PDA

View Full Version : I can't stand Geoge W. Bush


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Michael Neal
03-10-2006, 03:11 PM
There I said it, are you happy Neil?

I still don't agree with you or any of your absurd conspiracy theories, your wacko politics, and I still generally agree with the decisions made on the war on terror but this guy is a moron and I can't take it any more.

Back to back with Bill Clinton we have had two of the worst presidents ever. It speaks volumes about the vast wasteland of the baby boomer generation in my opinion, and what they have to offer us in terms of leadership.

God please save us...

Neil Mick
03-10-2006, 03:37 PM
There I said it, are you happy Neil?

No, not really. I think you would have made a more effective and heart-felt statement by leaving the personal directives out of it.

But say la vie. You have made the new discovery that a lying, mass-murdering hypocrit makes for a bad President.

I applaud your newfound knowledge; I dismiss the personal asides.

I still don't agree with you or any of your absurd conspiracy theories, your wacko politics,

Only because you lack the tools to debate them.

and I still generally agree with the decisions made on the war on terror but this guy is a moron and I can't take it any more.

No, what really makes me curious is what caused you to come to this position. What was the straw that broke the camel's back?

Back to back with Bill Clinton we have had two of the worst presidents ever.

Clinton?? One of the "worst Presidents, ever??" :confused: Huh?? How about Nixon, Grant, or Johnson??

Heck, I'd even put Reagan near the top of that list. But Clinton...? Please. But yeah, he was no saint: that's for sure.

It speaks volumes about the vast wasteland of the baby boomer generation in my opinion, and what they have to offer us in terms of leadership.

God please save us...

Actually, I think that it speaks volumes about the disconnect the American ppl are with their gov't, and how mass media serves to secure this disconnect.

But you'd probably say that I was a whacko conspiracist, for having these ideas...lol. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Dajo251
03-10-2006, 04:28 PM
I was some how hopeing to avoid politics on this msg board...guess that can never happen on the internet though

Neil Mick
03-10-2006, 04:44 PM
I was some how hopeing to avoid politics on this msg board...guess that can never happen on the internet though

FYI, this is the "Open Discussions" section...politics is a favored topic here, for awhile (on and off).

Hope that that helps.

Zach Sarver
03-10-2006, 05:18 PM
Clinton?? One of the "worst Presidents, ever??" Huh?? How about Nixon, Grant, or Johnson??

Heck, I'd even put Reagan near the top of that list. But Clinton...? Please. But yeah, he was no saint: that's for sure.

I can see why you would say that about Nixon, Grant and Johnson, but why Reagan. From what I have read/watched/heard he was a pretty good president(I wasn't born when he was a president.)

Adam Alexander
03-10-2006, 05:31 PM
I'd say that FDR must of been the absolute worst. Goodness! The guy enacted a mess of anti-American legislation...but he did it dirty with the threat of "court packing" (if I recall correctly) and closed the deal with term limits.

Now, that's a snake. Other politicians generally just steal and lie. That guy changed the landscape to his preference and then took the choice out of the hands of the people with the limit.

I can't say I agree with Bush or his tactics, but atleast he's walking in the same steps as other presidents (if I recall correctly, he's something of a Lincoln-esque president) rather than coming up with principally new (I haven't read about any other threats to the court) methods of screwing the American ideal.

Neil Mick
03-10-2006, 07:56 PM
I can see why you would say that about Nixon, Grant and Johnson, but why Reagan. From what I have read/watched/heard he was a pretty good president(I wasn't born when he was a president.)

Not from where I sit. Of course, you'll get different impressions, depending upon what side of the ideological aisle, you're sitting.

But, this article about Reagan's legacy covers my point of view (it mentions nothing about Reagan's refusal to mention AIDS). In brief :

RONALD REAGAN'S LEGACY (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0607-09.htm)

Ronald Reagan was a man who fought for what he believed in, and he changed the world more than probably any American in the twentieth century. He changed not only the conservative movement, the Republican party, his country and the world -- but also his opponents, known as liberals. As a result of his achievements, the typical liberal Member of Congress today sits to the right of Richard Nixon on a number of economic issues, including tax policy.

Hindsight is 20/20: but one does have to lay the current polarization in Congress partly at Reagan's feet...he did lay the groundwork for it (to me, this is not a good thing. Obviously, others may see this differently).

I might also add that mainstream media changed most dramatically under Reagan, with editorial policies stressing less "unhappy" news.

His death has unleashed a torrent of commentary on the significance of this revolution, and so it is important to set the record straight. His economic policies were mostly a failure. Partly this was because he had promised something arithmetically impossible: to increase military spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget. He kept the first two promises, delivering the largest peacetime military build-up in American history, and cutting taxes massively, mostly for upper-income households.

But budget deficits soared to record heights. The national debt doubled, as a percentage of the economy, before Mr. Reagan's successors were able to bring it under control. This "military Keynesianism" did pull the economy out of the 1982 recession, but the 1980s still chalked up the slowest growth of any decade in the post-World War II era. And income was redistributed to the wealthy as never before: during the 1980s, most of the country's income gains went to the top 1 or 2 percent of households.

In 1981 he summarily fired 12,000 air traffic controllers who went on strike for better working conditions. This ushered in a new and dark era of labor relations, with employers now free to "permanently replace" striking workers. The median real wage failed to grow during the decade of the 1980s.

and lest we not forget the Contra's:

Mr. Reagan is often credited with having caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, but this is doubtful. He did use the Cold War as a pretext for other interventions, including funding and support for horrific violence against the civilian population of Central America. In 1999 the United Nations determined that the massacres of tens of thousands of Guatemalans, mostly indigenous people, constituted "genocide." These massacres -- often involving grotesque torture -- reached their peak under the rule of Mr. Reagan's ally, the Guatemalan General Rios Montt. Tens of thousands of Salvadorans were also murdered during Mr. Reagan's presidency by death squads affiliated with the U.S.-funded Salvadoran military.

But it was Mr. Reagan's efforts to overthrow the government -- democratically elected in 1984 -- of poor, underdeveloped Nicaragua that almost brought down his presidency. Congress cut off aid to Mr. Reagan's proxy army, the Contras, as a result of pressure from Americans -- led by religious groups -- who were disgusted by the Contras' tactics of murdering unarmed teachers and health care workers.

And then there's the absolute nonsense of the "war on drugs," a complete waste of money and resources.

Finally,

The Reagan revolution continues today: the "war on terror" has replaced the Cold War as pretext for intervention abroad, including the disastrous war in Iraq. Tax cuts for the rich and huge increases in military spending have revived the era of giant budget deficits. As the Great Communicator used to say, "There they go again."

Yep, there we go again. Thanks for the messy legacy, Dutch. :yuck: :disgust:

Neil Mick
03-10-2006, 08:05 PM
I'd say that FDR must of been the absolute worst. Goodness!

We'll just have to agree to disagree. FDR got America out of the depression by creating work with the WPA and others...not to mention Social Security--arguably the best and longest-lasting American gov't social program ever created.

W is clearly the absolute worst, IMHO. All the other President's who faced constitutional crises...from Lincoln to Wilson to Nixon: all showed a certain respect for the longevity of the rule of US constitutional law. Even Nixon resigned out of respect for the turbulence his impeachment trial would bring.

The fellows in W's Admin today were all veteran's from the Reagan gov't. Several of them who were found guilty, are now serving in gov't today. Nothing I have seen from W's Administration shows anything other than a cynical monomania for secrecy and control, coupled with a flagrant disregard for anyone with a contrary view.

I can only wait and watch as the whole mess collapses, making an ever larger mess, in the catastrophe.

Michael Neal
03-11-2006, 07:48 AM
LOL at Neil, I just think Bush is a bafoon thats all. It is actually because of people like you calling him a mass murderer and throwing out your absurd conspiracies that he is still in office. People can quite clearly see Bush does not have it all together but when they take a look at what is coming from people like you they see a whole lot worse, and I mean a whole lot. The American people do not want a Chavez for president Neil.

I thank God for people like you Neil and I hope you keep up what you are doing. No matter how bad Bush may seem, you remind us how much worse it could be. :)

Neil Mick
03-11-2006, 11:50 AM
LOL at Neil, I just think Bush is a bafoon thats all. It is actually because of people like you calling him a mass murderer and throwing out your absurd conspiracies that he is still in office.

Of course: "people like me" are the ONLY thing, keeping the man in office. Control of the other two branches of gov't and continual cries of being a "War President" have nothing to do with it.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

People can quite clearly see Bush does not have it all together but when they take a look at what is coming from people like you they see a whole lot worse, and I mean a whole lot.

Michael, I'm so proud of you! You make these first, tumbling steps of awakening to reality! Why, it seems only a short while ago that you were joyously cheering "let's roll!!" for the Iraq war.

And now that you've come to see the light: your newfound sight is still a mite blurry. In your obvious confusion, you seem to equate "ppl like me" (whatever that means) as the source of Bush's staying power in office.

That's rich. :hypno: :hypno:

OK, I'll come clean...I'm also responsible for Clinton, too. It was a bad day...really. In hindsight, I realize I should have booted him out after one term. :freaky: :D

The American people do not want a Chavez for president Neil.

Sorry, Michael...my crystal ball seems to be busted...I'll assume that yours is working better than mine. :rolleyes:

I thank God for people like you Neil and I hope you keep up what you are doing. No matter how bad Bush may seem, you remind us how much worse it could be. :)

I thank God for ppl like you Michael and I hope you keep what you are doing. No matter how bad Bush may seem, you continue to provide levity for us all, by imagining these absurd, nonsensical notions.

It's better than Jon Stewart, at times...(well, OK, but only because the Daily Show is slipping, a little)... :p

Really, Michael: if you prefer to keep your reasons for converting to anti-Bush to yourself...I respect that.

Not. :p

Michael Neal
03-11-2006, 05:18 PM
:)

Michael Varin
03-12-2006, 03:07 AM
Neil,

It's C'EST not SAY.

C'mon, quit disrespecting the French.

Michael

Neil Mick
03-12-2006, 03:25 AM
Neil,

It's C'EST not SAY.

C'mon, quit disrespecting the French.

Michael

You're right, my bad. My French-speaking friends are always chiding me for mangling the language... :blush:

Mark Freeman
03-12-2006, 08:32 AM
Neil,

It's C'EST not SAY.

C'mon, quit disrespecting the French.

Michael

Come on, quit disrespecting the English. :D

Mark

Hogan
03-12-2006, 12:32 PM
I love bush....

aikigirl10
03-12-2006, 05:58 PM
i love bush too... John, u and i may have to start a thread just stating how much we love George w. Bush. Wouldn't that be great???

Neil Mick
03-12-2006, 06:28 PM
i love bush too... John, u and i may have to start a thread just stating how much we love George w. Bush. Wouldn't that be great???

Yeah, that'd be great. You, John, and the have-more's could all join W's (rapidly dwindling) cheerleading section, as we all watch his shortsighted and cynical policies crumble away...taking this country's infrastructure with it... :dead:

Adam Alexander
03-12-2006, 06:48 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree. FDR got America out of the depression by creating work with the WPA and others...not to mention Social Security--arguably the best and longest-lasting American gov't social program ever created.

W is clearly the absolute worst, IMHO. All the other President's who faced constitutional crises...from Lincoln to Wilson to Nixon: all showed a certain respect for the longevity of the rule of US constitutional law. Even Nixon resigned out of respect for the turbulence his impeachment trial would bring.

The fellows in W's Admin today were all veteran's from the Reagan gov't. Several of them who were found guilty, are now serving in gov't today. Nothing I have seen from W's Administration shows anything other than a cynical monomania for secrecy and control, coupled with a flagrant disregard for anyone with a contrary view.

I can only wait and watch as the whole mess collapses, making an ever larger mess, in the catastrophe.

I'd say WW2 got us out of the Depression.

And the Depression would of simply passed if FDR wouldn't of gotten involved. The Depression is just an excuse he used to implement a socialist agenda. If he had been purely interested in getting the U.S. through the Depression, SS, etc. would of been strictly temporary...to say the least.

FDR respected the Constitution and longevity? What about the Court Packing threat?

You should read a little something about the Depression besides the leftist stuff that supports Stal...er, Roosevelt...something objective that doesn't necessarily encourage people to depend on the gov. There were a lot of people who were doing quite well when they started to exercise that pioneering, pull-yourself-up-from-your-own-boot-straps spirit that made America.


On Bush, I'd say that it's a perfect demo for why you shouldn't depend on the gov...Every now and again, someone who's particularly unpleasant is going to get the reigns and those who live in a flood zone or on welfare (Basically, those who depend on the gov.) will suffer. Do yourself a favor...depend on yourself and your community...not people on the other side of the country.

aikigirl10
03-12-2006, 06:54 PM
Yeah, that'd be great. You, John, and the have-more's could all join W's (rapidly dwindling) cheerleading section, as we all watch his shortsighted and cynical policies crumble away...taking this country's infrastructure with it... :dead:


lmao! I just said it make you mad, and so i could hear you spout out esoteric political terms that i dont even care/know about. I guess u haven't learned not to give a reaction. ;)

No hard feelings...

*Paige*

Neil Mick
03-12-2006, 08:48 PM
No hard feelings...

*Paige*

None taken. I was joking, too, rofl.

Hogan
03-13-2006, 08:44 AM
Man... no one got my joke?

Mark Freeman
03-13-2006, 10:09 AM
Man... no one got my joke?

I did ;)

Neil Mick
03-13-2006, 12:26 PM
On Bush, I'd say that it's a perfect demo for why you shouldn't depend on the gov...Every now and again, someone who's particularly unpleasant is going to get the reigns and those who live in a flood zone or on welfare (Basically, those who depend on the gov.) will suffer.

Jean,

Hindsight is 20/20. You can make the claim that the Depression would have passed without FDR: but of course you don't really know that. Also, you seem (as before, in previous arguments) to have a cavalier regard for the welfare and suffering of the poor.

Regarding New Orleans post-Katrina: sure, N.O. MIGHT survive without gov't'l aid stepping in; but if contemporary events are any indicator, it will mean that the poor will suffer, or be forced to move. The 9th Ward is still not being renovated (ppl say it looks as if Katrina hit yesterday); even while money is pouring in for wealthy contractors. You see, even tho the poor are being screwed: the gov't likes to help out its posh real estate contractor-friends...it was Bush's biggest lobbying group.

Or perhaps you failed to notice how all your ideas of nongov't'l interference and "entitlement" always seem to favor the wealthy, in the end...?

aikigirl10
03-13-2006, 03:44 PM
None taken. I was joking, too, rofl.

Riiiiight.... joking- meaning trying to make yourself sound smart.

It's ok Neil... really it is. :p

Michael Varin
03-13-2006, 06:42 PM
John,

I got your joke too, but I think this is a family friendly site, so I left it alone!

That wasn't English, Mark, it was American! Besides it was supposed to be a joke. Nice to hear from you again.

Jean,

You brought up some relevant points. FDR was not very different from other leaders of that era including Hitler and Stalin, and maybe not entirely different from Bush (George W, not the other kind). Here are a couple of links to articles showing the similarities of FDR and Hitler's economic policies.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0310j.asp

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0401f.asp

Let's not forget that FDR put 90,000 Americans into concentration camps.

There was a time before people believed that governments could solve every problem. There was a time when America stood for individual liberty, personal property, free markets, and limited government. These things caused our country to be great, caused us to rise in wealth very rapidly; they gave people a chance to succeed. Less and less this is the case. Government involves itself in every facet of our lives, and we are steadily becoming a police state. When we ask government to interfere in these things their social programs end up hurting the poorest people the most.

Paige,

I know that government and politics seem boring and antagonistic and petty. . . they are. But young people like yourself are the ones who can save us (as long as we don't destroy your ability to do so) by recognizing that when we take turns using government against each other there may be temporary winners and losers, but ultimately everyone loses. When we attempt to control others, we ourselves end up being controlled (funny it's kind of like aikido). Remember that when government gives something to you it takes something from another person. We have to give others the choice to live the way they want to live.

Michael

Adam Alexander
03-13-2006, 06:55 PM
You can make the claim that the Depression would have passed without FDR: but of course you don't really know that.

Well, I imagine that I don't know for sure that coffee will spill from my full coffee cup should I knock it over...but I'm willing to take an educated guess.

I'd like to lay the blame squarely on FDR--he was a shameful president who's maintainance of power was more important than the philosophy of the enlightened--but, he's just a manifestation of the "Greatest Generation's" desire for a MLM scheme.

Also, you seem (as before, in previous arguments) to have a cavalier regard for the welfare and suffering of the poor.

As it relates to the business of the government...absolutely. It's your's and my responsibility privately to make a difference...working together, not forcing each other.


N.O. MIGHT survive without gov't'l aid stepping in; but if contemporary events are any indicator, it will mean that the poor will suffer, or be forced to move.

You have to sleep in the bed you make.


the gov't likes to help out its posh real estate contractor-friends...Or perhaps you failed to notice how all your ideas of nongov't'l interference and "entitlement" always seem to favor the wealthy, in the end...?

See Neil, that's another example of how we, as the underclass, cannot expect the government to fix the world for us.

I don't understand where you get the idea that the rich are ever going to take care of us.

Mark Freeman
03-13-2006, 06:58 PM
That wasn't English, Mark, it was American! Besides it was supposed to be a joke. Nice to hear from you again.

Michael,
I knew it must be American by the accent :D I knew it must be a joke, so I replied with some thinly veiled irony ;)

cheers
Mark

Adam Alexander
03-13-2006, 06:58 PM
Paige,

I know that government and politics seem boring and antagonistic and petty. . . they are.

Terrifying, isn't it? That's the next generation.

Neil Mick
03-13-2006, 07:25 PM
lmao! I just said it make you mad, and so i could hear you spout out esoteric political terms that i dont even care/know about. I guess u haven't learned not to give a reaction. ;)

No hard feelings...

*Paige*

See, Paige: the really sad thing is not how much you think you are getting a rise out of me (that is to say, not at all): the really sad thing is that all these "esoteric political terms" that you care so little about are going to affect you and yours quite directly, down the road.

So, please! Sneer away: it changes nothing...you're safe in your cozy, hermetic shell of ignorance (at least: for the moment).

And really...trying to bait me is so grade-school... :rolleyes:

aikigirl10
03-13-2006, 07:29 PM
Paige,

But young people like yourself are the ones who can save us (as long as we don't destroy your ability to do so)

Michael

Well, you've already destroyed my ability to do so, of course i can only speak for myself.

Its the constant back and forth arguing between 2 parties that totally is turning young people off towards politics. Not to mention that it is pointless, unless you actually have a political status in our government. (<<<<i decided to bold that cuz i knew ppl would skip over it.)

That rambling on is only interesting after so long and then it just gets annoying. Seriously, half the time it is just 2 people on here arguing the same point back and forth and it never ends, how childish is that?

I can understand if you are trying to come to a solution to a problem or something productive but more often than not its just--

"i hate bush"

"well i dont"

Politics Suck. Thats my humble opinion.

*Paige

Neil Mick
03-13-2006, 07:38 PM
Well, I imagine that I don't know for sure that coffee will spill from my full coffee cup should I knock it over...but I'm willing to take an educated guess.

And if you think that plotting alternate fates of Depression is as simple as prophesizing over the fate of spilled coffee...well, let's just say that "educated guess" is not exactly how I'd describe your process.

I'd like to lay the blame squarely on FDR--he was a shameful president who's maintainance of power was more important than the philosophy of the enlightened--but, he's just a manifestation of the "Greatest Generation's" desire for a MLM scheme.

You might like to say that...but I'd like to say that Bush is getting his just desserts...but we'd both be wrong. :dead: :crazy:

As it relates to the business of the government...absolutely. It's your's and my responsibility privately to make a difference...working together, not forcing each other.

How nice: I am thrilled to hear that. Unfortunately, when disaster strikes: you seem to move yourself out to the bleacher-seats, when it comes to first priorities for caring. Worse, you utterly ignore one half of the equation.

You see Jean: no matter what, the gov't certainly WILL bail out someone in the N.O. disaster. But it won't be the poor, you you can put down the cheerleading pom-pom's out there in the bleachers.

