus, you don't know anything about their marriage.
It's always, always hilarious when an American claims someone is a socialist.
Contribute please.
She's made some strong statements about government ownership of various industries.
I think it may have to do with the way we hear Americans say the word "socialist" with the level of bile that we usually reserve for the word "peadophile".
Oh I can imagine why...I just wouldnt respect that decision, especialy when it is someone that wants to be responsible for the entire country. It's not like this is Old Lady Clinton, who has stayed at home her entire life and has to turn a blind eye to her husbands infidelity because she cant survive on her own.....
None of this has ANYTHING to do with her ability to govern and govern effectively.
I never said it did....but I consider it part of her character.....and though I dont want someone controlled by religious dogma and strict moral values, I also dont want a souless jackal that has no moral compass.
Try out this handy experiment at home. Tell your spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend that you are cheating on them, but just won the lotto and are going to be made King of a small European nation. Chances are that unless your married to/dating an opputunistic whore, they're going to leave you.
I find it ridiculous that you claim to "know" why she stayed with Bill and proceed to make statements about her character based on what you "know." There is absolutely nothing that proves or indicates she stayed with him for purely political reasons.
I was lucky enough to wind up watching "An Inconvenient Truth" with Hillary and Bill in a small art theater near where I grew up (and quite close to where they make their home in NY). They were sitting behind me and to the left. They seemed quite close and very in love. No one was watching them because no one had figured out they were there (they came in partway through the previews and sat near the back).
It's possible that it was all just an act but I doubt it. That town is pretty much as pro-Hillary as you can get; no one needed to see that. All I could tell is that a married couple was going out to the movies and they were having a great time. I believe her when she says that she stayed with Bill because she loves him.
Weird thing is, I'm not even a huge Hillary fan but that's a stupid, baseless reason to criticize her.
I agree with her on healthcare so it doesn't bother me much at all. I haven't heard much about her energy policy though. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
I think it may have to do with the way we hear Americans say the word "socialist" with the level of bile that we usually reserve for the word "peadophile".
Maybe... but based on the past few posts it would seem to me that this is a perception issue on your part. I don't really see how I was using it in that manner. In fact, I didn't even use the word "socialist."
It's possible that it was all just an act but I doubt it. That town is pretty much as pro-Hillary as you can get; no one needed to see that. All I could tell is that a married couple was going out to the movies and they were having a great time. I believe her when she says that she stayed with Bill because she loves him.
Weird thing is, I'm not even a huge Hillary fan but that's a stupid, baseless reason to criticize her.
Especially given that she could have tried to play the "betrayed but strong housewife" card for plenty of political capital.
Especially given that she could have tried to play the "betrayed but strong housewife" card for plenty of political capital.
I seriously doubt that card would win her anything but pity and the appearance of weakness. I'd guess that the image her campaign managers want regarding the scandal is "that was some shit, but it really isn't relevant now." And also something about how it was the Republicans' fault, she and Bill were both pushing that for a while.
Yar on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Hillary's version of national Health care was ridiculously bent around preserving the autonomy and profits of the medical industry that it really broke the back of the proposal. The truth is that if she were really looking for nationalization of the industry, it wouldn't have been such a byzantine and confusing sell.
I've not really heard about the energy thing. Honestly, I'd name Hillary the least likely Democrat in the race to ride roughshod over corporate interests.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I think it may have to do with the way we hear Americans say the word "socialist" with the level of bile that we usually reserve for the word "peadophile".
Maybe... but based on the past few posts it would seem to me that this is a perception issue on your part. I don't really see how I was using it in that manner. In fact, I didn't even use the word "socialist."
Maybe not you particularly, but \Ethelred was talking about Americans in general. I honestly can't remember the last time I heard an American politician/TV presenter/reporter use it as anything other than a derogartory term.
And while you didn't say "socialist", I believe \Ethelred may have been referring to;
Yeah people keep marriages together after infidelity. It happens. Don't assume you know something.
I believe Hillary has a very strong motivation toward Socialism, and hides it behind phoney token moderate conservativism.
I believe she attacks video games and flag burning because she sees them as the least damaging ways to make herself seem conservative, so that she can get elected and effect as much government ownership as possible.
You've singled out statements by her on government ownership of energy and healthcare.
But for some reasoned you've broadened that out into "as much government ownership as possible."
And I don't really see why that follows. It's like saying that because Guliani made a statement about willingness to use force in Iran he wants to use military force as much as possible in every situation.
Also, as usual, I find your strong suspicion of socialism and strong attraction to John Edwards hilariously contradictory.
Yeah people keep marriages together after infidelity. It happens. Don't assume you know something.
I believe Hillary has a very strong motivation toward Socialism, and hides it behind phoney token moderate conservativism.
I believe she attacks video games and flag burning because she sees them as the least damaging ways to make herself seem conservative, so that she can get elected and effect as much government ownership as possible.
You've singled out statements by her on government ownership of energy and healthcare.
But for some reasoned you've broadened that out into "as much government ownership as possible."
And I don't really see why that follows. It's like saying that because Guliani made a statement about willingness to use force in Iran he wants to use military force as much as possible in every situation.
Also, as usual, I find your strong suspicion of socialism and strong attraction to John Edwards hilariously contradictory.
Word. I just heard a quote from Edwards today on NPR wherein he pledged tax relief to those making <$200,000/year only, and wanted to raise taxes where necessary. Not exactly socialist, but of the current crop of Democratic hopefuls he's certainly among the closest to socialism.
Word. I just heard a quote from Edwards today on NPR wherein he pledged tax relief to those making <$200,000/year only, and wanted to raise taxes where necessary. Not exactly socialist, but of the current crop of Democratic hopefuls he's certainly among the closest to socialism.
They actually quoted him as saying that people who make over 200k don't "deserve" a tax cut. Which, you know, maybe the money is better spent, but using normative language like "deserve" seems like a pretty brazen move. Maybe they misquoted him.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Yeah people keep marriages together after infidelity. It happens. Don't assume you know something.
I believe Hillary has a very strong motivation toward Socialism, and hides it behind phoney token moderate conservativism.
I believe she attacks video games and flag burning because she sees them as the least damaging ways to make herself seem conservative, so that she can get elected and effect as much government ownership as possible.
You've singled out statements by her on government ownership of energy and healthcare.
But for some reasoned you've broadened that out into "as much government ownership as possible."
And I don't really see why that follows. It's like saying that because Guliani made a statement about willingness to use force in Iran he wants to use military force as much as possible in every situation.
Also, as usual, I find your strong suspicion of socialism and strong attraction to John Edwards hilariously contradictory.
Word. I just heard a quote from Edwards today on NPR wherein he pledged tax relief to those making <$200,000/year only, and wanted to raise taxes where necessary. Not exactly socialist, but of the current crop of Democratic hopefuls he's certainly among the closest to socialism.
When the closest you can get to socialism is tax relief for people on 6-figure incomes, there's a problem.
You've singled out statements by her on government ownership of energy and healthcare.
But for some reasoned you've broadened that out into "as much government ownership as possible."
And I don't really see why that follows. It's like saying that because Guliani made a statement about willingness to use force in Iran he wants to use military force as much as possible in every situation.
Also, as usual, I find your strong suspicion of socialism and strong attraction to John Edwards hilariously contradictory.
I'm totally gay for him, don't tell.
Look, that is my surmisal of HRC. Maybe I'm wrong. But everything I've read or heard from her tells me that she is very, very, pro-government ownership, and that she tries to hide it to avoid a political backlash.
Edwards I believe is much more concerned about working people instead of concerned about government power.
They need to change the tax law to not fuck you in the ass if you don't have kids
You're still saving money. Because you don't have kids.
For real. It's not like you save money by having kids. It's like people who pay more in interest on their homes than they have to, for the tax benefit. You're paying $100 more to a bank to avoid paying $10 more to the government, go you.