No, it will be (and already is) the rich and wealthy, who will get the gov't'l dole. And your one-sided redlining of the poor as the only ppl on the dole is, at best: a miscategorization.

At worst, it's a form of economic discrimination.

You have to sleep in the bed you make.

Correction: you have to sleep in the bed that the Powers that Be, make.


See Neil, that's another example of how we, as the underclass, cannot expect the government to fix the world for us.

I don't understand where you get the idea that the rich are ever going to take care of us.

It's not about the "rich taking care of us:" again, this is a fallacious oversimplification.

aikigirl10
03-13-2006, 07:42 PM
the really sad thing is that all these "esoteric political terms" that you care so little about are going to affect you and yours quite directly, down the road.

And when that time comes i'm going to get up off of my sorry little butt and im going to .... DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!! You sitting here coughing up sophisticated phrases that u think are so clever, is not gonna help you, anymore than it will help me. So keep on talking. Waste your time. Personally, i'm done with this crap.

So, please! Sneer away: it changes nothing...you're safe in your cozy, hermetic shell of ignorance (at least: for the moment).

And really...trying to bait me is so grade-school... :rolleyes:

hmmm cozy hermetic shell of ignorance... omg, could u get anymore corny? And personally i don't think you have any right to assume that i'm ignorant... because honestly you know absolutely nothing about me Neil. I mean come on did you really think i wouldn't understand that ridiculous phrase?

Or does picking on little girls make you feel manlier?? Settle down Neil....play nice.

*Paige*

Neil Mick
03-13-2006, 07:46 PM
Well, you've already destroyed my ability to do so, of course i can only speak for myself.

Nonsense: clearly, you can write a letter, right? Well, a letter to the editor's a good start...

Its the constant back and forth arguing between 2 parties that totally is turning young people off towards politics.

This is called "debate:" it's the way it's been done, all the way back to ancient Greece.

Do you know of an alternate method?

Not to mention that it is pointless, unless you actually have a political status in our government. (<<<<i decided to bold that cuz i knew ppl would skip over it.)

But Paige: you DO actually have a political status in gov't! It's not much, and it dwindles ever more each day: but it's a "use it or lose it" situation.

To put it bluntly: If you ignore politics, politics will ignore you; or

the squeeky wheel gets the grease (unfortunately, too many pol's enhance those squeeks, with some filthy lucre of their own...ah well, better stop: my metaphors are beginning to conflict). :crazy:

That rambling on is only interesting after so long and then it just gets annoying. Seriously, half the time it is just 2 people on here arguing the same point back and forth and it never ends, how childish is that?

Political struggle is much more than 2 ppl arguing on the internet.

I can understand if you are trying to come to a solution to a problem or something productive but more often than not its just--

"i hate bush"

"well i dont"

Politics Suck. Thats my humble opinion.

*Paige

Wrong again, Paige. Only one person (eg., the orig post) here actually offered an opinion about Bush.

So, that shoots THAT theory out of the water. Perhaps a closer reading, other than a quick flyby, is sometimes needed?

Neil Mick
03-13-2006, 07:56 PM
And when that time comes i'm going to get up off of my sorry little butt and im going to .... DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!

...such as...? (something other than come on here and sneer, I hope).

You sitting here coughing up sophisticated phrases that u think are so clever, is not gonna help you, anymore than it will help me. So keep on talking. Waste your time. Personally, i'm done with this crap.

Ooh! You showed me!! :eek:

hmmm cozy hermetic shell of ignorance... omg, could u get anymore corny?

Yah: I toyed with "shadowy tomb of ultimate darkness," but it sounded too "D&D" :D :D

And personally i don't think you have any right to assume that i'm ignorant... because honestly you know absolutely nothing about me Neil.

Ooh! Did I hit a nerve?

You're right: I know nothing about you. But when you come on here and offer nothing positive to the conversation (worse, when you say it's all a bunch of crap): it leads one to make certain conclusions, right or wrong.

I mean come on did you really think i wouldn't understand that ridiculous phrase?

Nooo....you're sitting at a comp; I trust you understand the subtleties of using the internet. :rolleyes:

Or does picking on little girls make you feel manlier??

Only picking on little girls who sneer at a conversation of which they profess to know nothing, nor do they care to....now THAT makes me feel like a REAL man!!! :p

Settle down Neil....play nice.

*Paige*

Here's a big word for you, Paige...have you ever heard of "projecting?" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=projection)

The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others.
The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

P.S. I know nothing about you...and you know nothing about me. What I write here, at best, is what I call "political catharsis."

My REAL political work is quite different,,,and more involved...

aikigirl10
03-13-2006, 08:17 PM
This is called "debate:" it's the way it's been done, all the way back to ancient Greece.

Do you know of an alternate method?



Ok, Now you're putting words in my mouth... you know what i meant but the only way u can argue is to twist everything. When you are ready to say something meaningful to me i'll be here to listen.

This entire thing is childish and i'll admit i had a part in it. I'll also admit i wasnt the only one. ^^^ talk about sneering, look at all your posts^^^^ I'm ready to shut up cuz frankly its getting on my f*in nerves.

Neil Mick
03-13-2006, 08:25 PM
Ok, Now you're putting words in my mouth... you know what i meant but the only way u can argue is to twist everything.

No, that was stated with no sarcasm intended, at all. I really don't know of any other (positive) method to discuss politics with someone in a contrary position, than debate (other than name-calling, etc).

I'm ready to shut up cuz frankly its getting on my f*in nerves.

Well, that's too bad...I really was interested in your answer to this question:


And when that time comes i'm going to get up off of my sorry little butt and im going to .... DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!



...such as...?

aikigirl10
03-13-2006, 08:42 PM
and my answer is :

1.protest
2.boycott
3. start groups or organizations (in favor or in opposition of a cause)
4. Join groups or organizations " "
5. run for political offices
6. Vote
7. encourage others to vote

Is that enough for you neil?

aikigirl10
03-13-2006, 08:45 PM
No, that was stated with no sarcasm intended, at all. I really don't know of any other (positive) method to discuss politics with someone in a contrary position, than debate (other than name-calling, etc).



I wasnt talking about political discussion Neil when i said that. I meant the type of arguing when people just state their opinion and force it on others. Can you not read between the lines even a little bit??

Neil Mick
03-13-2006, 10:46 PM
Is that enough for you neil?

Thank you, the answer is fine. I could have done without the sarcasm, tho.

Can you not read between the lines even a little bit??

Again...sarcasm. Tsk.

Michael Neal
03-14-2006, 08:37 AM
:)

Hogan
03-14-2006, 08:52 AM
Thank you, the answer is fine. I could have done without the sarcasm, tho.



Again...sarcasm. Tsk.

Neil, c'mon, man.... Paige (according to her profile) just turned 16. You are, what, in your 40's? Despite whether people agree with you or not, arguing like you are with someone who can be your daughter doesn't look good.... I am beginning to wonder who is the 16 yr old.

And Paige - arguing with Neil is like arguing with the preverbial brick wall - you will get nowhere. Just accept that, and you will grow to enjoy his arguments in the light hearted manner that I do. Until then, enjoy this baby pic of Neil I came across on the net...

http://www.david-hoke.de/4images/data/thumbnails/12/Mr.Bean.das.Baby.Bild.jpg

James Davis
03-14-2006, 11:17 AM
Again...sarcasm. Tsk.
Will that be your new sig, Neil? ;)

James Davis
03-14-2006, 11:38 AM
I'd like to lay the blame squarely on FDR--he was a shameful president who's maintainance of power was more important than the philosophy of the enlightened--but, he's just a manifestation of the "Greatest Generation's" desire for a MLM scheme.


"maintenance of power"

Yeah, that sounds about right.
FDR and his administration started a little program that they decided to call "Social Security".

Social Security for whom?

Statistically, white people live longer than blacks. A black guy can bust his hump his whole life paying into the system and he might collect benefits for a few years, if he's lucky. When he passes away, will his family get access to the money that he's been contributing for all of his adult life?

<ahem> No.

All of the money (if it's even still there) is going to go to some old crusty white lady that that family has never met.

Why are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton not fighting to get this changed? - For the same reason that the program was created by democrats in the first place...

to have people to "fight" for.

The democratice party and the Rainbow Coalition both need "victims" to "help" in order to remain in power (and make the moolah).

Just for argument's sake, let's look at the people who benefit (a little) from this plan. For the people who live long enough to collect Social Security benefits, how happy does it make them? Is it enough to live on? Um, no. NO!

The only thing that this program was designed to do was take money out of the pockets of Americans in an effort to make them dependent on the government. Nobody gets back anywhere near the amount they put in.

Oh yeah, here's another interesting thing about Social Security:

There is NO guarantee that you will EVER get your money back.

There is no "Social Security lockbox", and if I hear that liar Al Gore say that there is again I'm going to break something.

Social Security certainly has been around a long time, and sure has been a success...

...for some. :disgust:

Mark Freeman
03-14-2006, 12:18 PM
Oh yeah, here's another interesting thing about Social Security:

There is NO guarantee that you will EVER get your money back.

A bit like private insurance then?

Hogan
03-14-2006, 01:11 PM
A bit like private insurance then?

Are you talking about health insurance? You do know health insurance and social security retirement funds are two different subjects....

Neil Mick
03-14-2006, 01:19 PM
Neil, c'mon, man.... Paige (according to her profile) just turned 16. You are, what, in your 40's? Despite whether people agree with you or not, arguing like you are with someone who can be your daughter doesn't look good.... I am beginning to wonder who is the 16 yr old.

And so, YOU reveal YOUR bias.

Personally, I don't limit a person's intellectual ability to some ageist standard...if a person wants to talk politics: have at it!

I won't mollycoddle someone. It's all in good fun, in any case.

Excepting, of course: for those who CANNOT seem to go for the low-blow (i.e., insult). It's doubly sad, when ppl feel the impulse to insult, when they weren't even in the discussion.

Remind me again...who's the immature one...?

I suppose if I were to descend to your level: I'd be posting some picture of an animal with Rush Limbaugh's head on it, saying some mature thing like: "This is YOU, John!" But you know? I think I'll pass.


And Paige - arguing with Neil is like arguing with the preverbial brick wall - you will get nowhere.

And Paige - accepting advice from ppl like John is like accepting the word of a liar-in-office...in the end, he'll always steer you wrong.

Neil Mick
03-14-2006, 01:21 PM
Will that be your new sig, Neil? ;)

And see? Children of a feather...

Hogan
03-14-2006, 02:09 PM
And so, YOU reveal YOUR bias.

Personally, I don't limit a person's intellectual ability to some ageist standard...if a person wants to talk politics: have at it!

I won't mollycoddle someone. It's all in good fun, in any case.
It's not intellectual ability; it's about a 40-something acting with maturity, and not engaging in a pissing contest over a web board with a 16 yr old. (And no offense to you Paige - not saying that you are acting like a child...).

Excepting, of course: for those who CANNOT seem to go for the low-blow (i.e., insult). It's doubly sad, when ppl feel the impulse to insult, when they weren't even in the discussion.

Remind me again...who's the immature one...?

I'm sorry, did I insult?

I suppose if I were to descend to your level: I'd be posting some picture of an animal with Rush Limbaugh's head on it, saying some mature thing like: "This is YOU, John!" But you know? I think I'll pass.

Have at it - I enjoy the co-mingling of animals and humans....
(hmmm, maybe that didn't come out right).

aikigirl10
03-14-2006, 02:54 PM
Thank you, the answer is fine. I could have done without the sarcasm, tho.
Again...sarcasm. Tsk.

Are we done with this argument, or do u still feel like nit picking?

aikigirl10
03-14-2006, 02:57 PM
It's not intellectual ability; it's about a 40-something acting with maturity, and not engaging in a pissing contest over a web board with a 16 yr old. (And no offense to you Paige - not saying that you are acting like a child...).



oh, none taken... anything to shut him up.

Ron Tisdale
03-14-2006, 03:15 PM
Hmmm. Politics....

In Kenya, politics was whether or not you were 'connected' enough to cross the local border and get to the market. Without the market, you were stuck with what you could grow.

In Uganda, politics could easily determine whether or not you lived or died.

Americans have it easy. They can ignore their politics.

Best,
Ron (for better or for worse, just to add some perspective)

James Davis
03-14-2006, 06:03 PM
Hmmm. Politics....

In Kenya, politics was whether or not you were 'connected' enough to cross the local border and get to the market. Without the market, you were stuck with what you could grow.

In Uganda, politics could easily determine whether or not you lived or died.

Americans have it easy. They can ignore their politics.

Best,
Ron (for better or for worse, just to add some perspective)
Yeah, I understand. Things are different all over.

In the U.S., the people who are put into the catergory of "the poor" often have two color TV's and a VCR. Oh, the horror! They have to drive a used car!

In Haiti, the real poor have nothing. Nothing. No food, no shelter, very few paved roads. There are orphanages with rooms full of babies that volunteers try to help develope nervous systems and motor skills (should they live to be toddlers) simply by holding and cuddling them for a couple minutes at a time. You can only hold them for that long because you have to attend to the rest. There are improvements every day, slowly but surely (but we won't talk about those. Those might be the doing of "the religious right).

Americans damn sure do have it easy, and way too many choose to ignore their politics. I'm not talking about people who just get sick of the oligarchy's antics and turn off their radio or TV that day; I'm talking about people who don't know anything about what the heck's going on. For some, their only source of information is the network news on TV, and I feel such sorrow for them. Thank God for radio and computers, or we would have every news source trying to feed us the same BS five second soundbite out of the whole day's occurences.

I am so sick of people trying to convince me to hate the rich, or people who worship differently, or with a different genetic history than mine. They have something that I don't, and some think that should be the driving force behind my political decisions. Whatever. Give us some (good) ideas for the country, and not just rhetoric to goad us into racism and class warfare.

If some are so keen on getting back at rich people for evil deeds real or imagined, they need to check out fairtax.org. Under this plan, the more stuff you buy - the more you're taxed. That way, those of us who are so lucky as to be labled "have mores", will contribute more toward the federal coffers (not that they don't already).

I'm struggling. I don't have a house of my own. I drive a little dented up pickup. I have a kid on the way, and I am not prepared!
If, because I'm going to night school and working hard to better myself right now, I end up in a higher tax bracket later...

...who's gonna call me greedy?

Someone who wants the vote of a guy in a situation just like mine, that's who! :disgust:

Neil Mick
03-14-2006, 06:28 PM
It's not intellectual ability; it's about a 40-something acting with maturity, and not engaging in a pissing contest over a web board with a 16 yr old. (And no offense to you Paige - not saying that you are acting like a child...).

And, your sensible, rational retort was meant to make me see the error of my ways,,,sort of like the way one practices Aikido, right? :crazy: :rolleyes:


I'm sorry, did I insult?

I'm sorry...did I confuse you for an adult...?

Have at it - I enjoy the co-mingling of animals and humans....
(hmmm, maybe that didn't come out right).

Not even with a 10 ft pole, will I go THERE...

Neil Mick
03-14-2006, 06:30 PM
Are we done with this argument, or do u still feel like nit picking?

oh, none taken... anything to shut him up.

Oh what's the matter, Paige.... I guess u haven't learned not to give a reaction....ahem. But maybe John's right (in his subtext): maybe you aren't mature enough to have a discussion in politics.

Personally, tho: I'd NEVER make that call. I assume that anyone who posts here has that maturity.

Perhaps I'm wrong....hasn't been the first time. :straightf

Adam Alexander
03-14-2006, 07:41 PM
And if you think that plotting alternate fates of Depression is as simple as prophesizing over the fate of spilled coffee...well, let's just say that "educated guess" is not exactly how I'd describe your process.

Then you might want to brush up on economics.


You might like to say that...but I'd like to say that Bush is getting his just desserts...but we'd both be wrong. :dead: :crazy: .

Actually, you might want to brush up on your FDR and his assent to, and maintenance of, power. In addition to that, you'll want to brush up on your historical perspective of human nature...as well as government.

Once you see the whole picture, you'll understand it.



How nice: I am thrilled to hear that. Unfortunately, when disaster strikes: you seem to move yourself out to the bleacher-seats, when it comes to first priorities for caring. Worse, you utterly ignore one half of the equation. .

Actually, I still get solicitations from St. Jude's. You don't get those because you have a history of not giving. LOL. I'll keep in mind that I'm "in the bleachers" the next time I meet with my "tutee" for the Literacy Program that I spend an hour a week on.

LOL.

You see Jean: no matter what, the gov't certainly WILL bail out someone in the N.O. disaster. But it won't be the poor, you you can put down the cheerleading pom-pom's out there in the bleachers..

I wouldn't disagree with that...However, as long as it's the rich paying the bills, they should be getting the fruits.

And your one-sided redlining of the poor as the only ppl on the dole is, at best: a miscategorization. .

Didn't say they were on the dole. Just saying that if you choose to live in a flood zone...You reep what you sow...Don't expect everyone else to fix your bad decision making.


At worst, it's a form of economic discrimination..

Sure it is. I expect them to be discriminatory in their spending. I expect them to discriminate between good expenses which help the country recover and bad expenses which encourage people to continue their bad decision making.

When I first started driving a car, if the road sign said "in five days, this road will be shut down," I'd take another route--usually more time consuming--on the day construction was to start. However, after a couple years, I found that normally construction didn't start. So, I stopped paying attention to those signs and stayed the course ;) until a detour sign stopped me.

That's how the government rewarding bad decisions. If those people are helped, then others will believe that they don't need to prepare for a tornado, flood, tidal wave, etc. That's the effect.



Correction: you have to sleep in the bed that the Powers that Be, make..

To an extent. That's why you have to hold back the powers that be by not having big government programs that empower them.




It's not about the "rich taking care of us:" again, this is a fallacious oversimplification.

Agreed. What it's really about for you is equality as seen from a socialistic perspective: Anyone who has more ability or drive has to support those who demonstrate less of it. You reward laziness and second rate performers at the cost of those who work hard and get out and do it.

The result is disheartened first-rate individuals who don't exercise their drive.

Which is exactly what your ideal is: No one takes too much of the pie, because in your warped world, that means there's more for others.

Unfortunately, that means the others--because of market need--can be second rate performers...Which means quality goes down because of an absence of necessity...Which means the people who have the least money suffer the worst because they have to deal with the absolute worst of the pool.

Come on Neil, I know it's not that "simple." However, I didn't want to demo your ideology to this extent.

aikigirl10
03-14-2006, 08:01 PM
.... I guess u haven't learned not to give a reaction....ahem.


Imitation is the finest form of flattery.

thanks Neil.

Mark Freeman
03-15-2006, 04:18 AM
Are you talking about health insurance? You do know health insurance and social security retirement funds are two different subjects....

Of course I know the difference John, I was just trying to highlight a point that for me was quite obvious.
There are no gaurantees of getting your money back from private health or pensions insurance.
Why should there be a gaurantee of getting all the money back that you pay into a government Social Security scheme??

James Davis
03-15-2006, 12:21 PM
The only thing that this program was designed to do was take money out of the pockets of Americans in an effort to make them dependent on the government. Nobody gets back anywhere near the amount they put in.

Oh yeah, here's another interesting thing about Social Security:

There is NO guarantee that you will EVER get your money back.

There is no "Social Security lockbox", and if I hear that liar Al Gore say that there is again I'm going to break something.


Mark, for you the point was quite obvious because you've taken the time to find out the truth for yourself...

or maybe someone with integrity told you the truth.

The point of my above statements was to clue in the people who have been listening to the wrong politicians. Just a couple years ago, when the Bush administration tried to change Social Security so that people could invest their own money, I kept hearing words like "lockbox" and "guarantee" from Al Gore and others. :rolleyes:

It wasn't true at all, and there are still some people that believe it. My above statements were meant for them.

Oh, and by the way, a major difference between Social Security and private investments is this:

We can choose not to participate in insurance and private investments. Not so with Social Security. With Social Security, we are forced to give our money to a program that is guaranteed to have a horrible return... :crazy:

...if any return at all.

There is no law that says the government has to give your money back. There is no law that says they can't do whatever they want with our money and not use it to take care of us in our old age.