You've singled out statements by her on government ownership of energy and healthcare.
But for some reasoned you've broadened that out into "as much government ownership as possible."
And I don't really see why that follows. It's like saying that because Guliani made a statement about willingness to use force in Iran he wants to use military force as much as possible in every situation.
Also, as usual, I find your strong suspicion of socialism and strong attraction to John Edwards hilariously contradictory.
I'm totally gay for him, don't tell.
Look, that is my surmisal of HRC. Maybe I'm wrong. But everything I've read or heard from her tells me that she is very, very, pro-government ownership, and that she tries to hide it to avoid a political backlash.
Edwards I believe is much more concerned about working people instead of concerned about government power.
They need to change the tax law to not fuck you in the ass if you don't have kids
You're still saving money. Because you don't have kids.
For real. It's not like you save money by having kids. It's like people who pay more in interest on their homes than they have to, for the tax benefit. You're paying $100 more to a bank to avoid paying $10 more to the government, go you.
Look, that is my surmisal of HRC. Maybe I'm wrong. But everything I've read or heard from her tells me that she is very, very, pro-government ownership, and that she tries to hide it to avoid a political backlash.
What exactly is the problem with government ownership? If an industry is run by the government for the benefit of the people, then I don't see an inherent problem with that other than rich people can't use that industry to make themselves richer.
Does anyone know of a theoretical reason why government ownership is an inherently bad thing?
Look, that is my surmisal of HRC. Maybe I'm wrong. But everything I've read or heard from her tells me that she is very, very, pro-government ownership, and that she tries to hide it to avoid a political backlash.
What exactly is the problem with government ownership? If an industry is run by the government for the benefit of the people, then I don't see an inherent problem with that other than rich people can't use that industry to make themselves richer.
Does anyone know of a theoretical reason why government ownership is an inherently bad thing?
The main argument against from a theoretical standpoint is the lack of consumer choice. It's not always the case (e.g. the NHS is not your only option for healthcare in the UK), but if the government takes ownership of all of the railways, or all energy production, you can't just take your business elsewhere. Then there's the practical issues, like the fact government ownership can lead to excessive waste and bureaucracy. There's also the fact that if the service doesn't have a high profile there's pretty much no accountability. Plus some people aren't too keen on the idea of taxes being used to fund services they don't use.
There's obviously the good sides, like the fact a government controlled monopoly is arguably better for the consumer than a private monopoly, and there's more focus on the service provided rather than profit before all else, so it comes down to the service (and government) in question as to whether it's good or bad.
Look, that is my surmisal of HRC. Maybe I'm wrong. But everything I've read or heard from her tells me that she is very, very, pro-government ownership, and that she tries to hide it to avoid a political backlash.
What exactly is the problem with government ownership? If an industry is run by the government for the benefit of the people, then I don't see an inherent problem with that other than rich people can't use that industry to make themselves richer.
Does anyone know of a theoretical reason why government ownership is an inherently bad thing?
HRC is not advocating government ownership in either Health Care or Energy. At all. She's proposing government programs related to those two topics, but the phrase 'government ownership' is pretty much an empty partisan smear that doesn't match up to reality very well. At least in those two cases.
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
Look, that is my surmisal of HRC. Maybe I'm wrong. But everything I've read or heard from her tells me that she is very, very, pro-government ownership, and that she tries to hide it to avoid a political backlash.
What exactly is the problem with government ownership? If an industry is run by the government for the benefit of the people, then I don't see an inherent problem with that other than rich people can't use that industry to make themselves richer.
Does anyone know of a theoretical reason why government ownership is an inherently bad thing?
It's situational. The government has less motivation to be profitable, and less motivation to be efficient. More efficient and productive business benefits both sides of the equation. Which means the government is better suited for activities for which the market lacks a good solution or is disfunctional.
There are problems that can result in the power structures of both, but they are slightly different. For political positions this means that a politician will have power based on their ability to secure politicial capital, for democracies this will be in large part their popularity. However, what's popular or bodes well with the power structure may not be what is most effective or efficient.
For businesses, the motivation is to maximize the profit or at very least maximize how much you are getting paid. So there is the drive to be more effective and sucessful, but there is also a lack of care for externalities and motivations to cheat the system. This is why anarchistic capitalism is a bad idea.
Anyways, if someone suggests that everything should be government run or everything should be privately run, then it's almost assuredly a bad idea. Industries should only be government run if there is a strong compelling interest for that. And 'because some guys could get rich on it' is generally a pretty weak motivation by itself.
Savant on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
They need to change the tax law to not fuck you in the ass if you don't have kids
You're still saving money. Because you don't have kids.
For real. It's not like you save money by having kids. It's like people who pay more in interest on their homes than they have to, for the tax benefit. You're paying $100 more to a bank to avoid paying $10 more to the government, go you.
I mean if I were all fiscal conservative asshole, I guess I could be all "but why am I subsidizing other peoples' bad decisions with my tax money if people want kids then dammit don't make me pay for it". But, really, parents by and large have a lot of expenses, troubles, and time commitments, and I don't mind cutting them a break.
Posts
Also, it's mean and kind of retarded to speculate that she only stayed with him for political expediency.
Condi Rice 2012?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I believe Hillary has a very strong motivation toward Socialism, and hides it behind phoney token moderate conservativism.
I believe she attacks video games and flag burning because she sees them as the least damaging ways to make herself seem conservative, so that she can get elected and effect as much government ownership as possible.
Not after this administration's taint. She needed to get out with Powell. Then the only thing that'd screw her would have been the Bin Laden memo. Unless she can pull some miracle and get peace in Israel or something.
I never said it did....but I consider it part of her character.....and though I dont want someone controlled by religious dogma and strict moral values, I also dont want a souless jackal that has no moral compass.
Try out this handy experiment at home. Tell your spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend that you are cheating on them, but just won the lotto and are going to be made King of a small European nation. Chances are that unless your married to/dating an opputunistic whore, they're going to leave you.
It's amazing how you can divine all of this intimate knowledge of the feelings that the Clinton's hold/held for each other from the coverage of the Lewinsky affair. Wait, amazing isn't the word I'm looking for.
So it's wrong for politicians to legislate their moral code, but you want your politicians to adhere to your moral code, even when the decisions you'd want them to make are strictly personal and have no bearing on their abilities.
Granted you wouldn't try to make political divorces illegal in the same way some politicians want to make things like pornography illegal, but there's still a judgement of others and refusal to understand or look past their positions and choices that ought to make you feel a little like a hypocrite.
And Jesus, you don't know anything about their marriage.
She's made some strong statements about government ownership of various industries.
I think it may have to do with the way we hear Americans say the word "socialist" with the level of bile that we usually reserve for the word "peadophile".
I find it ridiculous that you claim to "know" why she stayed with Bill and proceed to make statements about her character based on what you "know." There is absolutely nothing that proves or indicates she stayed with him for purely political reasons.
I was lucky enough to wind up watching "An Inconvenient Truth" with Hillary and Bill in a small art theater near where I grew up (and quite close to where they make their home in NY). They were sitting behind me and to the left. They seemed quite close and very in love. No one was watching them because no one had figured out they were there (they came in partway through the previews and sat near the back).
It's possible that it was all just an act but I doubt it. That town is pretty much as pro-Hillary as you can get; no one needed to see that. All I could tell is that a married couple was going out to the movies and they were having a great time. I believe her when she says that she stayed with Bill because she loves him.
Weird thing is, I'm not even a huge Hillary fan but that's a stupid, baseless reason to criticize her.
I agree with her on healthcare so it doesn't bother me much at all. I haven't heard much about her energy policy though. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Especially given that she could have tried to play the "betrayed but strong housewife" card for plenty of political capital.
Hillary's version of national Health care was ridiculously bent around preserving the autonomy and profits of the medical industry that it really broke the back of the proposal. The truth is that if she were really looking for nationalization of the industry, it wouldn't have been such a byzantine and confusing sell.