The Social Security program is horrible; that's why our representatives aren't on it. They have their own retirement program that us peasants don't have access to. :mad:

Pookie Pickle
03-15-2006, 12:24 PM
at the moment i think that he is the most hated man in the world...not an exageation

James Davis
03-15-2006, 12:27 PM
at the moment i think that he is the most hated man in the world...not an exageation
Nah, that's Pauly Shore. :)

Or maybe Pee-Wee Herman. :D

Hogan
03-15-2006, 01:00 PM
at the moment i think that he is the most hated man in the world...not an exageation

Wow - even more than these guys? If so, then you guys need a life.


http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators

Mark Freeman
03-15-2006, 02:09 PM
James,

Mark, for you the point was quite obvious because you've taken the time to find out the truth for yourself...

or maybe someone with integrity told you the truth.

The point of my above statements was to clue in the people who have been listening to the wrong politicians. Just a couple years ago, when the Bush administration tried to change Social Security so that people could invest their own money, I kept hearing words like "lockbox" and "guarantee" from Al Gore and others.

Looking for the truth is part of my aikido practice, I do my best to look for it off the mat as well ;)

We can choose not to participate in insurance and private investments. Not so with Social Security. With Social Security, we are forced to give our money to a program that is guaranteed to have a horrible return...

I can't, I am legally bound to carry motor insurance, the only choice is criminality and that's no choice at all. :(
The returns aren't that good either :p

I can't really comment on the US Social Security system, it doesn't rate high on my list of things to fill my head up with, that is not to belittle it as I know it is important to you guy's there, whether for or against, it should be. Social Security sometimes serves the purpose inherent in it's name. There are countries in europe that have SS systems that are in my opinion are decent and functioning systems that serve it's citizens quite well.

Now US foreign policy I take more interest in, as I'm sure you will agree, has an impact on the whole global community.
on the matter of the thread topic, I don't hate George Bush, he seems to me, not to be his own man. He is either a servant for God whom I believe he says he has a direct link to. Or a servant of the men of power who put him there. Either way the man himself shows very little grasp of the concept of original thought. He is not really worthy of much 'hate' as it is an exercise in pointlessness.
What should be hated are the actions of men that allows culpable people to not be held to account for their actions.
I believe Mr Bush's popularity stands at around the 35% mark, which I guess means that 2/3rds of the population are not that keen on him either. :)

regards,
Mark

Neil Mick
03-15-2006, 04:54 PM
Then you might want to brush up on economics.

Gosh, you're right...if predicting economic trends is as easy as predicting the fate of coffee-spills...why, I've been doing my life all wrong!

But, if it IS so easy: how come all the economists are often wrong?

Actually, you might want to brush up on your FDR and his assent to, and maintenance of, power. In addition to that, you'll want to brush up on your historical perspective of human nature...as well as government.

Gosh (again!), I'd better start reading. I have a lot of knowledge to catch up on..."Economics for Dummies;" "FDR Ripped us All Off;" and "Historical Perspectives of Human Nature."

It's sad, that all my college-learning has gone to waste. :rolleyes:

Once you see the whole picture, you'll understand it.

As you already do, I imagine.

Actually, I still get solicitations from St. Jude's. You don't get those because you have a history of not giving. LOL. I'll keep in mind that I'm "in the bleachers" the next time I meet with my "tutee" for the Literacy Program that I spend an hour a week on.

LOL.

Great. But when it comes to providing help for people without homes: you're all "help yourself."

When it comes to big business getting gov't aid and assistance at the expense and livelihood of those same people you admonish to "help themselves," you're awfully silent. Hmm.

I wouldn't disagree with that...However, as long as it's the rich paying the bills, they should be getting the fruits.

This, from the Economic Sensei?? :crazy: :crazy:

The rich ARE rich, on the backs of the poor. They achieved their record-setting wealth by undercutting health benefits, by shortchanging on wages, by receiving the benefit of pork programs penned by their selected representatives, paid for by their generous contributions (cf, Abramoff, et al).

The rich don't pay the proportionate amount of the bills...you got the group wrong. Paying all the bills is the (gov't app'td) job of the poor. The rich just sit back and collect the windfalls, kicked over by their gov't lackeys.

Didn't say they were on the dole. Just saying that if you choose to live in a flood zone...You reep what you sow...Don't expect everyone else to fix your bad decision making.

If you choose to be born/be indigent/go insane/homeless/too poor/get injured/are too old to move...you reap what you sow.

There you go again, with that bleacher-cheerleading.

Sure it is. I expect them to be discriminatory in their spending. I expect them to discriminate between good expenses which help the country recover and bad expenses which encourage people to continue their bad decision making.

When I first started driving a car, if the road sign said "in five days, this road will be shut down," I'd take another route--usually more time consuming--on the day construction was to start. However, after a couple years, I found that normally construction didn't start. So, I stopped paying attention to those signs and stayed the course ;) until a detour sign stopped me.

You forget that the choice to actually put that sign out and wait so long WAS a gov't decision. By parallel, you ignore the bad decisions--mostly motivated by racism--that led to the 2nd disaster of Katrina.

Instead, you expect 10's of thousands of infirm, elderly and ppl incapable of moving to somehow magically pull themselves up, when the gov't isn't even bothering with providing proper supplies of food and water.

In short, my friend: you expect the impossible. As I have said before, your idea to cut off support for the poor has been tried, in many nations and civilizations in the past: and all it brings, in the end, is more poverty and misery.

That's how the government rewarding bad decisions. If those people are helped, then others will believe that they don't need to prepare for a tornado, flood, tidal wave, etc. That's the effect.

Oh, please. This is just nonsense. If this were so, then I suppose we should be seeing a huge, concerted effort by the poor to prepare for the "next Big One," since we all KNOW nowe that FEMA cannot be counted upon.

Obviously, they aren't. What the poor are worried about in N.O. right now is preserving their homes (what is left) from greedy, unchecked speculators; in finding their loved-one's spread far and wide by Katrina because the gov't didn't bother to keep records of relocations; and even voting for the poor has been sharply curtailed, since the N.O. Powers that Be are not providing for satellite polling stations at nearby cities, for dispossessed N.O. residents.

To an extent. That's why you have to hold back the powers that be by not having big government programs that empower them.

Since you have no data or method to prove that big gov't'l programs "hold ppl back," let's just say that my grain-o-salt bag, is now a little lighter. ;)

Agreed. What it's really about for you is equality as seen from a socialistic perspective:

A friendly note of caution, Jean...beware of trying to guess "what's really going on," in my head. Sometimes I can't even do that! :)

But seriously, tho: I think you still don't understand my views, so pls don't try to tell me what I think.

Anyone who has more ability or drive has to support those who demonstrate less of it. You reward laziness and second rate performers at the cost of those who work hard and get out and do it.

You see...? Wrong. I wish gov't would help ppl in disadvantaged circumstances. I think a nationwide dole, giving ppl a low-baseline salary just to get by, is a far, far, superior method of governance than, say, bankrupting your infrastructure to support opportunistic and cynical occupations abroad, or to provide economic incentives to the have-more's, helping in their cause to whitewash New Orleans.

The result is disheartened first-rate individuals who don't exercise their drive.

Which is exactly what your ideal is: No one takes too much of the pie, because in your warped world, that means there's more for others.

You see? So, so wrong.

So, for my part, I am not going to try to tell you what you think, or how you view the world...I am just going to point out a "missing link" in your ideas presented so far.

In all your posts, you seem to downplay the damage that racism enacts upon the poor. You sweep all that under the rug, suggesting dismissively that they need to pull their own weight. But, in a case such as Katrina: the damage and effect of racism becomes more apparent. I'm sure that if it were so simple to leave N.O. when the food ran out: many would. But as you may (or may not) recall, some tried, and were forced back across the bridge at gunpoint.

Gosh, I guess those slacker N.O. residents should have thought of that when they weren't preparing for Katrina, huh?? :freaky:

You began this post with an admonition to study more. So, here's some extra reading for you:

Michael Eric Dysen on Katrina and the Color of Disaster (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/06/1424232&mode=thread&tid=25)

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Right, right. Well, you are absolutely right. The economic conditions of poor people there were most atrocious. These people are making minimum wage or less. Many of them are working in the service industry. They are providing relief. Remember, George Bush went down there -- wink, wink, "I came down here and had a bunch of fun." But who was changing your bed sheets? Who was providing the opportunity for the relief that you felt?

Many of those poor people were invisible, as Michael Harrington would argue a few decades ago, and they were subject to the worst forms of, you know, cronyism that was already at place in New Orleans, and Mayor Ray Nagin, though he has been remade as a working class hero, certainly was called Ray Reagan because of his conservative politics. He crossed party lines and supported Bobby Jindal, who is now a Republican congressman there, against Kathleen Babineaux Blanco for her run for the governor. So this guy is not a exactly screaming leftist, and he came out of the business entrepreneur field as Cox Cable vice president to run New Orleans, and he was a man who allowed a thousand seats on an Amtrak train to go empty to Mississippi, no one on. We saw the buses

AMY GOODMAN: Explain, remind us.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Well, what happened is that Amtrak called up and said, "Look, we've got a thousand -- nearly a thousand-seat train empty" -- a "dumb head" train they call it -- "running from New Orleans to higher ground in Mississippi to take some equipment and we want to put people on." His office turned them down.

AMY GOODMAN: Right at the time?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Right at the time, right before it hit so it could have gotten people out of there. He turned them down. You saw the buses drown infamously. Mayor Nagin was called at Saturday, that is, you know, the hurricane hit early Monday morning. Saturday at 6:00 by the head of the Weather Service. "This is the worst hurricane I have ever seen. I want to go to bed with a good conscience. Please get these people out."

He thought about it overnight. He consulted with the business community, because he didn't want to be legally liable for any suits filed by them were he to call a mandatory evacuation, and they said -- Well, say, for instance, Hyatt Regency or some other company said, "You put us out of business or you tamped down on our business." So it was that kind of ridiculous messing with the people's future, so to speak, that is quite tragic. He cursed the Bush administration out and others later on. That was a remarkable moment of political lucidity, but for the most part, I think he fumbled along with the federal government, and the federal government -- if he was bad, they were much worse.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let's talk about the federal government's response. We were just playing the clip of the video conference that President Bush had --

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: -- before Hurricane Katrina hit, where he didn't ask a question --

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Right, right.

AMY GOODMAN: -- and then headed off Monday and Tuesday to San Diego, to Arizona, to celebrate Senator McCain's birthday.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the administration's response? Where were you as you were watching this?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah, well, you know, I'm watching like everybody else, glued to the television, but it's atrocious. President Bush literally eating cake --you know, it's a reversal of that "let them eat cake." I guess he and McCain ate their own, and then the San Diego Padres game was attended by, you know, Donald Rumsfeld. Condoleezza Rice buying Ferragamo shoes here, famously, in New York while her people drowned, her people. She is from Birmingham, Alabama. No incentive for her to reach out and say, "maybe we should do something about this situation," and the pass she has been given by Black people, to me, is unforgivable, because her politics have put her at odds with the fundamental impulse toward freedom and justice and, at least, fairness that we've celebrated.

So, the Bush administration was awful in its response, immediately and then collectively. Michael Brown, though he has been made a scapegoat, to be sure, and I thankfully point this out in my book, but he was incompetent, the head of the International Arabian Horse Association. Yeah, it sounds like a real recommendation to head FEMA. Joseph Alba, who was his predecessor, had no experience; out of the Bush campaign in 2000, he went into that office.

They allowed 60 countries to -- you know, turned them down, basically, for help. They also allowed people, 500 firemen came down looking to be helpful. What did they do? They passed out leaflets with 1-800 numbers for FEMA. They were outraged and pulled off their FEMA shirts and said, "We will not serve with them." U.S.S. Baton, a big ship with hundreds of beds that could have given 100,000 potable gallons of water every day. Nothing was called upon except one helicopter. Blackhawk helicopters down there transferring the media to the site, but nothing else.

So we missed a great opportunity. It's not that we didn't have the ability to do so. It's that they failed to do so, because they had no experience, and plus, let's be honest, this was a government that believes that the government is the enemy of the people. I mean, George Bush is the child of Ronald Reagan. And it just amazes me, the people who hate the government the most want to run it, but they get in charge, and then they try to downsize it, but they've expanded it in deleterious fashion. But beyond that, they've failed to use the bureaucracy in defense of the people. I mean, Jim Carroll in Boston argues that if the people own the government, and the government represents the people, then the government helping the people is self-help. And this government just doesn't understand it. This administration certainly doesn't comprehend that.

AMY GOODMAN: You talk in the book about what was happening to people in New Orleans. You have a quote of Darnell Herrington, a Katrina survivor. Talk about what happened to him.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah, well, this young man, and I've met -- he's just amazing young man, 26 years old, and a quite gifted rapper, as well, but he's a worker down there, and he's walking, and suddenly he feels burning in his chest and realizes he has been shot by buckshot in the front from his neck down, on his chest. He falls on the ground, rises back up to try to walk again and is shot in his back. Remarkably, he survives. His cousin runs off. He goes to several houses trying to get help. They turn him down, mostly white people. He saw a black man. He tried to go to him for help. The black man said, "Come on in," but there was a white woman in this house that said, "You've got to get out of here. I can't help you." He had to go back out. He saw two white gentlemen in a truck. He went up to them. "Please, please, help me." They used the N word on him and said, "We're liable to kill you ourselves, so get out of our faces." Then he found a white woman in a house, I think with a black family, who took him in and who lied -- because the guys who had shot him came looking for him, and they lied and said he wasn't there.

AMY GOODMAN: And who had shot him?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: These two white gentlemen, and they were trying to get the N -- you know, trying to get the Negros -- I don't know if we can use that word on your show, trying get them out, and they said, "We are trying to kill these black people," because the media had drummed up the notion that these black people were anarchic and down here doing all devastating manner of things. So the reality is, is that the media, ironically enough, celebrating its own self, patting its own self on the back for being libratory, had reinforced some of the prevailing stereotypes about black people down there. As it turns out, only ten people were dead, only one from homicide, not this 200 and 300 people we thought, not young people raping seven-year-old babies and so on. I'm sure rape, which is an underreported crime under any condition, certainly occurred there. So I'm not dismissing that, but not to the degree that was suggested and not with the kind of barbaric intensity that was prefigured in the media.

So, this white guy -- these white guys were saying, "We are getting rid of the niggers, and that's what we are doing, and we're looking for this guy," and they shot him. And his story is quite remarkable because there are many more stories like that that didn't come to the fore, although I think the major racial response was not of that ilk; it was of the ilk that said, you know, the same racial framework that allows us to look for Natalie Holloway when she disappears, but when Tamika Houston disappears there's nobody looking for her, that's the same racial framework. It's a collective unconsciousness, a set of racial cues that suggests what's important, what's not important, who should looked at, who should not be looked at.

I think if a nation of -- a camera full of Barbara Bushes were down there drowning in New Orleans, it's not that the incompetence of the government could have been in any way tamped down upon immediately, but they might have tried harder, and I think that's the issue of race in this particular situation. The black people did not spawn an intuitive response by either the government -- and this is a Southern racial narrative to me. Michael Brown from Oklahoma, George Bush, Texas-bred, black people from Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. It's a southern racial narrative playing itself out on a global stage.

I think we saw the vicious politics of the collective racial imagination of the South, which has no tolerance, as one historian put it, either for black pain or black suffering on the one hand or black agency or success on the other. Both of them are obliterated in the Southern imagination, and we saw that down in Hurricane Katrina.

AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Michael Eric Dyson, Professor of Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster. His book before that: Is Bill Cosby Right? Can you make a link between the two?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah, well, I think this book is a continuation of that. In the new book, I have another new book out called Pride: The Seven Deadly Sins, where I take up issues, but I'll speak --

AMY GOODMAN: Are you writing a book as you are sitting here? You write so many books.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: I should write a book on you. I mean, you are a phenomenal woman. So, the Bill Cosby book is a book that addresses Bill Cosby's vicious and vituperative remarks about poor black people and his dis of them, and I tried to take up the cudgel he threw down at them and use it to reshape it into a defense, a hammer, on the anvil of political consciousness to say, "Wait a minute. Let's shape this in a different way. You don't have to beat up on poor people. You don't have to dog them, talk about the names they give their kids, beat up on poor people on welfare."

Really, it was an attack on women. I think about this Women's History Month. Mr. Cosby's assault was really basically on poor black women and how they allow their kids to buy gym shoes and sneakers and not "Hooked on Phonics" and so on, taking small snippets of anecdotal experience to fashion a political assault upon them that was ill-founded. So I tried to of prove how ill-founded it was.

AMY GOODMAN: So this was in response to Bill Cosby saying what?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yes. Well, he said that basically black people who are poor have not held up their end of the bargain of the Civil Rights Movement, and he didn't say it that nicely. He went on and on and on using negative -- "these people," this clinically dispassionate language for poor black people, pointing the finger at them, suggesting that they were incapable of joining the mainstream of America, precisely because they were anti-intellectual, uneducated, and disinclined to do anything serious about their lives.

And then I tried to say, "Look, it is a lot more than personal responsibility." I think personal responsibility is critical, but it's one wing of the plane, so to speak. The other wing, he never speaks about: social injustice, political impediments to flourishing of poor black people, the condition of their lives when they're born. How about the perpetuation of a legacy of injustice that is economically driven that he never speaks about? How about big corporations for which he shields mercilessly, who create desire in young people to have stuff like gym shoes, that he might have come along and been a person who promoted them had he come along right now.

AMY GOODMAN: And the links to Katrina and the response to it?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Well, I think, in many ways, the same black people who felt that Cosby was right, Shaniqua, Taliqua, as he used their names, who are -- and he says they're all in jail. Well, if you believe that, you believe the people in Katrina basically got what they deserve. Poor people who don't work hard, who don't get up every morning to do what they are supposed to do basically get what they deserve. It sounds vicious, but I think that's the logical leap.

The link also is that Mr. Cosby let off any segment of conscientious white America about its own role and responsibility in what we saw down there, and again, the government, especially the Bush administration, might have taken the Cosby approach, "Look, this is the consequence of what people do. This is -- had you worked harder and gotten a way out" -- didn't Bill O'Reilly say on television, "Look at this scene. And when you see this, young people, realize this. If you don't get an education, this is what will happen to you."

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Dyson, we only have a minute left. President Bush is headed to the Gulf Coast this week. We saw Mardi Gras kind of take place this week, a very different New Orleans, not the African American city that we are used to. What do you think has to happen?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Well, I mean, the reconstruction has to pay attention to the Ninth Ward and to poor people there. The higher ground will always be rebuilt. The lower ground will always suffer. The lower ground and higher ground has always been racially segregated and class driven. What we have to do is make sure that the reconstruction of New Orleans happens with the input of the people who are there. There are some very progressive groups there who have already, before the storm, put forth arguments about how New Orleans should be -- the demographics should be spread out and the resources should be given to those poorer people. Those voices need to be heard in order for New Orleans to come back anywhere near the demographic integrity it had before the storm.

Neil Mick
03-15-2006, 11:26 PM
at the moment i think that he is the most hated man in the world...not an exageation

(who is 15 yrs of age...)

Pot.

Wow - even more than these guys? If so, then you guys need a life.


http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators

Kettle.

Neil, c'mon, man.... Paige (according to her profile) just turned 16. You are, what, in your 40's...I am beginning to wonder who is the 16 yr old.

Black.

arguing with Neil is like arguing with the preverbial brick wall - you will get nowhere.

:cool:

Hogan
03-16-2006, 09:03 AM
(who is 15 yrs of age...)...

I suppose you are trying to compare my one sentence response to your pissing contest with Paige? AHAHHAHA.....

Face it Neil - all your attempts to cover up and excuse your behavior will not work. You, old man, beat up on a 16 yr old and it's all here to see.

Neil Mick
03-16-2006, 11:11 AM
:dead: :dead: :dead:

Hogan
03-16-2006, 11:26 AM
:dead: :dead: :dead:

Yes. An old man....

:D

Neil Mick
03-16-2006, 11:36 AM
Face it Neil - all your attempts to cover up and excuse your behavior will not work. You, old man, beat up on a 16 yr old and it's all here to see.


Yes. An old man....

:D


This is the "best" you can come up with...? :dead: :dead: (really, it's too bad aikiweb doesn't have a :sleep: smiley...)

James Davis
03-16-2006, 11:46 AM
I believe Mr Bush's popularity stands at around the 35% mark, which I guess means that 2/3rds of the population are not that keen on him either. :)

regards,
Mark
2/3rds of the people that the pollsters asked.

I don't trust polls. One could phrase questions to get the answers that they want, or speak with people only in urban/rural areas, etc. That's not honest public opinion. Look up the facts, and decide for yourselves.

Neil Mick
03-16-2006, 11:50 AM
2/3rds of the people that the pollsters asked.

I don't trust polls. One could phrase questions to get the answers that they want, or speak with people only in urban/rural areas, etc. That's not honest public opinion. Look up the facts, and decide for yourselves.


Yeah, Bush's popularity is doing just great. Everywhere he goes, people cheer, throw flowers and play music.

Oh wait, sorry...that was the supposed theme for our entry into Iraq. My bad...mixing up the music theme myths... :crazy: :hypno:

Hogan
03-16-2006, 12:16 PM
This is the "best" you can come up with...? :dead: :dead: (really, it's too bad aikiweb doesn't have a :sleep: smiley...)

But there is, it's:

"Neil"


AAHAHAHAHHA !

James Davis
03-16-2006, 12:20 PM
The rich don't pay the proportionate amount of the bills...you got the group wrong. Paying all the bills is the (gov't app'td) job of the poor. The rich just sit back and collect the windfalls, kicked over by their gov't lackeys.

Then why is it that, when I make more money, my taxes go up? When I get a 3% raise, do I become more evil?



Instead, you expect 10's of thousands of infirm, elderly and ppl incapable of moving to somehow magically pull themselves up, when the gov't isn't even bothering with providing proper supplies of food and water.

No, but wouldn't it be nice if the county government had NOT refused help from Amtrak? Wouldn't it be cool if those school buses had been put to use? When Katrina came, Ray Nagen's daughter was already enrolled in school in Texas, so obviously he understood the imprtance of getting his family out. :disgust:


Oh, please. This is just nonsense. If this were so, then I suppose we should be seeing a huge, concerted effort by the poor to prepare for the "next Big One," since we all KNOW nowe that FEMA cannot be counted upon.
YES!!

Obviously, they aren't. What the poor are worried about in N.O. right now is preserving their homes (what is left) from greedy, unchecked speculators; in finding their loved-one's spread far and wide by Katrina because the gov't didn't bother to keep records of relocations; and even voting for the poor has been sharply curtailed, since the N.O. Powers that Be are not providing for satellite polling stations at nearby cities, for dispossessed N.O. residents.

No, but when given a $2000 debit card, some spent it on strippers. Obviously there are a few problems with just handing people money. The examples of families being spread apart is proof positive that the core family is more important than the government. Families are the ones we should depend on, not the Feds.

Problems with voting are to be expected, Neil. We have enough problems when the weather's nice. :rolleyes:

I wish gov't would help ppl in disadvantaged circumstances. I think a nationwide dole, giving ppl a low-baseline salary just to get by, is a far, far, superior method of governance than, say, bankrupting your infrastructure to support opportunistic and cynical occupations abroad, or to provide economic incentives to the have-more's, helping in their cause to whitewash New Orleans.
www.fairtax.org




I'm sure that if it were so simple to leave N.O. when the food ran out: many would. But as you may (or may not) recall, some tried, and were forced back across the bridge at gunpoint.
If they were able to walk across (and back across) a bridge, they should have left a long time before the food ran out.

Gosh, I guess those slacker N.O. residents should have thought of that when they weren't preparing for Katrina, huh?? :freaky:


Our nation's founders thought of that. They had just finished dealing with an unreasonable, oppressive government...

Here in Florida, the local government is responsible for preparedness and first response relief. The governor's only responsibility is to order an evacuation, or declare a state of emergency. FEMA is not a first response organization. They are there for relief days after a storm strikes. Louisiana's county governments knew what their responsibilities were. If not, they should have known. Meteorologists have been telling Louisiana for decades that the levvies were too small. Louisiana had more Army Corp of Engineers funding than California (a state with a much larger population) for many years before this disaster. Louisiana representatives brought home the bacon for projects like building locks in waterways to deal with increasing barge traffic (where barge traffic had been steadily declining since 1994).

Plenty of money to build up the levvies had been given by the federal government.

The local government put the money in the wrong places.

Michael Neal
03-16-2006, 12:46 PM
I love stirring the pot and then running for the hills LOL

Mark Freeman
03-16-2006, 12:48 PM
But there is, it's:

"Neil"


AAHAHAHAHHA !

Ah, the rapier wit and sparkling repartie of some posters leaves me slack jawed in amazement :rolleyes:

Ron Tisdale
03-16-2006, 12:59 PM
slack jawed...now there is a succulent term that we just don't hear enough of these days. :)

R

ChrisHein
03-16-2006, 01:16 PM
I love "W" (George "W" Bush) myself! He is such and idiot that he makes people question what the government is doing. He is SO incompetent that he can't even fake being a good president, it's what Americans need! When we have a slick, well spoken, clever man like Bill Clinton in office, we don't worry about our government, we just say "yeah, Bill, good job"! That's stupid, we must be vigilant, we must watch our politicians and make sure they are doing the job we employ them to do, WORK FOR US. With "W" it's easy to be vigilant, we never know what the fool is going to mess up next.

-Chris Hein

Hogan
03-16-2006, 01:32 PM
Ah, the rapier wit and sparkling repartie of some posters leaves me slack jawed in amazement :rolleyes:

I knew it'd impress a Brit.

Adam Alexander
03-16-2006, 03:31 PM
Gosh, you're right...if predicting economic trends is as easy as predicting the fate of coffee-spills...why, I've been doing my life all wrong!

LOL. Economies go up, economies go down. There's no mystery in the cyclical nature of the economy.


But, if it IS so easy: how come all the economists are often wrong?

Because they're trying to predict in too much detail. Normally, when I see predictions being made, it's not "The economy will do this...," it's "There's signs the economy will do this."


Gosh (again!), I'd better start reading. I have a lot of knowledge to catch up on..."Economics for Dummies;" "FDR Ripped us All Off;" and "Historical Perspectives of Human Nature."

In all honesty, when you read those "books" you'll find that what you've been talking about is total foolishness.

I used to be like you, but experiences with the government and some reading of classics and history opened my eyes.

Really Neil, you can get better. You can come to recognize that no-one but you are responsible for your life. And then, you'll have the empowerment that you think the government and/or the rich is/are supposed to give you.

It's already in you. You just have to read solid material, not the whining of apologists.

It's sad, that all my college-learning has gone to waste. :rolleyes:

That's how I felt when I started reading the good stuff and experiencing life.

You see, those spineless academic liberals have lived a life immune to the real world. In their world, people are people--there's just one brand. In the real world, people are very different.

In the real world, some people follow the ideology that they only have to do enough to survive. Others work hard and build more than what they need.

In our real world that's weighted by the opinions of those liberal-elitists, the people who do the extra work get punished in order to reward those who only do enough.

So, believe me, I can relate to your anger that all that money and time got you-- an out-of-touch, theoretical, liberal perspective.




As you already do, I imagine.

Yeah. I do understand it. It took a lot of heartbreak and time, but I understand it now.


Great. But when it comes to providing help for people without homes: you're all "help yourself."

I'd say that I'm more along the lines of "for people who's poor decision making causes them to lose their homes, they can help themselves."

Hey, if I found out that 99% of the kids being treated by St. Jude's lived under power lines, I'd stop donating there too.

When it comes to big business getting gov't aid and assistance at the expense and livelihood of those same people you admonish to "help themselves," you're awfully silent. Hmm.

I like how you use "expense." It's hilarious. I know you mean "expense" as in "the rich are making a profit."...LOL. Because, capitalists are parasitic organisms who rob the value of part of a laborers labor. LOL...No one should be able to store value and be able to invest it.

Come on, Neil. Shouldn't you give "The Wealth of Nations" a shot, instead of just Marx?



The rich ARE rich, on the backs of the poor.

Yeah, right. And when I hire a house-keeper for next to nothing, I'm getting my house cleaned on the back of the poor? LOL. You're something else.

Sure, sure, some people get the short-end of the stick. But, what makes this America is that you've got the opportunity to give someone else the short-end.

However, if you want to share the stick equally, then you need to go out and start a business and share it yourself. Since you know so much about how the world works, it'll be a cake-walk. Once you build your empire, everyone will flock to you for work. That'll cause market pressure on wages to rise.

It's all good. Go get 'em tiger...but no more excuses about the "man" keeping us down, okay? It's just not true.


The rich don't pay the proportionate amount of the bills...you got the group wrong.

Uh, yeah. What's the figure? The top 10% of the nation pay 90% of the taxes?

What's your reference for your claim?


If you choose to be born/be indigent/go insane/homeless/too poor/get injured/are too old to move...you reap what you sow.

LOL. Funny how you always group able bodied with all the justifiable stuff.



You forget that the choice to actually put that sign out and wait so long WAS a gov't decision. By parallel, you ignore the bad decisions--mostly motivated by racism--that led to the 2nd disaster of Katrina.

Excellent you're catching on. It was a gov't decision: as usual, a bad decision which demo's why we shouldn't have the government doing much.

I don't believe it was racism. I think it was simply blundering.

LOL. Yeah, so Nagin's a racist? I'm sure he is, some of what he has said smacks of it.


Instead, you expect 10's of thousands of infirm, elderly and ppl incapable of moving to somehow magically pull themselves up, when the gov't isn't even bothering with providing proper supplies of food and water.

Define "incapable"...try not to use an apologistic tirade about laziness being race related.

It's not the Feds job to provide food and water.


In short, my friend: you expect the impossible. As I have said before, your idea to cut off support for the poor has been tried, in many nations and civilizations in the past: and all it brings, in the end, is more poverty and misery.

Cite some sources of capitalistic, Christian moraled nations whose outcome was worse.

LOL. And then cite some examples of non-oil-producing countries who are better off.


Oh, please. This is just nonsense. If this were so, then I suppose we should be seeing a huge, concerted effort by the poor to prepare for the "next Big One," since we all KNOW nowe that FEMA cannot be counted upon.

Let me tell you, when N.O. flooded, I double checked that I had enough water for a week.


What the poor are worried about in N.O. right now is preserving their homes (what is left) from greedy, unchecked speculators

See, that's a demonstration of stupidity. I'd say they ought to head to a economically strong area and take some jobs from illegals.

Since you have no data or method to prove that big gov't'l programs "hold ppl back," let's just say that my grain-o-salt bag, is now a little lighter. ;)

LOL. Yeah, just my personal experience. Atleast I've got authentic experience to go on...unlike apologists.


A friendly note of caution, Jean...beware of trying to guess "what's really going on," in my head. Sometimes I can't even do that! :)

Well, take a look at your posts. The strong socialist sentiment is there, Comrade.

Got no time for the rest.

aikigirl10
03-16-2006, 03:39 PM
This is the "best" you can come up with...? :dead: :dead: (really, it's too bad aikiweb doesn't have a :sleep: smiley...)

OOOHHHH... John, shew, he burnt you.

You seriously need to lash back ,speaking of corny lines--- Neil must be butter, cuz hes on a roll.

Hogan
03-16-2006, 04:55 PM
...,speaking of corny lines--- Neil must be butter, cuz hes on a roll.


Ouch...

Aiki LV
03-16-2006, 05:10 PM
This is the "best" you can come up with...? (really, it's too bad aikiweb doesn't have a :sleep: smiley...)

You seriously need to lash back ,speaking of corny lines--- Neil must be butter, cuz hes on a roll.

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed in myself for responding to this one :o If you're going to argue please do so in a manner that is at least on some adult level. If you have a good argument or point you really don't need to resort to this kind of thing. Whether you like it or not people aren't going to agree with you all time GET OVER IT and move on to something more constructive ;)

aikigirl10
03-16-2006, 05:25 PM
If you're going to argue please do so in a manner that is at least on some adult level.


OK .. Mom.

Aiki LV
03-16-2006, 05:35 PM
Paige,
Now wear your jacket, drive safely and eat your vegetables.
(I always hated the wear a jacket one, I was never cold!!!!)

Mark Freeman
03-16-2006, 06:04 PM
slack jawed...now there is a succulent term that we just don't hear enough of these days. :)

R

Thanks Ron. I aim to please ;) . You don't see succulent used on these fora ( I'm a good student!) much either, one of those words that is what it describes. maybe we should start a new thread: Words and phrases that have slipped from common use but we'd like to see / hear them more often. What do you think?
We could have a "Grumpy old man" thread where we complain about all the modern speech and speech patterns that drive us up the wall. :D

Cheers,
Mark

Mark Freeman
03-16-2006, 06:07 PM
I love "W" (George "W" Bush) myself! He is such and idiot that he makes people question what the government is doing. He is SO incompetent that he can't even fake being a good president, it's what Americans need! When we have a slick, well spoken, clever man like Bill Clinton in office, we don't worry about our government, we just say "yeah, Bill, good job"! That's stupid, we must be vigilant, we must watch our politicians and make sure they are doing the job we employ them to do, WORK FOR US. With "W" it's easy to be vigilant, we never know what the fool is going to mess up next.

-Chris Hein

So can we take it Chris that the use of the word love has the acrid smell of irony about it? :D

regards,
Mark

Mark Freeman
03-16-2006, 06:09 PM
I knew it'd impress a Brit.

You can't imagine by how much :rolleyes:

aikigirl10
03-16-2006, 06:20 PM
Paige,
Now wear your jacket, drive safely and eat your vegetables.
(I always hated the wear a jacket one, I was never cold!!!!)

lol yeah i know what u mean.

Neil Mick
03-16-2006, 11:31 PM
If you're going to argue please do so in a manner that is at least on some adult level. If you have a good argument or point you really don't need to resort to this kind of thing.

John...does this sound somewhat...familiar? Does it possibly sound reminiscent of posts of old...?

No? Well, just scroll back a few pages to some of my posts to you, on this very subject. You might find that I said this very thing, in the past.

Yeah, I got a few in the mix, too. But these elementary-school tactics (beany-baby pics, ad nauseum) just tend to bring the overall maturity-level of the conversation, way down.

I don't advocate this tactic (but anyone can get pulled into it): but you do, by your own admission. viz:

arguing with Neil is like arguing with the preverbial brick wall - you will get nowhere. Just accept that, and you will grow to enjoy his arguments in the light hearted manner that I do.

So, now I can expect the usual, whiny "but YOU do it, TOO!" response. Yeah, guilty as charged. But, I'd do it a LOT less, if you stop the food-fighting and talked like an adult.

But, I suspect, if I had to wait for an extended, reasonable discussion citing facts and treating each other with respect from you: I really WILL be an old, old man, by the time I get satisfaction. :rolleyes:

Neil Mick
03-16-2006, 11:55 PM
And now, onto a slightly more mature vein:

Then why is it that, when I make more money, my taxes go up? When I get a 3% raise, do I become more evil?

James:

Firstly, I want to thank you for taking the time to read my quote. Too much time here is spent sliming others, and not reading their sources (and these ppl know who they are...).

However...

Please, let's try not to be so obtuse, shall we? I am referring to the "have-more's,,," hello? When you become CEO of McDonnell-Douglass, Boeing Int'l or Hallibuton...then we'll talk. Until then, obviously: I am not talking about you. :rolleyes:

No, but wouldn't it be nice if the county government had NOT refused help from Amtrak? Wouldn't it be cool if those school buses had been put to use? When Katrina came, Ray Nagen's daughter was already enrolled in school in Texas, so obviously he understood the imprtance of getting his family out. :disgust:

If you're looking for defence in the Ray Nagin corner: you're looking at the wrong post'er.


No, but when given a $2000 debit card, some spent it on strippers.

Great: what this means is that the Fed's planned the relief effort badly. I could have told you THAT...

What it does NOT mean is that the poor should be allowed to suffer without help, merely because there were ppl who took advantage of this system.

As I said before to Jean: if we use this logic, we should shut down the whole capitalist system at the first word of Enron's malfeasance.

Obviously there are a few problems with just handing people money.

Agreed.

The examples of families being spread apart is proof positive that the core family is more important than the government. Families are the ones we should depend on, not the Feds.

Families are the one's we should support: not multinational corporations. The Fed's have their priorities wrong.

Problems with voting are to be expected, Neil. We have enough problems when the weather's nice. :rolleyes:

I know, disenfranchisement means nothing to you...why should you worry? You're white; (on a guess) not too poor; and the Fla Secty of State isn't likely to throw out YOUR Republican ballot...so, it's all good, right?? :rolleyes:

www.fairtax.org

I'm going to withhold judgement on this. Everone has their take on fair tax systems, and I admit, I haven't studied the different proposals thoroughly enough.

If they were able to walk across (and back across) a bridge, they should have left a long time before the food ran out.

They were told that help was coming soon. Please.

Our nation's founders thought of that. They had just finished dealing with an unreasonable, oppressive government...

Here in Florida, the local government is responsible for preparedness and first response relief. The governor's only responsibility is to order an evacuation, or declare a state of emergency. FEMA is not a first response organization. They are there for relief days after a storm strikes. Louisiana's county governments knew what their responsibilities were. If not, they should have known. Meteorologists have been telling Louisiana for decades that the levvies were too small. Louisiana had more Army Corp of Engineers funding than California (a state with a much larger population) for many years before this disaster. Louisiana representatives brought home the bacon for projects like building locks in waterways to deal with increasing barge traffic (where barge traffic had been steadily declining since 1994).

Plenty of money to build up the levvies had been given by the federal government.

The local government put the money in the wrong places.

I think that you're partly right: the local gov't WAS responsible for some of the damage. But please: I have seen the Bush meeting talking about the upcoming storm, 48 hours before Katrina hit. I'm sorry, but if the storm had hit Long Island or Kennebunkport: I'm positive that FEMA would have been there.

You ignore half of the equation. Whether or not FEMA is a "1st responder" is moot...FEMA, in this case, wasn't even a 10th responder...things STILL are messed up down there.

Was it partly Nagin's doing? Yeah, it was. Did Nagin hire an Arabian Horse Examiner to head FEMA?? Please.

Who partied down, bought shoes and enjoyed a nice break while N.O. drowned? You know the answer to that one.

What would Bill Clinton, for all his faults (see my other thread on Clinton, here (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9988)) done? I imagine he'd have cancelled his vacation in Little Rock (or wherever) and taken Air Force One out to personally insure the rescue efforts were going well (but of course, who can really say).

You see, Jean: from every testimony of every 1st responder I have heard on the topic, they all say the same thing--the first 48hrs are crucial. Preparation for the storm is vital.

THIS is why Katrina was such a disaster. Nagin may have had a hand in it, but BushCo insured that the disaster would magnify, as it continues to do so, today.

Neil Mick
03-17-2006, 12:49 AM
LOL. Economies go up, economies go down. There's no mystery in the cyclical nature of the economy.

Because they're trying to predict in too much detail. Normally, when I see predictions being made, it's not "The economy will do this...," it's "There's signs the economy will do this."

Oh, please. Make the obtuseness stop. This is just plain nonsense: you've just put down ALL economists as being unable to predict the economy because they're "too stuck on details."

All of the legions and legions of economists throughout the years: all of the different tacks, spins, and angles they employ, all of the myriad substrata of economics are unable to predict a trend because....(wait for it)...they're TOO STUCK ON DETAILS!! :D

So, I imagine, with your vast knowledge (ahem), you must be some kind of multimillionaire, right? I mean, with your ability to see through the economic mirk: that making a cool mil is easier than...spilling coffee to you, right?

To quote one of John's more literary insights:

AHAHAHAHAH!

In all honesty, when you read those "books" you'll find that what you've been talking about is total foolishness.

I used to be like you, but experiences with the government and some reading of classics and history opened my eyes.

Really Neil, you can get better. You can come to recognize that no-one but you are responsible for your life. And then, you'll have the empowerment that you think the government and/or the rich is/are supposed to give you.