I've not really heard about the energy thing. Honestly, I'd name Hillary the least likely Democrat in the race to ride roughshod over corporate interests.
Maybe not you particularly, but \Ethelred was talking about Americans in general. I honestly can't remember the last time I heard an American politician/TV presenter/reporter use it as anything other than a derogartory term.
And while you didn't say "socialist", I believe \Ethelred may have been referring to;
You've singled out statements by her on government ownership of energy and healthcare.
But for some reasoned you've broadened that out into "as much government ownership as possible."
And I don't really see why that follows. It's like saying that because Guliani made a statement about willingness to use force in Iran he wants to use military force as much as possible in every situation.
Also, as usual, I find your strong suspicion of socialism and strong attraction to John Edwards hilariously contradictory.
Word. I just heard a quote from Edwards today on NPR wherein he pledged tax relief to those making <$200,000/year only, and wanted to raise taxes where necessary. Not exactly socialist, but of the current crop of Democratic hopefuls he's certainly among the closest to socialism.
When the closest you can get to socialism is tax relief for people on 6-figure incomes, there's a problem.
Yes I do, he just lives in Africa. And survives off of a cup of coffee every day.
Look, that is my surmisal of HRC. Maybe I'm wrong. But everything I've read or heard from her tells me that she is very, very, pro-government ownership, and that she tries to hide it to avoid a political backlash.
Edwards I believe is much more concerned about working people instead of concerned about government power.
For real. It's not like you save money by having kids. It's like people who pay more in interest on their homes than they have to, for the tax benefit. You're paying $100 more to a bank to avoid paying $10 more to the government, go you.
I hear you get a big bonus if you adpot, though.
What exactly is the problem with government ownership? If an industry is run by the government for the benefit of the people, then I don't see an inherent problem with that other than rich people can't use that industry to make themselves richer.
Does anyone know of a theoretical reason why government ownership is an inherently bad thing?
The main argument against from a theoretical standpoint is the lack of consumer choice. It's not always the case (e.g. the NHS is not your only option for healthcare in the UK), but if the government takes ownership of all of the railways, or all energy production, you can't just take your business elsewhere. Then there's the practical issues, like the fact government ownership can lead to excessive waste and bureaucracy. There's also the fact that if the service doesn't have a high profile there's pretty much no accountability. Plus some people aren't too keen on the idea of taxes being used to fund services they don't use.
There's obviously the good sides, like the fact a government controlled monopoly is arguably better for the consumer than a private monopoly, and there's more focus on the service provided rather than profit before all else, so it comes down to the service (and government) in question as to whether it's good or bad.
HRC is not advocating government ownership in either Health Care or Energy. At all. She's proposing government programs related to those two topics, but the phrase 'government ownership' is pretty much an empty partisan smear that doesn't match up to reality very well. At least in those two cases.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
It's situational. The government has less motivation to be profitable, and less motivation to be efficient. More efficient and productive business benefits both sides of the equation. Which means the government is better suited for activities for which the market lacks a good solution or is disfunctional.
There are problems that can result in the power structures of both, but they are slightly different. For political positions this means that a politician will have power based on their ability to secure politicial capital, for democracies this will be in large part their popularity. However, what's popular or bodes well with the power structure may not be what is most effective or efficient.
For businesses, the motivation is to maximize the profit or at very least maximize how much you are getting paid. So there is the drive to be more effective and sucessful, but there is also a lack of care for externalities and motivations to cheat the system. This is why anarchistic capitalism is a bad idea.
Anyways, if someone suggests that everything should be government run or everything should be privately run, then it's almost assuredly a bad idea. Industries should only be government run if there is a strong compelling interest for that. And 'because some guys could get rich on it' is generally a pretty weak motivation by itself.
If you actually make enough to pay taxes I don't have a lot of sympathy.
Why nominate a conservative that liberals despise?
"Getting something done" hasn't been a part of American politics since the mid-90s.