It's already in you. You just have to read solid material, not the whining of apologists.

Really, Jean, you can do better. You can come to recognize that a gov't is supposed to be OF the people, FOR the people, BY the people...that giving aid to the disadvantaged is merely righting the scales that have so far been so unbalanced, for so long.

(and BTW, for all this admonishment to read: I notice that you STILL fail to present sources buttressing your claim that gov't aid hold ppl back...still waiting on that one...figure I'll get some results on this, shortly after John H decides to act like a respectful adult...ahem)

That's how I felt when I started reading the good stuff and experiencing life.

You see, those spineless academic liberals have lived a life immune to the real world. In their world, people are people--there's just one brand. In the real world, people are very different.

You see, those "academic liberals" you so love to malign (and probably know very few, gleaming all your info from Rightwing hit-pieces, no doubt) are not all of one cloth. Some are even Rightwing themselves. In their world, people act according to their pet theories: in other words, they hold views little different from the rest of humanity.

Others work hard and build more than what they need.

Yeah, those oil-baron CEO's worked SO hard to make their windfall profits...Enron was just putting its collective nose to the grindstone, when they ripped us Californian's off... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In our real world that's weighted by the opinions of those liberal-elitists, the people who do the extra work get punished in order to reward those who only do enough.

So, believe me, I can relate to your anger that all that money and time got you-- an out-of-touch, theoretical, liberal perspective.

So believe me, I can relate to your ideological fantasies of how the real-world works...sometimes, I hold my nose and try to get through an article of FrontPageMagazine...


I like how you use "expense." It's hilarious.

I like how you laugh at the downtrodden...it's hilarious. :disgust: Do you make the rounds at hospitals and homeless shelters too, for a laugh?

I know you mean "expense" as in "the rich are making a profit."...LOL. Because, capitalists are parasitic organisms who rob the value of part of a laborers labor.

About time you got it right.

LOL...No one should be able to store value and be able to invest it.

That's another topic...

Come on, Neil. Shouldn't you give "The Wealth of Nations" a shot, instead of just Marx?

Sorry, I'll pass. You can't put the "Marxist" label on me...they tried, and gave up in disgust.

Yeah, right. And when I hire a house-keeper for next to nothing, I'm getting my house cleaned on the back of the poor? LOL. You're something else.

Now you're finally getting it: good for you.

Sure, sure, some people get the short-end of the stick. But, what makes this America is that you've got the opportunity to give someone else the short-end.

However, if you want to share the stick equally, then you need to go out and start a business and share it yourself.

Been there, done that...

Since you know so much about how the world works, it'll be a cake-walk.

Since you don't know very much about how the Empire works, that grain o' salt bag got even lighter... :p

Once you build your empire, everyone will flock to you for work. That'll cause market pressure on wages to rise.

It's all good. Go get 'em tiger...but no more excuses about the "man" keeping us down, okay? It's just not true.

Obviously...just because you say so... :rolleyes:

LOL. Funny how you always group able bodied with all the justifiable stuff.

Lol. Funny how you always forget the justifiable stuff.

Define "incapable"...try not to use an apologistic tirade about laziness being race related.

OK, I won't if you don't try to pretend that that was what I said. Deal?

It's not the Feds job to provide food and water.

Gosh, were you a German woman in your past life who got married to a French king and made several unfortunate comments involving the poor, pastries, and consumption of same? Your statement above sounds eerily familiar...

Cite some sources of capitalistic, Christian moraled nations whose outcome was worse.

Simple...England, 19th Century. The state of the poor was horrendous. Poorhouses (little more than slave-workhouses for the poor) were in vogue, and poor children were regularly expected to work (tho, I suppose, to you: this signifies progress. Gee, you must LOVE the idea of Indonesian women and children working 18hrs a day to get their pittance, so that the Nike CEO can make the next Nicks game...).

LOL. And then cite some examples of non-oil-producing countries who are better off.

Easier still. The kingdom of Hawaii, pre-invasion. Most successful (as in, viable) Amerindian tribes, pre US-invasion. I could go on and on.

Let me tell you, when N.O. flooded, I double checked that I had enough water for a week.

On a wild guess: I am hazarding that you aren't infirm, a shut-in, mentally/physically disabled; too poor to own a car; etc.

See, that's a demonstration of stupidity. I'd say they ought to head to a economically strong area and take some jobs from illegals.

Spoken like a true advocate of the rich.

Bravo! Let's just shift the misery around to other sectors of the poor! :rolleyes:

LOL. Yeah, just my personal experience. Atleast I've got authentic experience to go on...unlike apologists.

Yeah, you nailed it right on the head, holding forth on your dubious hypotheses on academics... :rolleyes:

Well, take a look at your posts. The strong socialist sentiment is there, Comrade.

Guilty as charged. I will gladly admit to socialist tendencies (what gave it away?? The universal dole idea? :rolleyes: ), but not to Communism. Different animal.

Got no time for the rest.

Oh, say it isn't so, lawd!! Mr. Sophisticate-Who's-Seen-It-All has no time to read my quote??

No, I guess not...for a guy who knows everything from the mysteries of the market to the deepest aspects of human nature, why should be be bothered to read anything new?

Neil Mick
03-17-2006, 04:34 AM
I love "W" (George "W" Bush) myself! He is such and idiot that he makes people question what the government is doing. He is SO incompetent that he can't even fake being a good president, it's what Americans need! When we have a slick, well spoken, clever man like Bill Clinton in office, we don't worry about our government, we just say "yeah, Bill, good job"! That's stupid, we must be vigilant, we must watch our politicians and make sure they are doing the job we employ them to do, WORK FOR US. With "W" it's easy to be vigilant, we never know what the fool is going to mess up next.

-Chris Hein

Irony is not dead. :cool:

Mark Freeman
03-17-2006, 06:39 AM
LOL. And then cite some examples of non-oil-producing countries who are better off.

It depends what you mean by better off, but off the top of my head I'd cite Switzerland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark and The Netherlands. The may not compete in the numbers of $$$ in the coffers but their populations enjoy a high standard of living with very little poverty evident, their health provisions are good and open to all, and they have decent social security systems in place.
"Better off" means alot more than just money!
I certainly wouldn't want to be super rich in a country that didn't look after it's less fortunate people.
Some of the images that went around the world during the Katrina disaster were awful, in that, until then many people were unaware at quite how dirt poor many american people are. And maybe they had the thought - is this one of the benefits of freedom and democracy in the greatest/richest nation on earth? I can't say that it looked good for you guys.

Just a little point on Marxism as it has been mentioned in relation to labelling Neil. Recently here in the UK ,BBC Radio 4 ran a survey to find the most popular modern philosopher, and Karl Marx came out on top by a margin that astounded nearly everyone. So while he may not be flavor of the month in a country that was led to be paranoid about communism, I guess reading Marx is close to treason. But he is revered here for his coherent, and insightful philosophy. Our politics have lurched towards the right since New Labour took over here and continued the Thatcherite economic model. Many people feel we have been down to the crossroads so to speak and sold our souls for a few more pounds in our pockets.

Just a few thoughts before I go and do what I should have been doing when I started this :eek:

regards,
Mark

Hogan
03-17-2006, 08:56 AM
John...does this sound somewhat...familiar? Does it possibly sound reminiscent of posts of old...?

No? Well, just scroll back a few pages to some of my posts to you, on this very subject. You might find that I said this very thing, in the past.

Yeah, I got a few in the mix, too. But these elementary-school tactics (beany-baby pics, ad nauseum) just tend to bring the overall maturity-level of the conversation, way down.

I don't advocate this tactic (but anyone can get pulled into it): but you do, by your own admission. viz:



So, now I can expect the usual, whiny "but YOU do it, TOO!" response. Yeah, guilty as charged. But, I'd do it a LOT less, if you stop the food-fighting and talked like an adult.

But, I suspect, if I had to wait for an extended, reasonable discussion citing facts and treating each other with respect from you: I really WILL be an old, old man, by the time I get satisfaction. :rolleyes:



Huh? My brick wall comment was a suggestion to someone else - I even had a compliment in there that you were amusing.... And I posted here to suggest to you to not get into a pissing match with a person that could be your daughter - that it wasn't making you look good. Oh well, I guess my suggestions and compliment WAS to a brick wall.....

You really see things that others don't....

James Davis
03-17-2006, 12:25 PM
I think that you're partly right: the local gov't WAS responsible for some of the damage. But please: I have seen the Bush meeting talking about the upcoming storm, 48 hours before Katrina hit. I'm sorry, but if the storm had hit Long Island or Kennebunkport: I'm positive that FEMA would have been there. I'm glad you mentioned that meeting, Neil. In that meeting, it was established that the storm would top the levvies. Later, our wonderful press accused Bush of knowing that the storm would breach the levvies. "Top" and "Breach" mean entirely different things. :drool:
Whether or not FEMA is a "1st responder" is moot...FEMA, in this case, wasn't even a 10th responder...things STILL are messed up down there.
Regardless of the location of the storm, or the ethnicity of the populace, when the cops walk off the job, it's gonna make things really difficult!! :disgust:
Was it partly Nagin's doing? Yeah, it was. Did Nagin hire an Arabian Horse Examiner to head FEMA?? Please. Bush hired the president of a beaurocracy to head a larger one. Nagin left a bunch of people to their deaths when empty buses were readily available. :disgust:

Who partied down, bought shoes and enjoyed a nice break while N.O. drowned? You know the answer to that one. Condi could have done what? Made Nagin do his job? Made Blanco declare a state of emergency earlier? :confused:

What would Bill Clinton, for all his faults (see my other thread on Clinton, here (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9988)) done? I imagine he'd have cancelled his vacation in Little Rock (or wherever) and taken Air Force One out to personally insure the rescue efforts were going well (but of course, who can really say).
After his bong hit. :p Sorry, I can't resist messing with Clinton. :D

You see, Jean: from every testimony of every 1st responder I have heard on the topic, they all say the same thing--the first 48hrs are crucial. Preparation for the storm is vital. Preparation. Now there's a neat idea. :)

THIS is why Katrina was such a disaster. Nagin may have had a hand in it, but BushCo insured that the disaster would magnify, as it continues to do so, today.
State representatives that routed money to useless programs when the levvies had needed to be built up for decades insured that the disaster would magnify. Once those levvies crumbled and water poured into a city well below sea level, pretty much everybody knew that clean up would take a loooong time. :uch:

Neil Mick
03-17-2006, 01:22 PM
OK, James, in reading this, all I have to say (before I begin specific comment) is... :rolleyes:

Let's begin,,,


I'm glad you mentioned that meeting, Neil. In that meeting, it was established that the storm would top the levvies. Later, our wonderful press accused Bush of knowing that the storm would breach the levvies. "Top" and "Breach" mean entirely different things. :drool:

"Top??" "Breach??" Semantics. Garbage. Next.

Regardless of the location of the storm, or the ethnicity of the populace, when the cops walk off the job, it's gonna make things really difficult!! :disgust:

"...difficult...?" How about "out to lunch?" How about "Brownie, yer doin' a haeck of a job!?"

Bush hired the president of a beaurocracy to head a larger one. Nagin left a bunch of people to their deaths when empty buses were readily available. :disgust:

Bush hired a man with no experience in first responding agencies to head a nebulous, powerful agency with broad powers, including the Federal emergency response to disasters. Nagin's momentary indecision, motivated by worries over lawsuits, caused people to die.

Isn't it nice to describe the full picture? Try it, sometime.

Condi could have done what? Made Nagin do his job? Made Blanco declare a state of emergency earlier? :confused:

I understand, James. BIIG pictures on the screen, often confuse one, over the fact that real people are behind those too-perfect images that mis-govern us.

YES! Condi could have done something. She could have called the President and said "GET YOURSELF DOWN TO NEW ORLEANS!!" as loud as she could, on the big, red phone. It might have done some good. :cool:

Or, she could have used what resources she had (DC thrives on networks...ppl you know to do you favors) to do what she could.

What she did for the great rescue was...buy some shoes. Check out a play.


After his bong hit. :p Sorry, I can't resist messing with Clinton. :D

Yeah, I know. It's like an annoying facial tic. ;)

State representatives that routed money to useless programs when the levvies had needed to be built up for decades insured that the disaster would magnify. Once those levvies crumbled and water poured into a city well below sea level, pretty much everybody knew that clean up would take a loooong time. :uch:

Sorry...but "cleanup would take a looong time," is being disingenuous. This is more than a big job: there are crimes and discriminatory polices going on there on a massive scale, and the Fed's still are involved in it. Next.

Neil Mick
03-17-2006, 01:27 PM
You really see things that others don't....

Yeah, I guess you're right...my screen keeps showing me this really horrible picture of a beany-baby that was really funny once; annoying twice; and will be a flame, on the third try.

I wonder if we'll get that far...? Hope not...

Neil Mick
03-17-2006, 01:40 PM
"Better off" means alot more than just money!

Yes! :cool:

I can't say that it looked good for you guys.

Try to imagine how it looks (or doesn't, with the US press doing an admirable job of underreporting), here. :uch:

Our politics have lurched towards the right since New Labour took over here and continued the Thatcherite economic model. Many people feel we have been down to the crossroads so to speak and sold our souls for a few more pounds in our pockets.

Just a few thoughts before I go and do what I should have been doing when I started this :eek:

regards,
Mark

:cool:

Hogan
03-17-2006, 04:00 PM
Yeah, I guess you're right...my screen keeps showing me this really horrible picture of a beany-baby that was really funny once; annoying twice; and will be a flame, on the third try.

I wonder if we'll get that far...? Hope not...

Ummm, okay...

Not only do you see things that others don't, you apparently have conversations about things that only you know what they mean....

Mark Gibbons
03-17-2006, 04:07 PM
John,

I'm pretty sure Neil is talking about Post #41, baby with adult face. I thought he was pretty clear.

Regards,
Mark

Mark Freeman
03-17-2006, 04:12 PM
Ummm, okay...

Not only do you see things that others don't, you apparently have conversations about things that only you know what they mean....

I also know what he means ;)

James Davis
03-17-2006, 04:57 PM
"Top??" "Breach??" Semantics. Garbage. Next.

Top- Water going over levvies. (structurally sound ones)

Breach- Water breaks levy.

The difference is not subtle. ;)




Bush hired a man with no experience in first responding agencies to head a nebulous, powerful agency with broad powers, including the Federal emergency response to disasters. Nagin's momentary indecision, motivated by worries over lawsuits, caused people to die.
Again, for everyone who had trouble reading it for the first time:

FEMA is not a first response agency.
Isn't it nice to describe the full picture? Try it, sometime.

After you. :rolleyes:



Sorry...but "cleanup would take a looong time," is being disingenuous. This is more than a big job: there are crimes and discriminatory polices going on there on a massive scale, and the Fed's still are involved in it. Next.
They lived in a giant bowl...

...clean up will take a loooooooooong time.

If you're on a roll blaming people for this storm who weren't there, blame the french for settling there in the first place. :p :D

Neil Mick
03-17-2006, 06:32 PM
Ummm, okay...

Not only do you see things that others don't, you apparently have conversations about things that only you know what they mean....


John,

I'm pretty sure Neil is talking about Post #41, baby with adult face. I thought he was pretty clear.

Regards,
Mark


I also know what he means ;)

Gosh, John: I guess I'm not the only one here who resents the immature tactics (nor, am I the only one who can see them, it appears).

I rest my case.

Neil Mick
03-17-2006, 07:06 PM
:rolleyes: Top- Water going over levvies. (structurally sound ones)

Breach- Water breaks levy.

The difference is not subtle. ;)

The difference is semantical, and quibbling. You pay attention to the White House spin and ignore the forest through the trees (again):

Video: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina (Video: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina )

Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war" blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.

"I don't buy the `fog of war' defense," Brown told the AP in an interview Wednesday. "It was a fog of bureaucracy."

Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. He later clarified, saying officials believed, wrongly, after the storm passed that the levees had survived. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility even before the storm - and Bush was worried too.

One snippet captures a missed opportunity on Aug. 28 for the government to have dispatched active-duty military troops to the region to augment the National Guard.

Chertoff: "Are there any DOD assets that might be available? Have we reached out to them?"

Brown: "We have DOD assets over here at EOC (emergency operations center). They are fully engaged. And we are having those discussions with them now."

Chertoff: "Good job."

In fact, active duty troops weren't dispatched until days after the storm. And many states' National Guards had yet to be deployed to the region despite offers of assistance, and it took days before the Pentagon deployed active-duty personnel to help overwhelmed Guardsmen.

The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.

"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.

Other officials expressed concerns about the large number of New Orleans residents who had not evacuated.

"They're not taking patients out of hospitals, taking prisoners out of prisons and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that," Brown said.

So, please: do go on and carp about "topping," versus "breaking." It makes you sound SO un-"semantical."

Again, for everyone who had trouble reading it for the first time:

FEMA is not a first response agency.

Again, for everyone who has trouble seeing a mendacious lie, for the first time:

BUSH SAID THAT THEY WERE "PREPARED" FOR THE STORM; that FEMA WAS DOING GREAT: when in fact...IT WAS JUST ANOTHER LIE.

After you. :rolleyes:

Oh, I already did. You just probably turned on your mental blinders. So, here it is for you, again...(no mental blinders this time, OK...?)

Bush hired a man with no experience in first responding agencies to head a nebulous, powerful agency with broad powers, including the Federal emergency response to disasters. Nagin's momentary indecision, motivated by worries over lawsuits, caused people to die.

The difference (that you obviously missed) is that Nagin's mistakes were lapses in judgement; Bush's mistakes were lying about the Fed's readiness; mishandling of FEMA's organization; and continuing to drop the ball in giving aid and a voice, to the indigent.

Nagin's errors were errors of judgement; Bush's errors were errors of policy.

The difference is the same as the difference btw invol. manslaughter and 2nd degree murder...except the effects of the latter are far more lasting, and widespread.

They lived in a giant bowl...

...clean up will take a loooooooooong time.

If you're on a roll blaming people for this storm who weren't there, blame the french for settling there in the first place. :p :D

You and Jean seem to have one thing in common, debate-wise: you interpret my posts howsoever you feel (ignoring my intent), and carry it to its (il)logical conclusion. So, let me put this in plain English, so that even your spin-prone mind can grasp:

The big-business friendly boys who are minding the store down there couldn't care less about the plight of the indigent. Hotel-owners evicted Katrina survivors to make room for tourists for Mardi Gras; and as of 2 days ago, FEMA has gotten in on the act by starting evictions for victims of the storm; the Powers that Be have decided that the voting-rights of Katrina survivors takes a backseat to the voting rights of Iraqi's...talk about skewed priorities.

At the time of Katrina, 70% of the MS Nat'l Guard were in Iraq. But all this to you, no doubt, is meaningless. No, to you: Bush wasn't responsible, even tho he gutted the national and statewide infrastructure (through lack of funding), sent off the Nat'l Guard to fight a war of folly, is currently evicting 10,000 families (families you claim to care for, so much), does nothing to obey the law and insure that displaced N.O. residents get their (legally entitled) vote, and in all likelihood is indirectly (at least) working to subvert the lower income sectors of N.O. by funding more efforts favorable to the have-more's.

But, do go on and prattle about breaking's, topping's, and building on fishbowls.

It provides excellent strawmen, with which to make my case.

Hogan
03-17-2006, 09:15 PM
Gosh, John: I guess I'm not the only one here who resents the immature tactics (nor, am I the only one who can see them, it appears).

I rest my case.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, the 'BEAN' face on the kid, i.e., 'beany-baby' face. Got it now....

That's called a joke. You liberals have no humor. But if you want to call posting that pic an 'immature' tactic, then go ahead. I prefer to think as an immature tactic a 40-something yr old fighting on the net with a 16 yr old. In case you don' know to what I refer to, let me know.

Neil Mick
03-17-2006, 10:45 PM
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, the 'BEAN' face on the kid, i.e., 'beany-baby' face. Got it now....

That's called a joke. You liberals have no humor. But if you want to call posting that pic an 'immature' tactic, then go ahead. I prefer to think as an immature tactic a 40-something yr old fighting on the net with a 16 yr old.

Of course you do--this view encourages your antics while chastizing others.

But everyone else can see your tactics as little better than Trollish diversions.

And so we go full circle:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Adam Alexander
03-19-2006, 06:35 PM
Oh, please. Make the obtuseness stop. This is just plain nonsense: you've just put down ALL economists as being unable to predict the economy because they're "too stuck on details."


Two things: 1)It's not a put-down. It's a recognition of their limitations based on practical knowledge...A doctor wouldn't feel "put down" if you said to him/her "You can't bring the dead back to life," right? Same here. 2)In the latter half of the sixties until, if I recall correctly, the early to mid-eighties, there was a school of thought that believed that they could give tight predictions...That school died. Experience proved the theory wrong...Best you can get is broad predictions...such as the economy will go up and it will go down.



So, I imagine, with your vast knowledge (ahem), you must be some kind of multimillionaire, right? I mean, with your ability to see through the economic mirk: that making a cool mil is easier than...spilling coffee to you, right?


Depends on how you define "easier." Truth is, I'm doing extremely better since getting through part of "The Wealth of Nations" by Smith. Besides handling my money wayyyy better than before because I understand what it is now, I feel much better about the world.

I don't know if people will get the same benefit from it that I did--I've got pretty extensive reading under my belt in other fields that effected my interpretation of "Wealth"--but, it couldn't do anything but help.

The hard part is that I could only get through about ten or fifteen pages per hour with writing notes. I had to reread sentences over and over again to understand, and a reading session never ended without a headache.

I had to give up on it temporarily because work and life required that I put it on the back burner temporarily.



You can come to recognize that a gov't is supposed to be OF the people, FOR the people, BY the people...

Certainly. However, we've got different perspectives on how that is carried out. I say that government should not be used to "level the playing field" between people because it gives immoral behavior that contradicts what got us here a strong foot hold and it gives stupid, lazy or uncreative people an advantage against those who are smart, industrious and creative.

Ultimately, what's "for" the people is a culturally homogenized second-rate citizenry...A culture that came to be because it's members were bribed into acceptance and participation.

I don't know about you, but being from Detroit, MI, I know a lot of smart, decent people who took jobs on an assembly line because it paid so well. The effect: A lot of decent people who could of made much more of themselves are drudging away on assembly lines rather than doing all the productive things they could otherwise be doing. The morons--the rightful workers of an assembly line--are displaced because the better people have their jobs.

So, what's "for" the people? Having a bunch of great guys and gals working jobs below their intellectual capacity? Or, is it the low-lifes who should work the lines unemployed?

The market would correct that if it were set free of government protection of unions.


that giving aid to the disadvantaged is merely righting the scales that have so far been so unbalanced, for so long.

I really don't have a problem with that. But, it's like Roe vs. Wade: Do it at the state or local level, not the Federal...The Fed is too far from the action to be efficiently and effectively responsive to the needs of the people in the manner you wish.



(and BTW, for all this admonishment to read: I notice that you STILL fail to present sources buttressing your claim that gov't aid hold ppl back...still waiting on that one...

"The Wealth of Nations," my personal experience and the experience of several self-employed friends.

Ultimately, I'm coming to believe that that's the way I need to vote and donate: According to personal experience...not the reports of others. People have too much motivation to mislead you.

I think the reason people like you believe what you do is that you've failed so much in some respect that you need to believe what you're saying. It'd just be too hard for you to take responsibility.

But, like I've said before, I've been there. It is hard.


You see, those "academic liberals" you so love to malign (and probably know very few, gleaming all your info from Rightwing hit-pieces, no doubt) are not all of one cloth.


Well, growing up poor, I had handfuls of those liberals being involved in my life. Several of the relationships--friendships-- lasted till just around five years ago.

I stopped those friendships when I realized how wrong they were and their unwillingness to bend when I brought my experience to their attention...Like you, they had too much of theirselves invested in their theories to hear anything different was possible.

I can't blame any of them either. Twenty, thirty years committed to an idea and someone tries to tell them that the ideas didn't hold true?

My opinions are from experience.


Yeah, those oil-baron CEO's worked SO hard to make their windfall profits...Enron was just putting its collective nose to the grindstone, when they ripped us Californian's off... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What I don't understand about folks like you is you recognize that there'll be people who abuse the "right" to abort and welfare, and you say that it's just a small price to pay for the good it does. However, because a bunch of people didn't watch their investments properly, you say that freedom is wrong.

Doesn't make sense.


You can't put the "Marxist" label on me...they tried, and gave up in disgust.

It can deny it, but if it walks and talks like a duck...


Been there, done that...

Yeah, right, Neil. Working as a cashier at The Gap doesn't count.


Gosh, were you a German woman in your past life who got married to a French king and made several unfortunate comments involving the poor, pastries, and consumption of same? Your statement above sounds eerily familiar...

Funny that you run for something like that...You'd think that literacy and credit were widespread prior to that revolution like they are today.


Simple...England, 19th Century. The state of the poor was horrendous. Poorhouses (little more than slave-workhouses for the poor) were in vogue, and poor children were regularly expected to work (tho, I suppose, to you: this signifies progress.

Excellent. Now, first, cite the source. Then, explain how that compares to today's material wealth where the poor are in such wonderful (relative) condition.


Gee, you must LOVE the idea of Indonesian women and children working 18hrs a day to get their pittance, so that the Nike CEO can make the next Nicks game...).

No. That's one of the reasons I don't buy Nikes. Well, that and the fact that I have more respect for a hundred dollars than that.


Easier still. The kingdom of Hawaii, pre-invasion. Most successful (as in, viable) Amerindian tribes, pre US-invasion. I could go on and on.

Then do go on. And stop when you get to a large group.

In the meantime, read "Primitive money in its ethnological, historical, and economic aspects" by Einzig to understand why those examples aren't applicable.


On a wild guess: I am hazarding that you aren't infirm, a shut-in, mentally/physically disabled; too poor to own a car; etc.

No, but I play one on TV...and I don't make excuses for it there either.


Guilty as charged.


You may want to check into "1984" to see where that ol' "IngSoc" leads.

Oh, say it isn't so, lawd!! Mr. Sophisticate-Who's-Seen-It-All has no time to read my quote??
No, I guess not...for a guy who knows everything from the mysteries of the market to the deepest aspects of human nature, why should be be bothered to read anything new?

I read it. It was just more of the same.

For me, it all boils down to this: Read "The Wealth of Nations" and "Democracy in America" by Tocqueville. It'll all be clear for you.

These are writers of the Enlightenment with very practical perspectives.

Start a business. That'll teach you a world of info about the world.

Stop worrying about the east coast and midwest when you're on the left coast. Do what you can around you. You'll find that when you do that, the problems begin to get solved because you can see and react to them.

May the force be with you.

Neil Mick
03-19-2006, 08:13 PM
Two things: 1)It's not a put-down. It's a recognition of their limitations based on practical knowledge...A doctor wouldn't feel "put down" if you said to him/her "You can't bring the dead back to life," right? Same here. 2)In the latter half of the sixties until, if I recall correctly, the early to mid-eighties, there was a school of thought that believed that they could give tight predictions...That school died. Experience proved the theory wrong...Best you can get is broad predictions...such as the economy will go up and it will go down.

But YOU seem to claim that economic predictions are as easy as predicting coffee-spills...tell us, O Great Swa'ami...what's your secret...?

Truth is, I'm doing extremely better since getting through part of "The Wealth of Nations" by Smith. Besides handling my money wayyyy better than before because I understand what it is now, I feel much better about the world.

Oh, if only OTHER economists read "Wealth of Nations," too!! Then, they'd be sure to predict economic trends...AND spilling coffee! :hypno:

I don't know if people will get the same benefit from it that I did--

Yes, that WOULD be a miracle...

I've got pretty extensive reading under my belt in other fields that effected my interpretation of "Wealth"--but, it couldn't do anything but help.

The hard part is that I could only get through about ten or fifteen pages per hour with writing notes. I had to reread sentences over and over again to understand, and a reading session never ended without a headache.

I had to give up on it temporarily because work and life required that I put it on the back burner temporarily.

Well, I applaud your steadfast scholarship: but you sure could turn the Arrogance Dial down, a few notches...

I know: it may shock and astound you to know that I (and, likely, others) have life-experiences here from which we write...we don't ALL just listen to what we're told, and that's that.

I know, I know... :eek: ...shocking...but stranger things have happened.

Certainly. However, we've got different perspectives on how that is carried out. I say that government should not be used to "level the playing field" between people because it gives immoral behavior that contradicts what got us here a strong foot hold and it gives stupid, lazy or uncreative people an advantage against those who are smart, industrious and creative.

...and I say that the gov't already IS tilted towards helping people who aren't necessarily any less smarter than the rest (in fact, some of these fellows were called "the smartest guys in the room," when they worked under Enron's banner). I'm saying that you have NO PROOF that gov't subsidy makes people any less industrious, or lazy.

But, I have REAMS of proof showing how the gov't unfairly subsidizes bigwig corporations.

Ultimately, what's "for" the people is a culturally homogenized second-rate citizenry...A culture that came to be because it's members were bribed into acceptance and participation.

I don't know about you, but being from Detroit, MI, I know a lot of smart, decent people who took jobs on an assembly line because it paid so well. The effect: A lot of decent people who could of made much more of themselves are drudging away on assembly lines rather than doing all the productive things they could otherwise be doing. The morons--the rightful workers of an assembly line--are displaced because the better people have their jobs.

So, what's "for" the people? Having a bunch of great guys and gals working jobs below their intellectual capacity? Or, is it the low-lifes who should work the lines unemployed?

The market would correct that if it were set free of government protection of unions.

Please...if you ever got satisfaction from retirement benefits, overtime, a five-day week or not having your kids work hard labor: then you should thank unions, instead of urging their demise.

I really don't have a problem with that. But, it's like Roe vs. Wade: Do it at the state or local level, not the Federal...The Fed is too far from the action to be efficiently and effectively responsive to the needs of the people in the manner you wish.

That's silly,,,if Roe v Wade were enforced only at the state level: then state-abortion restrictions would be meaningless. Anyone could cross an abortion-friendly state to get one.

No, sometimes a Federally-restricted law, affecting everyone equally, is the only way to go.

"The Wealth of Nations," my personal experience and the experience of several self-employed friends.

Ultimately, I'm coming to believe that that's the way I need to vote and donate: According to personal experience...not the reports of others. People have too much motivation to mislead you.

I think the reason people like you believe what you do is that you've failed so much in some respect that you need to believe what you're saying. It'd just be too hard for you to take responsibility.

I think the reason "people like you" believe that you understand "people like me" so much (and yet, in reality, understand so little), is that you cannot accept that "people like me" are just fine with our worldviews, thank you, and so you have to manufacture fantastic ideas of how "people like me" think, to buttress YOUR fragile worldviews...it must make you feel more comfortable, thinking of your counterparts as twisting in the wind, in their discomfort.

But, mental comfort-level is not an indice of reality.

But, like I've said before, I've been there. It is hard.

Yes, I imagine it is. All that time spent, building castles in the sky... :rolleyes:

Well, growing up poor, I had handfuls of those liberals being involved in my life. Several of the relationships--friendships-- lasted till just around five years ago.

I stopped those friendships when I realized how wrong they were and their unwillingness to bend when I brought my experience to their attention...Like you, they had too much of theirselves invested in their theories to hear anything different was possible.

I can't blame any of them either. Twenty, thirty years committed to an idea and someone tries to tell them that the ideas didn't hold true?

My opinions are from experience.

Personally, I find that hard to believe. I happen to BE a college lecturer, and even tho an Aikido Instructor is hardly mired deep within the ivory towers of academia, I know enough to be aware that your depiction of academics is a broad stereotype, at best.

And, at worst: a sad retelling of the usual rightwing diatribes (FoxNews, et al) against academics.

If your opinions are from experience: great. You managed to make the acquaintance of those few souls who are living out a stereotype.

But, a stereotype is rarely the actuality.

What I don't understand about folks like you

Again! :rolleyes: ...with the "folks like you!"

is you recognize that there'll be people who abuse the "right" to abort and welfare, and you say that it's just a small price to pay for the good it does.

OK, one more time, class, shall we...? For Jean's sake? All together: stand up in your chairs and SHOUT!

"ABUSE OF A SYSTEM ALONE, IS NO INDICATOR THAT THE SYSTEM ISN'T WORKING!!!"

If this were so, then we should shut down all banks at the first mention of fraud. :rolleyes:

However, because a bunch of people didn't watch their investments properly, you say that freedom is wrong.

Doesn't make sense.

Obviously, you lack understanding of the Enron boondoggle.

I suggest a little more reading is in order. Or, at least rent "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room."

Then we'll talk.

It can deny it, but if it walks and talks like a duck...

At the rate you're going, I'm doubting you would even know what a duck was, if it came up and wagged its tailfeathers in your face... :p

Yeah, right, Neil. Working as a cashier at The Gap doesn't count.

I don't need to defend my past to you. Either you accept my claims about my experiences, or we all assume that we're lying.

I've owned and run several businesses. You don't believe that? Too bad for you.

Excellent. Now, first, cite the source. Then, explain how that compares to today's material wealth where the poor are in such wonderful (relative) condition.

Source...me. :rolleyes:

The poor are, if anything, WORSE off then, than they are now. But, that matters not at all. You asked me to

Cite some sources of capitalistic, Christian moraled nations whose outcome was worse. LOL. And then cite some examples of non-oil-producing countries who are better off.

I did both. Your request to compare makes no sense.

No. That's one of the reasons I don't buy Nikes. Well, that and the fact that I have more respect for a hundred dollars than that.

But, to you: that's all just good capitalism in action, right? :disgust: Makes no difference whether you'd buy Nike's...by your logic, this repressive and demeaning working environment is the simple fruits of those hardworking fellows on Nike's BoD, right...? :disgust:

In the meantime, read "Primitive money in its ethnological, historical, and economic aspects" by Einzig to understand why those examples aren't applicable.

In the meantime, why not EXPLAIN why these examples are not applicable, instead of pedantically foisting me onto another longwinded, nebulous source.

No, but I play one on TV...and I don't make excuses for it there either.

Nor, it seems, do you CARE for them, either...not unless they're "pulling their own weight," as you so like to call struggling within an opppressive, economic system with the have-more's laughing all the way to the bank.

You may want to check into "1984" to see where that ol' "IngSoc" leads.

Been there, read that...

These are writers of the Enlightenment with very practical perspectives.

The Enlightenment also brought forth the idea that planetary bodies make "music" as they pass through the heavens.

The Enlightment Does Not = Complete accuracy, of the way the world works.

Start a business. That'll teach you a world of info about the world.

Again...been there, done that.

Stop worrying about the east coast and midwest when you're on the left coast. Do what you can around you. You'll find that when you do that, the problems begin to get solved because you can see and react to them.

Been there, done that, too. But, I also find that working OUTside my immediate surroundings gets results, too (read my blog sometime).

May the force be with you.


Uhhh,,,sure....now, which one of us is the wildeyed dreamer, again...? :hypno:

Hogan
03-20-2006, 09:01 AM
Of course you do--this view encourages your antics while chastizing others.

But everyone else can see your tactics as little better than Trollish diversions.

And so we go full circle:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm sorry, you say something?

http://www.david-hoke.de/4images/data/thumbnails/12/Mr.Bean.das.Baby.Bild.jpg

Neil Mick
03-20-2006, 11:14 AM
I'm sorry, you say something?

Yeah, I did: this might jog your memory...

I guess you're right...my screen keeps showing me this really horrible picture of a beany-baby that was really funny once; annoying twice; and will be a flame, on the third try.

I wonder if we'll get that far...? Hope not...

I guess you proved who is the real adolescent, on this thread. There's a really simple way to deal with flames...say hi to ignore-land.

Drop me a line, should you decide to act like an adult.

Until then..*click*

James Davis
03-20-2006, 11:58 AM
The difference is semantical, and quibbling. You pay attention to the White House spin and ignore the forest through the trees (again):

So, please: do go on and carp about "topping," versus "breaking." It makes you sound SO un-"semantical."
I think I will continue carping about the difference between truths and half-truths. Somebody needs to. I think it's a good thing for to us to be informed, but not for us to only read opinions that match our own! This example of news agencies changing words around to make Bush look like he knew the levvies would break is just horrible reporting.

Yes, I believe that Bush knew that the levvies would be topped.

EVERYBODY KNEW THE LEVVIES WOULD BE TOPPED!! They were designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane, and a level five was on its way!! DUH!! Everybody who bothered to take notice for the past three decades knew that those levvies could be topped easily. The feds provided plenty of funding, and the money was irresponsibly used for things that Louisiana didn't need!


BUSH SAID THAT THEY WERE "PREPARED" FOR THE STORM; that FEMA WAS DOING GREAT: when in fact...IT WAS JUST ANOTHER LIE.
FEMA was prepared to do the same thing it has always done over here in Florida. One major difference is that when FEMA arrived in New Orleans, they found a local government with their heads up their butts!!


The difference (that you obviously missed) is that Nagin's mistakes were lapses in judgement; Bush's mistakes were lying about the Fed's readiness; mishandling of FEMA's organization; and continuing to drop the ball in giving aid and a voice, to the indigent.
Nagin's mistake was a lapse in judgement? I think it was a lack of experience. He didn't know a damn thing about hurricanes or hurricane preparedness. Sadly, he didn't listen to the people who did, either.

Nagin's errors were errors of judgement; Bush's errors were errors of policy.

FEMA did exactly what it was desinged to do: Take down reports of damage, and cut checks. FEMA doesn't build levvies or evacuate people. Those responsibilities sit squarely on the shoulders of local government.


You and Jean seem to have one thing in common, debate-wise: you interpret my posts howsoever you feel (ignoring my intent), and carry it to its (il)logical conclusion. So, let me put this in plain English, so that even your spin-prone mind can grasp:

You'll find in my posts that I don't make assumptions about your intent; I present facts. As for my "spin-prone mind"...

...that was un-called for.

The big-business friendly boys who are minding the store down there couldn't care less about the plight of the indigent. Hotel-owners evicted Katrina survivors to make room for tourists for Mardi Gras; and as of 2 days ago, FEMA has gotten in on the act by starting evictions for victims of the storm; the Powers that Be have decided that the voting-rights of Katrina survivors takes a backseat to the voting rights of Iraqi's...talk about skewed priorities.

The eviction of Katrina survivors to make room for tourists can more than likely be attributed to the local tourism-fueled government, too.
It doesn't sound like something that would happen here in Florida, though; we generally already have shelters built and don't rely on hotels.
Those hotel chains should be boycotted, nation-wide. :disgust:

At the time of Katrina, 70% of the MS Nat'l Guard were in Iraq. But all this to you, no doubt, is meaningless.

Why does it always come to this? :rolleyes: Please stop making assumptions about my character. :straightf

I think it makes no sense at all to have our national guard troops in Iraq, or anywhere else overseas. They are supposed to be here guarding the nation - hence, the name. :rolleyes:

No, to you: Bush wasn't responsible, even tho he gutted the national and statewide infrastructure (through lack of funding)
Louisiana got triple the Army Corp. of Engineers funding that California did for many years prior to Katrina. The local government rerouted it to useless projects.
, sent off the Nat'l Guard to fight a war of folly See above.
, is currently evicting 10,000 families (families you claim to care for, so much) Money hungry hotel managers are evicting those people.
, does nothing to obey the law and insure that displaced N.O. residents get their (legally entitled) vote

What can he do to force people to get new driver's licenses and register to vote where they're staying now? :crazy:
, and in all likelihood is indirectly (at least) working to subvert the lower income sectors of N.O. by funding more efforts favorable to the have-more's.

Priority one after making sure the populace is safe is to have a place for people to go to work so they can feed their families. Of course businesses are being rebuilt! Houses that had private insurance are playing the waiting game, too. :uch:


But, do go on and prattle about breaking's, topping's, and building on fishbowls.

It provides excellent strawmen, with which to make my case.

You're welcome. ;) I don't believe, though, that you need my prattling or straw-men to make the case that the federal government is a slow moving beurocracy. :yuck:

Hogan
03-20-2006, 12:20 PM
Yeah, I did: this might jog your memory...



I guess you proved who is the real adolescent, on this thread. There's a really simple way to deal with flames...say hi to ignore-land.

Drop me a line, should you decide to act like an adult.

Until then..*click*

What?

http://www.david-hoke.de/4images/data/thumbnails/12/Mr.Bean.das.Baby.Bild.jpg

Adam Alexander
03-20-2006, 12:25 PM
Personally, I find that hard to believe. I happen to BE a college lecturer, and even tho an Aikido Instructor is hardly mired deep within the ivory towers of academia, I know enough to be aware that your depiction of academics is a broad stereotype, at best.



LOL. Figures.

Well, you know what I say...Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Neil Mick
03-20-2006, 12:37 PM
LOL. Figures.

Well, you know what I say...Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Well, you know what I say...Those who don't know what they're talking about...listen to FoxNews and let them fill in the blanks. :rolleyes:

Adam Alexander
03-20-2006, 12:40 PM
Well, you know what I say...Those who don't know what they're talking about...listen to FoxNews and let them fill in the blanks. :rolleyes:


I hope that wasn't directed toward me...Couldn't of been, I don't watch Fox.

Neil Mick
03-20-2006, 12:43 PM
I hope that wasn't directed toward me...Couldn't of been, I don't watch Fox.

Right...thanks for the correction.

Those who don't know what they're talking about...listen to (insert Rightwing, anti-intellectual propaganda source, here) and let them fill in the blanks.

Adam Alexander
03-20-2006, 01:18 PM
Right...thanks for the correction.

Those who don't know what they're talking about...listen to (insert Rightwing, anti-intellectual propaganda source, here) and let them fill in the blanks.

Actually, I listen to Franken, Big Eddie and Elder (when I stay up late).

Although I disagree with Franken and Ed, I like them because they're void of the shrillness that either side usually offers.

However, I think Elder is one of the most intelligent, practical and positive speakers I've heard in the close-to-mainstream.

What I don't like about Ed is that he's got a bad attitude. Whether someone who disagrees with him speaks decent and respectfully or acts like an idiot, his reaction is always the same except for volume: I can always hear him get angry.

Elder gets a little obnoxious at times.

Oh, wait. I have been flipping through the channels and picking up Buchanan. I saw him a couple times on Fox, but I was most impressed with his showing last week on "The McLaughlin Group."

I'd say, more than anyone else, Buchanan (I've got limited exposure to him) and Elder are the guys giving the most realistic shot of reality.

Good stuff.

Oh yeah, I might not know what I'm talking about, but I've got good reason to believe what I do. My beliefs are developed by real experience reaffirmed by extraordinarily insightful authors.

Let's not forget the position you claimed at the beginning of this conversation: A false belief of the greatness of FDR and the absence of knowledge about his threat to the Constitution and the longevity of the U.S.

So, before you start throwing around "don't know what they're talking about's," mabye you should get a historical perspective on your beliefs.

Don't be an apologist for your own ignorance.

Adam Alexander
03-20-2006, 01:26 PM
Please...if you ever got satisfaction from retirement benefits, overtime, a five-day week or not having your kids work hard labor: then you should thank unions, instead of urging their demise.

Uh huh, and if you're ever thankful that black folks aren't slaves, don't thank the party that unions always team with.

Neil Mick
03-20-2006, 01:40 PM
Oh yeah, I might not know what I'm talking about, but I've got good reason to believe what I do. My beliefs are developed by real experience reaffirmed by extraordinarily insightful authors.

Let's not forget the position you claimed at the beginning of this conversation: A false belief of the greatness of FDR and the absence of knowledge about his threat to the Constitution and the longevity of the U.S

Let's stay focused upon the central topic, and not get misled into misdirection, shall we?

First, I congratulate you for acknowledging that you don't know what you're talking about. It takes a big man to acknowledge a mistake (even if you didn't exactly do this, yet).

But, the issue of FDR, and your erroneous opinions of same, is a different issue. The only reason I can think that you might bring it up here is some sort of mutual blame-game. It's beside the point. For one thing, we simply disagree... you have yet to prove that I have a

false belief of the greatness of FDR and the absence of knowledge about his threat to the Constitution and the longevity of the U.S

Yes, Virginia: we CAN agree to disagree, and not accuse each other of harboring "false beliefs (whatever THAT means, in an historical context)."

But, more to the point, you have these stereotypical ideas of academic's. Stereotypes, as you probably know, are usually at least partly correct. SOME academics somewhere (probably more than a few) probably live in their own shell, removed from the realpolitik of daily life, for the rest of the world (William F. Buckley and George Will come to mind).

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a teen, who was into evangelism. She went to a church that professed to "convert" gays.

I pointed out that homosexuality is not "convertable:" just as you cannot convert from having blue eyes or light skin. Nor, I added, is homosexuality "unnatural."

She argued that she "knew" of some people who had converted. "Oh really?" I pressed. You knew these people well?

"Uhhh, sure," she remarked, shifting her eyes left and right.

In other words, she saw some poor, confused person get up in front of her congregation and "proclaim" his "conversion" to heterosexuality, and all from this, she understands homosexuality as some psychological aberration. :rolleyes:

She took an erroneous position, based upon a narrow, untested, un-rigorous observation.

Just as you did, with academia.

Don't be an apologist for your own ignorance.

Yeah, exactly. Couldn't have said it better, myself.

Neil Mick
03-20-2006, 01:43 PM
Uh huh, and if you're ever thankful that black folks aren't slaves, don't thank the party that unions always team with.

A drowning man will grab onto anything, that floats...even if it smells bad.

Adam Alexander
03-20-2006, 01:53 PM
If I only had all the time in the world... I could continue wasting it.

Rember Neil, trying to win an argument is no where near as rewarding as being right...You should try it sometime.

Neil Mick
03-20-2006, 02:07 PM
I think I will continue carping about the difference between truths and half-truths. Somebody needs to. I think it's a good thing for to us to be informed, but not for us to only read opinions that match our own! This example of news agencies changing words around to make Bush look like he knew the levvies would break is just horrible reporting.

Yes, I believe that Bush knew that the levvies would be topped.

EVERYBODY KNEW THE LEVVIES WOULD BE TOPPED!! They were designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane, and a level five was on its way!! DUH!! Everybody who bothered to take notice for the past three decades knew that those levvies could be topped easily. The feds provided plenty of funding, and the money was irresponsibly used for things that Louisiana didn't need!

Apples and oranges. Bush and FEMA dropped the ball. Repeatedly.

End of story. Nothing you have said so far changes that fact.


FEMA was prepared to do the same thing it has always done over here in Florida. One major difference is that when FEMA arrived in New Orleans, they found a local government with their heads up their butts!!

I don't care if they found a local government locking up people and forcing feeding tubes up their noses...the point is that a federal gov't agency that is on some nebulous level the Federal response (1st response? 10th? 50th? It doesn't matter...the point is that they're expected to do something, with those Federal tax-dollars, besides worry about American's overthrowing the gov't) to emergencies is in the domain of FEMA.

And FEMA seriously dropped the ball...repeatedly...so much so that it could only be a policy decision, somewhere along the line.

The "Black Curtain" Around FEMA's Operations (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20050911&articleId=929)

FEMA refused evacuation help from Amtrak; it turned away experienced fire fighters and first responders; it turned back Wal-Mart supply trucks; refused to allow the Red Cross to deliver food; blocked a 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid; turned away generators and other equipment (see this page with links to news stories). In other words, FEMA went out of its way to deny aid and allow people to die from dehydration, starvation, and lack of medicine and medical help. In addition to denying aid, and thus killing an as of yet (and possibly forever) unknown number of people, FEMA is attempting to control media access to the worst natural disaster in American history (see Journalist Groups Protest FEMA Ban on Photos of Dead). Moreover, journalists and photographers have been assaulted by troops and had their notebooks and cameras confiscated (see The Eye of the Hurricane by Matthias Gebauer).

Nagin's mistake was a lapse in judgement? I think it was a lack of experience. He didn't know a damn thing about hurricanes or hurricane preparedness. Sadly, he didn't listen to the people who did, either.

Lapse of judgement...lapse of experience...for the point of this discussion, it's immaterial. Nagin certainly bears some of the responsibility, but at some point he tried to get Bush and Blanco to help, and they dropped the ball...bigtime.

FEMA did exactly what it was desinged to do: Take down reports of damage, and cut checks. FEMA doesn't build levvies or evacuate people. Those responsibilities sit squarely on the shoulders of local government.

...and deny aid, suppress the media, evict evacuee's...

Oh yeah, they're doin' a bang-up job, all right. :disgust:

You'll find in my posts that I don't make assumptions about your intent; I present facts. As for my "spin-prone mind"...

...that was un-called for.

OK, you're right...sorry. It was.

The eviction of Katrina survivors to make room for tourists can more than likely be attributed to the local tourism-fueled government, too.
It doesn't sound like something that would happen here in Florida, though; we generally already have shelters built and don't rely on hotels.
Those hotel chains should be boycotted, nation-wide. :disgust:

Agreed.


Louisiana got triple the Army Corp. of Engineers funding that California did for many years prior to Katrina. The local government rerouted it to useless projects.
See above.
Money hungry hotel managers are evicting those people.


[quote]What can he do to force people to get new driver's licenses and register to vote where they're staying now? :crazy:

There's a new invention...mayhap you've heard of it...? It's called "satellite voting." It was a big hit with BushCO, when they were so keen on getting popular support (and, they hoped, thereby boost approval for the Occupation).

Polling stations were set up for Iraqi's who lived outside of Iraq.

It's just too bad that BushCO cared less for indigent N.O.'ers, than he did for displaced Iraqi's (if you can actually call it "caring").

Priority one after making sure the populace is safe is to have a place for people to go to work so they can feed their families. Of course businesses are being rebuilt! Houses that had private insurance are playing the waiting game, too. :uch:

And if you believe that it's all good now, that it's simply a matter of bureucracies slowing things down and racism has nothing to do with it, that things will be just ducky for the 9th Ward once it's all settled out...

Well, I have some flooded swampland to sell you...cheap! :p

Neil Mick
03-20-2006, 02:20 PM
Rember Neil, trying to win an argument is no where near as rewarding as being right...You should try it sometime.

OK, let's see...

No WMD's? Yep,,,I got that one.

Bush lying? On the nose, there.

Iraq would be the biggest mistake, the biggest folly in recent memory of American foreign policy? Check

That the gov't subsidizes the rich, while ignoring the plight of the poor...? Duh!

That some guy who makes broad-based smears on academia (based on a few acquaintences some years' back) places stereotyping, above reality-testing? Got that one, in one.

That the prisoners in Gitmo were largely innocent, and the torture would do us no good? Yepper!

...still waiting, to be proven "wrong," Jean! Drop me a line, the next time you suddenly figure it all out, and show me the error of my ways.

(caveat: I am no further from always being "right" than the next fellow. The lesson here is, beware of people who say that their beliefs are correct, over and above the beliefs of others.

If, dear reader: you doubt what I state here, good. I urge you to find out, for yourself. We can leave the proclamations of who's "right" or "wrong," to Jean, John H, and the like).

Neil Mick
03-20-2006, 02:28 PM
Actually, I listen to Franken, Big Eddie and Elder (when I stay up late).

Although I disagree with Franken and Ed, I like them because they're void of the shrillness that either side usually offers.


(P.S. and "Franken...void of the 'shrillness??'" Didn't he punch out a heckler, once? :eek:

I just try to imagine O'Reilly in the ring, with Franken...I imagine that THEY'VE engaged the same activity, themselves, in their off-moments,,,more's the pity...)

Adam Alexander
03-20-2006, 05:20 PM
...still waiting, to be proven "wrong," Jean! Drop me a line, the next time you suddenly figure it all out, and show me the error of my ways.

The best I can do is offer you the books that offer the truth.

You, however, fail to do anything more than cry and repeat the same lame lines over and over.

Come on Neil, how about the one book that offers the heart of your opinion?

I cite a book. Rather than respond with the source of your perspective, you say that 'it's not fair that I don't explain it to you.'

Typical. Because I "owe" you an explanation.

That's the difference between people like me and you. I don't just carry the opinions that I've carried since childhood for no reason other than absence of anything intellectual that challenges them. I had opinions similar to yours. However, I went out of the way to read what the other side was saying and they made more sense...and it was consistent with my life experience.


What do you have Neil? I'll put up my one book to yours. You read mine, I'll read yours and we'll see what happens.

Mine's "Democracy in America." What's your's?

Neil Mick
03-20-2006, 05:58 PM
The best I can do is offer you the books that offer the truth.

You, however, fail to do anything more than cry and repeat the same lame lines over and over.

Wrong again. I provide sources.

Funny, YOUR books seem to "offer the truth;" while MINE are apologist nonsense.

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

Come on Neil, how about the one book that offers the heart of your opinion?

Where do you want me to start?

I cite a book. Rather than respond with the source of your perspective, you say that 'it's not fair that I don't explain it to you.'

You did. But, rather than wave me vaguely in the direction of a 200+ page book, how about pointing out EXACTLY what you find wrong, with, say, FDR's reign?

Typical. Because I "owe" you an explanation.

Nope. You owe me nothing. Dunno where you got this idea.

That's the difference between people like me and you.

Yep, the difference btw ppl like me and you is that I don't say that there are any substantive differences btw ppl like you and me...just different worldviews.

OTOH, people like you keep trying to build on this "us-them" notion by prefacing many of your sentences with..."the difference btw ppl like you an me..." :rolleyes:

I don't just carry the opinions that I've carried since childhood for no reason other than absence of anything intellectual that challenges them.

Nah, you take a few experiences in the past, and then you seem to fill out the memory, with a few, pat, rightwing rag-fueled stereotypes.

Yeah, a real Studs Terkel, you are... :hypno:

I had opinions similar to yours. However, I went out of the way to read what the other side was saying and they made more sense...and it was consistent with my life experience.

That's nice...believe it or not...I respect that. I respect anyone's worldviews, even if they aren't compatible with mine.

Sure, I'll hash your posted worldviews TO DEATH, here...but in the end, at best: this is only a testing of one's observations (incl. my own. Yeah, I've been wrong before...don't quote me). ;)

My perception of the world is limited to what I can see, with my own eyes.

But, that doesn't mean that my observations, carry no value. The fact that people come on here and take the time to tell me how value-less my ideas are, means that I must be doing something right. :cool: Something I'm saying must make them...uncomfortable.

What do you have Neil? I'll put up my one book to yours. You read mine, I'll read yours and we'll see what happens.

Mine's "Democracy in America." What's your's?

Alexis de Tocqueville is a bit on the heavy-side, don't you think?

Come up with something a little lighter (I have a lot to read, on my plate. Still waiting for R. Fisk's "The War for Civilization" to get checked in, at the local library).

I suppose mine would be "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn.

James Davis
03-21-2006, 11:33 AM
Apples and oranges. Bush and FEMA dropped the ball. Repeatedly.

End of story. Nothing you have said so far changes that fact.

Yup, Bush and FEMA screwed up but it is not the end of the story. All sorts of local polititians screwed up, too. The paramedics and firefighters shouldn't have been turned away, but the local cops shouldn't have walked off the job!




Lapse of judgement...lapse of experience...for the point of this discussion, it's immaterial. Nagin certainly bears some of the responsibility, but at some point he tried to get Bush and Blanco to help, and they dropped the ball...bigtime.
The governor's only responsibility here in Florida is to declare a state of emergency and order an evacuation. Not difficult. :disgust: Why did she wait so long?


...and deny aid, suppress the media, evict evacuee's...

Oh yeah, they're doin' a bang-up job, all right. :disgust:
The media hasn't been suppressed; plenty of bad news has gotten around just fine! ;) Heck, the first helicopter in the area was probably filming drowning people instead of helping them!! "If it bleeds, it leads; if it burns, it earns."


OK, you're right...sorry. It was.
Apology accepted. :)


Agreed.
We agree? Who are you, and what have you done with Neil? :confused: :p


There's a new invention...mayhap you've heard of it...? It's called "satellite voting." It was a big hit with BushCO, when they were so keen on getting popular support (and, they hoped, thereby boost approval for the Occupation).

Polling stations were set up for Iraqi's who lived outside of Iraq.

It's just too bad that BushCO cared less for indigent N.O.'ers, than he did for displaced Iraqi's (if you can actually call it "caring").
Yeah, that's similar to when lawyers were sent to my state by the democratic party to prevent soldiers' ballots from being counted.


And if you believe that it's all good now, that it's simply a matter of bureucracies slowing things down and racism has nothing to do with it, that things will be just ducky for the 9th Ward once it's all settled out...

Racism exists... and it sucks. I never said it wasn't a problem. In the case of Katrina, however, I think stupidity was a much larger problem for many of the people involved.

"once it's all settled out"... they'll still be living in a flood area. There's nothing wrong with living wherever one chooses, as long as they are aware of the risks and willing to accept the consequences.

Well, I have some flooded swampland to sell you...cheap! :p
Plenty over here, thanks. :)

Michael Varin
03-22-2006, 06:19 AM
Neil,

Isn't communism the end point of socialism?

Jean,

Larry Elders. Do we have a little Libertarianism blooming here?

When I hear people debating world views, weighing the merits of liberalism and conservatism, I believe many people disregard a critical factor -- respecting the choices of others. Currently, governments all over the world, in varying degrees, serve to impose the will of one segment of the population on the rest. The ball changes hands, but the game remains the same. It's doubly confounding when people who are seriously involved in aikido choose not to recognize this fact. Since aikido's philosophy has a strong message of non-aggression, and aiki itself is totally natural harmony, it seems that we should be moving away from ideas that have caused so many problems in the past century. We are the only ones standing in our way.

A book that I would like others to read is Healing Our World (http://www.ruwart.com/Pages/Home/). It's not too long, and the older edition is available free online. No excuses.

"In aikido we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control. Never run away from any kind of challenge, but do not try to suppress or control an opponent unnaturally." Morihei Ueshiba

"If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts and the world will govern itself." Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching

"In every country where man is free to think and to speak, differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, and the imperfection of reason; but these differences when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overspreading our land transiently and leaving our horizon more bright and serene." Thomas Jefferson

Michael

Mark Freeman
03-22-2006, 07:34 AM
A book that I would like others to read is Healing Our World. It's not too long, and the older edition is available free online. No excuses.

Thanks for the heads up on the free download Michael, I'll definitely give it a read.

Democracy seems to be the way that the majority of the world wants to go, and as we can see by our own democratically elected governments ( both around 25% of the population voting for the winning side ), your quote holds true.
Currently, governments all over the world, in varying degrees, serve to impose the will of one segment of the population on the rest. The ball changes hands, but the game remains the same.

I'm not sure yet what the book you suggest reading proposes. Is there a better system than the flawed one we have?

regards,
Mark

Michael Neal
03-22-2006, 09:06 AM
The real conspiracy is that I deliberately start these threads on Aikiweb to divert Neil Mick's attention away while Dick Cheney can get away with some other sinister plot. bwhahahaha!!

Mark Freeman
03-22-2006, 09:36 AM
The real conspiracy is that I deliberately start these threads on Aikiweb to divert Neil Mick's attention away while Dick Cheney can get away with some other sinister plot. bwhahahaha!!

Tut tut Michael :D

From over here it seems like you could do with more Neil's holding your 'leaders' to account. :(

regards,
Mark

James Davis
03-22-2006, 11:33 AM
The real conspiracy is that I deliberately start these threads on Aikiweb to divert Neil Mick's attention away while Dick Cheney can get away with some other sinister plot. bwhahahaha!!
I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than drive anywhere with Ted Kennedy. :D

Hogan
03-22-2006, 12:02 PM
The real conspiracy is that I deliberately start these threads on Aikiweb to divert Neil Mick's attention away while Dick Cheney can get away with some other sinister plot. bwhahahaha!!


I'm extremely dissapointed in myself for not thinking of it, first....

:disgust:

Neil Mick
03-22-2006, 12:20 PM
The real conspiracy is that I deliberately start these threads on Aikiweb to divert Neil Mick's attention away while Dick Cheney can get away with some other sinister plot. bwhahahaha!!

You know the worst thing...? It's not bad enough you start an obviously divisive thread with a title like "I can't stand George Bush," to start the gab-fest, nooo...

The WORST thing is that you spelled W's NAME wrong! :D

Neil Mick
03-22-2006, 12:27 PM
Neil,

Isn't communism the end point of socialism?

Only if you limit your definition. There have been plenty of socialist movements in this country that have ushered in reforms, in the US. Does that make these impulses as only ending up with communism?

No, not at all.


When I hear people debating world views, weighing the merits of liberalism and conservatism, I believe many people disregard a critical factor -- respecting the choices of others.

Thank you.

Currently, governments all over the world, in varying degrees, serve to impose the will of one segment of the population on the rest.

We are the only ones standing in our way.

Exactly.

A book that I would like others to read is Healing Our World (http://www.ruwart.com/Pages/Home/). It's not too long, and the older edition is available free online. No excuses.

Sounds good, thanks.

"In aikido we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control. Never run away from any kind of challenge, but do not try to suppress or control an opponent unnaturally." Morihei Ueshiba

"If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts and the world will govern itself." Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching

"In every country where man is free to think and to speak, differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, and the imperfection of reason; but these differences when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overspreading our land transiently and leaving our horizon more bright and serene." Thomas Jefferson

Michael

(regarding wmd's)
"...where's the beef???!!!"
--Neil ;) :cool:

Adam Alexander
03-22-2006, 12:33 PM
Alexis de Tocqueville is a bit on the heavy-side, don't you think?

Come up with something a little lighter (I have a lot to read, on my plate. Still waiting for R. Fisk's "The War for Civilization" to get checked in, at the local library).

I suppose mine would be "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn.

Depends on what you mean by "heavy." If you mean lengthy, then yeah. If I recall correctly it was 750 or 850 pages. However, if you mean difficult to grasp, I would say it wasn't too bad.

I don't think any book that is as short as a couple hundred pages will offer any significant value to understanding of a political perspective (expressing it's principals, maybe. Explaining them, a couple hundred pages isn't enough.).


If you look at Orwell's "Animal Farm" (around 150 pgs.) and "1984" (around 250), both ultimately state a couple pretty basic ideas. However, for anyone to express those ideas in a way that another would understand the nuances that lead up to the conclusion, I believe, is impossible.

So, to say what's right or wrong with a political perspective in the time that you spend on a forum is impossible.


I'll give your book a shot. However, the title leads me to believe that the book is postulated on a group of ideas rather than expression and arguing for those ideas. Is that the case?

If so, how about one that defends the postulates?

Neil Mick
03-22-2006, 12:43 PM
Yup, Bush and FEMA screwed up but it is not the end of the story. All sorts of local polititians screwed up, too. The paramedics and firefighters shouldn't have been turned away, but the local cops shouldn't have walked off the job!

Yeah, all true.

The governor's only responsibility here in Florida is to declare a state of emergency and order an evacuation. Not difficult. :disgust: Why did she wait so long?

Yes, I'd like to know the answer to that one, too.

The media hasn't been suppressed; plenty of bad news has gotten around just fine! ;) Heck, the first helicopter in the area was probably filming drowning people instead of helping them!! "If it bleeds, it leads; if it burns, it earns."

It's selective.

During the disaster, the coverage was good, because the media were "eambedded" with the poor.

Now, the coverage is spotty, at best: distorted, at worst.


We agree? Who are you, and what have you done with Neil? :confused: :p

I don't know WHAT you mean...I AM the "real Neal...err, Neil..." (*nervously pushes empty pod-case, under desk, with toe...*)

Yeah, that's similar to when lawyers were sent to my state by the democratic party to prevent soldiers' ballots from being counted.

Not to play duelling outrages, but I think the scale of this is bigger.

Racism exists... and it sucks. I never said it wasn't a problem. In the case of Katrina, however, I think stupidity was a much larger problem for many of the people involved.

Nope.

Stupidity does not explain the summary ervictions, by FEMA, only a few days ago.

"once it's all settled out"... they'll still be living in a flood area. There's nothing wrong with living wherever one chooses, as long as they are aware of the risks and willing to accept the consequences.

That's right.

And, we should all, as a nation, be ready to get those people back on their feet (no matter WHAT, their income-level), as quickly as possible.

I live in an earthquake-prone area. Should Federal aid be denied or limited for the Bay Area, just because the stakes are higher...?

Plenty over here, thanks. :)

Darn it! There goes my vacation-money. :)

Neil Mick
03-22-2006, 12:59 PM
Depends on what you mean by "heavy." If you mean lengthy, then yeah. If I recall correctly it was 750 or 850 pages. However, if you mean difficult to grasp, I would say it wasn't too bad.

"Heavy," as in length, mostly.

750 pages is a major tome for me, right now.

I don't think any book that is as short as a couple hundred pages will offer any significant value to understanding of a political perspective (expressing it's principals, maybe. Explaining them, a couple hundred pages isn't enough.).

Yeah, I agree.

If you look at Orwell's "Animal Farm" (around 150 pgs.) and "1984" (around 250), both ultimately state a couple pretty basic ideas. However, for anyone to express those ideas in a way that another would understand the nuances that lead up to the conclusion, I believe, is impossible.

So, to say what's right or wrong with a political perspective in the time that you spend on a forum is impossible.

No, I agree. It's just that I am reading several books right now, and I have only a little time to read anything else.

I'll give your book a shot. However, the title leads me to believe that the book is postulated on a group of ideas rather than expression and arguing for those ideas. Is that the case?

Not exactly.

History is written by the conquerers. This book presents a side of American history not taught in US schools...the PoV of American history, from the perspective of of the underclass.

So, in a sense, I guess it's postulated on ideas...but, more the "idea" of giving voice, to the formerly voiceless.

If so, how about one that defends the postulates?

You asked for a book that is the heart of my perspective. This book is it.

Adam Alexander
03-22-2006, 01:07 PM
Yeah, I agree.

No, I agree. It's just that I am reading several books right now, and I have only a little time to read anything else.


Ah. Looks like the Left-coast-unique method of pretending to agree to something when, in reality, it's a rejection.

That's okay, how about you just admit that you have no idea why the opposition believes what they believe and you'll not spend the time to understand it.

LOL. Typical.

Neil Mick
03-22-2006, 01:33 PM
Ah. Looks like the Left-coast-unique method of pretending to agree to something when, in reality, it's a rejection.

Ah. Looks like the label-baiting slur's are out in force, again... :rolleyes:

That's okay, how about you just admit that you have no idea why the opposition believes what they believe and you'll not spend the time to understand it.

LOL. Typical.

Let me try, one more time, since you seem to be missing the emotional subtext of my posts....

My answer, in full (since, in my brevity, you're getting the wrong idea), is sure: I'll be glad to read something that you suggest. However, since I am in the midst of reading "NeoConned Again!" (a series of discussions about the mis-lead-up to the Iraqi war...length: 1200+ pages); "Just a Soldier" (an American soldier's account of war. This man served in Afghanistan, and went onto participate in the '03 invasion...length: 200 pages); "Try Not to Think of an Elephant," by George Lakoff (a book about framing political discussion...length: 125 pages...a little side-reading, really); and "Ptolemy's Gate," by Jonathon Stroud (book 3 of the "Chronicles of Bartimaeus." This is my current "light-reading:"...length: 800 pages (big type, tho)...well, you might say that my reading-dance-card list is a bit full, at the moment.

I also am awaiting, on reserve, Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilization:" likely, also, to be a weighty tome.

Add to that that most of the books above-listed are library-books, so I have to read them quickly.

And, no: I am not a speed-reader.

So, please...if you're going to offer a reading-exchange (a capital idea): can you please make it either an important section of a book, or a book that is a little less...lengthy...?

Adam Alexander
03-22-2006, 01:57 PM
My answer, in full (since, in my brevity, you're getting the wrong idea), is sure: I'll be glad to read something that you suggest. However, since I am in the midst of reading...
So, please...if you're going to offer a reading-exchange (a capital idea): can you please make it either an important section of a book, or a book that is a little less...lengthy...?

Yeah, I think we're repeating ourselves now. You're doing exactly what I'm saying you're doing: You phrase your response so that it has the appearance of agreement. However, you've already agreed that without a lot of pages, conveying the reason, etc. for a concept cannot be done...but then you offer, apparently in an effort to appear "agreeable" and "willing to go the distance" to read a section or shorter book-- both offers of reading less pages...which you've already agreed that less pages doesn't get it done. The effective outcome is that you're not really agreeing to anything at all-- you're just appearing to agree.

In reality, it'd be more accurate to say "I don't have the time to meet your challenge." If you wanted to give the appearance of agreement and open-mindedness you might even add,"as soon as time is open, I'll do it." However, I think that would be a lie.

LOL. What you're doing is called "manipulating."

Neil Mick
03-22-2006, 03:31 PM
you're just appearing to agree.

And you're just appearing to offer a proposal...instead, you are offering another chance to be hypercritical, and judgemental.

Hoorah...that should get the exchange of ideas a-flowing. :rolleyes:

In reality, it'd be more accurate to say "I don't have the time to meet your challenge."

In reality, it'd be more accurate to say "I'm not interested in compromise, or working with your limits."

If you wanted to give the appearance of agreement and open-mindedness you might even add,"as soon as time is open, I'll do it." However, I think that would be a lie.

If you wanted to give the appearance of agreement and openmindedness you might even add: "Sure! I understand...we all have busy lives, and you cannot be expected to absorb a weighty, 700+ page tome, if you have other things on your plate." However, you cannot say that, because your hypercritical wall is blocking your view,

LOL. What you're doing is called "manipulating."

Lol. What you're doing is called "spin."

Ron Tisdale
03-22-2006, 03:46 PM
You guys crack me up...I just read this thread for the humor!

Ron

Neil Mick
03-22-2006, 11:11 PM
You guys crack me up...I just read this thread for the humor!

Ron

Thank god for that... :crazy:

Adam Alexander
03-25-2006, 12:52 PM
What you're doing is called "spin."

I'm being quite direct and staying on point...Not answering an accusation with an accusation.

Anyway, I'll give you a new one: River Out of Eden by Dawkins. It's less than three hundred if I recall correctly.

You know, it's another thing that I consider typical of the leftist type: You can't read 700, 800 pages but offer that you "can" read 200, 300. However, the book you offer is 600+.

It's just funny.


I did pick it up. I blew through the first 4 chapters in a couple hours--a little over 100pgs. It's a pretty easy read. Not the typical three definitions to look up per page or rereading sentences because of difficult phrasing.

I don't understand how you could carry a leftist ideology in the face of that book. I stopped taking notes after sixty or so pages because it was the same thing over an over.

So, I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to understand why we should be libertarian.

Initially, the story of Columbus details the stuff you never hear about in school.

To me, that says that you can't trust the government to educate your children.

Says that whites, blacks and Indians got along so well that the elite made laws to keep us apart.

That says to me that people aren't inherently racist and laws to suppress racism by private citizens really isn't sensible: We're all going to get along anyway.

Equal government, yes. Suppressing private choices, no.

Says that taxes caused a great deal of the anger and uprising in the middle class.

Says that in cases where taxes were reduced, the people turned into upright citizens.

However, as a self-employed person, getting slammed with a double-shot of paying social security taxes, I can't see how you'd come to a leftist ideology when SS is suppressing the middle class.


There's a whole mess of examples. Suffice to say, I cannot see any rational reason to be leftist in the face of such evidence of the evil brought by government.

Please explain.

Neil Mick
03-25-2006, 08:32 PM
I'm being quite direct and staying on point...Not answering an accusation with an accusation.

No, you are attempting to corral me into your narrow definitions of what you consider reasonable reading, while calling me "manipulative" when I clearly state that I haven't the time for 700+ page tomes.

I'll give you a new one: River Out of Eden by Dawkins. It's less than three hundred if I recall correctly.

OK, I'll check it out.

You know, it's another thing that I consider typical of the leftist type:

You know, it's another thing that I consider typical of "your type" of label-baiting... :rolleyes:

You can't read 700, 800 pages but offer that you "can" read 200, 300. However, the book you offer is 600+.

It's just funny.

That's right...had you asked: I would have told you to pick a selection from the book, if you have time constraints. But, we never got that far into the conversation, because you insist on peppering every other sentence with "the problem with you leftist types...


I did pick it up. I blew through the first 4 chapters in a couple hours--a little over 100pgs. It's a pretty easy read. Not the typical three definitions to look up per page or rereading sentences because of difficult phrasing.

That's also right...I chose that book partly for those reasons, as well as the way it's laid out. I find ppl gravitate toward different sections (personally, I liked the bits about Shay's Rebellion, and the last portion, covering the 20th Century).

I don't understand how you could carry a leftist ideology in the face of that book.

Then I guess you don't understand leftist "ideology..." not being an ideologist, myself: you'll have to explain what you mean, a little better.

I stopped taking notes after sixty or so pages because it was the same thing over an over.

So, I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to understand why we should be libertarian.

Without really explaining why.

You and W seem to have something in common... :crazy:

Initially, the story of Columbus details the stuff you never hear about in school.

To me, that says that you can't trust the government to educate your children.

Says that whites, blacks and Indians got along so well that the elite made laws to keep us apart.

So far, so good. And now, ladies and germs...Jean will do a double-flip spin, with a forward gainer...wait for it.....

That says to me that people aren't inherently racist and laws to suppress racism by private citizens really isn't sensible: We're all going to get along anyway.

AND THE CROWD GOES WILD!!!! :D

Noooo: you were fine, up until the "and."

1. It is debatable as to whether racism is inherent. Xenophobia, and irrational fear of the outsider, has been around since civilization started.

Racism has its roots in classism, however. Not all African's who came over were slaves; and some whites were indentured servants (they might as well have been slaves). The settlers tried using Indian's as slaves, but they simply escaped in the wilderness. And so, they shifted to blacks to be slaves for several reasons, some of them economic.

Had you bothered to read a little further: you'd have discovered H. Zinn's central point, about racism...that racism was engendered to keep the poor squabbling amongst themselves. The rich spread these racist ideas in the hopes that poor whites would pick them up, and the lower classes would remain disempowered.

In short...divide and conquer, is what it's all about.

Does racism exist? There are racist beliefs, art, and literary themes that span our culture, almost since its inception. It's denying reality to suggest that racism is not real.

2. Using a few simple dictum's about how ppl got along at the advent of the Colonies, doth not a general rule about racism, make. Things CHANGE, and laws have to change to reflect this.

Says that taxes caused a great deal of the anger and uprising in the middle class.

Says that in cases where taxes were reduced, the people turned into upright citizens.

Regressive taxing systems cause uprisings. So?

However, as a self-employed person, getting slammed with a double-shot of paying social security taxes, I can't see how you'd come to a leftist ideology when SS is suppressing the middle class.

Again, with the logical jumps! :freaky:

1. Social Security is NOT a tax-system, as you well know.
2. SS does NOT, IMO, "suppress the middle class." :rolleyes:
3. The Fed's are harder on self-employed ppl (being one, myself) than they are on larger, corporate businesses. SS has little to do with that, IMO. If there weren't SS: the Fed's would find some other way to mess with us...it's their job.

There's a whole mess of examples. Suffice to say, I cannot see any rational reason to be leftist in the face of such evidence of the evil brought by government.

Please explain.

Simple. What you're doing is called "revisionism." You're taking a few of the faltering steps this country made in the beginning, and expanding them to suit your own beliefs.

I could, and have, gone on and on to show how racism is a systemic repression, often used by those in power to suppress minorities.

I have heard of accounts of systematic wipe-outs of whole minority neighborhoods and businesses (specifically, I am thinking of the Fillmore District, SF, circa 1960's) by a white-owned development agency. The fellow who planned the "redevelopment" later admitted during an interview that the motivation to change the neighborhood was based on race.

And, you are too narrow in your definition of Leftistism. Leftists run the gamut of beliefs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leftist)

Adam Alexander
03-26-2006, 05:50 PM
So far, so good. And now, ladies and germs...Jean will do a double-flip spin, with a forward gainer...wait for it.....AND THE CROWD GOES WILD!!!! :D Noooo: you were fine, up until the "and."

I don't understand the reaction. That's my interpretation of the book.

I think if someone were to pick up and read sections of it, they may very well get the impression that you have. However, it give a nice history and when all the stories that I read are put into context, it just makes sense to me that you conclude what I said.

I think the books a libertarian work.


1. It is debatable as to whether racism is inherent. Xenophobia, and irrational fear of the outsider, has been around since civilization started.

It's interesting that you say that when your book gives so many contradictions to that conclusion.

The natives who met Columbus were not. The blacks, whites and natives were not amongst each other. And, you report (next couple quotes) that racism is manufactured by the rich.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but come on.


Racism has its roots in classism

Agreed. It has nothing to do with the natural differences in people. It's manufactured by the system/rich.

Had you bothered to read a little further: you'd have discovered H. Zinn's central point, about racism...that racism was engendered to keep the poor squabbling amongst themselves. The rich spread these racist ideas in the hopes that poor whites would pick them up, and the lower classes would remain disempowered.

Yeah. Actually, that's about page seventy or eighty.

And I'd say that the left's tendency to demand priviledge at the cost of others is the desired effect of this manufactured racism.

However, these days it's Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP who are some of the biggest beneficiaries of racism.

Does racism exist? There are racist beliefs, art, and literary themes that span our culture, almost since its inception. It's denying reality to suggest that racism is not real.

It's real, but it's only authentic amongst two groupsone who believes that their inadequacies and lack of initiative are the fault of another group, and 2) a group of 20 rednecks in Arkansas.

2. Using a few simple dictum's about how ppl got along at the advent of the Colonies, doth not a general rule about racism, make. Things CHANGE, and laws have to change to reflect this.

A few? The books rife with examples. My life is rife with examples. My Mother-in-law who's a school teacher and talks about all the mixed kids is an example. The Discovery channel talking about people throughout history--even when it was different species--making love rather than war when they encountered each other is an example.

Racism does not exist like you want to believe. It's artificial. When you eliminate the laws that recognize race, people will turn back to what's natural...making sweet love.


1. Social Security is NOT a tax-system, as you well know.
2. SS does NOT, IMO, "suppress the middle class." :rolleyes:

It's not a tax system? Yeah, sure. I'll try to remember that the next time I'm sending out my friggin' check.

Me and everyone I know feel suppressed.


3. The Fed's are harder on self-employed ppl (being one, myself) than they are on larger, corporate businesses.

Sounds like a reason for less gov. to me.



Simple. What you're doing is called "revisionism."

I see. So, by interpreting something different than you do, I'm revising it?

Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like 'if you don't agree with me, you must be wrong.'

Hmm, convenient argument.

I could, and have, gone on and on to show how racism is a systemic repression, often used by those in power to suppress minorities.


could'a, should'a, would'a.


I think your left-leaning has more to do with the desire to see gay-marriage legal than anything else. If you interpret that book to be a reason for government to get involved in your neighbors life, so be it. But, you're fantasizing. The books all about why we should have less government.

James Davis
03-27-2006, 12:26 PM
1. Social Security is NOT a tax-system, as you well know.
2. SS does NOT, IMO, "suppress the middle class." :rolleyes:
3. The Fed's are harder on self-employed ppl (being one, myself) than they are on larger, corporate businesses. SS has little to do with that, IMO. If there weren't SS: the Fed's would find some other way to mess with us...it's their job.


1. Social Security is a means of filling federal coffers withour money, and giving back a fraction of it a wittle bitty eensy weensey bit at a time.

By the way, the lottery isn't technically a tax-system either, right? :rolleyes:

It's a way to tax (mostly poor) people a buck at a time, while feeding them BS dreams of some day living the good life. It also fosters the belief that those who are rich (people who bust their hump to make something for their kids to inherit, and employ their neighbors) just got lucky.

2. It certainly doesn't suppress our elected representatives, either; they have their own retirement program. :disgust: SS is meant for us peasants, because we're way too dumb to make decisions for ourselves concerning our future. :rolleyes:

Social Security is BS. So's the lottery. :disgust:

Neil Mick
04-01-2006, 03:53 AM
fnord.