In the UK the choice usually comes down to the "least worst" party, rather than one you'd actually want running the country. :s
Printable View
In the UK the choice usually comes down to the "least worst" party, rather than one you'd actually want running the country. :s
To be undecided close to an election with two less than perfect candidates is not idiocy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain VXR
That is just as insulting and non factual as anything coming out of the right. You should be ashamed. That kind of crap is only funny when it's your side dumping on the other side and does nothing to either enlighten or cool the rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain VXR
Once again something we can agree on. It does happen once in a while. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Bill Maher, another crazy liberal who I dont listen to a word he says because its so biased and not very factual.
Here you go DonCapps...
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/e...Rules/jobs.jpg
It is neither non-factual or insulting, it is a humor piece, and it IS funny because it is an only very slightly "dramatised" version of what we have seen here from "the usual suspects". Indeed it is what I have seen again and again and again from the "typical" so called conser-a-tari-bagger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Further, It is insulting to be expected to believe that you were insulted. Therefore you should be ashamed for cynically trying to make us believe you were insulted and that we should be ashamed.
Your words of fuax-offense do nothing to either enlighten or cool the rhetoric.
What utterly synthetic outrage. I, for one, found it amusing. Not all humour has to be safe and inoffensive. Some of the best, in my view, is highly offensive. And, let's face it, there are no good right-wing comedians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
I say this with — genuinely — no wish to seem insulting, but your lack of awareness of the nature of others is quite startling. Do you not realise from reading his contributions that Don Capps is quite a learned fellow, and not one likely to be impressed, let alone swayed, by some graphic you've downloaded?Quote:
Originally Posted by DanicaFan
I assume your list omitted KB Toys, Jumbo Stores, Stage Stores, FAO Schwartz, eToys, GS Industries and Contec Holdings for a reason? Maybe because those are some of the companies that Bain Capital led into bankruptcy... Contec roughly a month ago? ;) Also, do you know who Jack Bush, Barry Gold, Paul Traub and Michael Glazer are? No? Perhaps you should find out and learn the ins & outs of how private equity really works... the good and the bad side of it, before trying to create a (false) impression that it's all peaches & cream. This simplistic on/off, black/white, good/bad, bifurcated approach annoys me.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanicaFan
I have no issue with private equity in principle. It's what our economic system is based on. And I'm not in favor of the government attempting to pick winners & losers. But when big PE is allowed to run rampant or has advantages unavailable to smaller investors, an economic and social gap is created. And when big PE bankrupts a firm which has a defined benefits plan, do you know who picks up the tab for those pensions? The U.S. taxpayer.
Unfortunately, I don't believe, at this point, that you have any interest in learning how the system actually works. You can prove me wrong by demonstrating some knowledge of business or economics (not gleaned from some obscure website, right wing chain email or Wiki entry), but I'm not holding my breath at this point. Your only interest is to present rather irrational, partisan arguments and talking points, many of which are not fully accurate. But if cherry-picking, only that data and information which supports your preconceived notions, makes you feel better, then post on, brother... post on.
There is a good and bad side to private equity. It's unfortunate that while you want to participate in the discussion (evidenced by your little attachment above), I just don't see it as a good use of time to argue with a graphic, if the poster who placed it cannot at least partially comprehend what he has posted. Oh well... it is the internet after all. :rolleyes:
A very wise---if sometimes a little satirical----guy once said right on this forum back in 2007:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Oh wait. That was me. :idea:Quote:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses" Freddy Engels
"Revolution is the opiate of the intellectuals" Dorthy Parker
"Outrage is the opiate of the middle class white males" Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Looking the obviously mindless dribble graphics for a moment and focusing on what I presume is the "BIG POINT" ie Bain Capital invested private money----and I believe the intent is to imply that they invested their OWN money---I think it is pertinent to look at how Bain operated. From what I read Bain would find companies "in trouble", that is with low stock values, put in a tiny % of their capital--2-3 million and put in the major amout with "leveraged'---that is somebody else's borrowed money, enough to have a controlling interest. Then regardless of if the company "turned around" it was---already in trouble, remember---that's why they were targeted----saddled with millions, often hundreds of millions of new debt AND multi millions of dollars of fees paid to Bain to "managae" the company. And again, regardless of how the companys balance sheets look, big fat 5-10-20million out in "divedends" to the "new controlling stockholders" which was, quelle surprise! Bain.
Thus it's not surprising that so many failed but with only 4-5 million invested of their own funds in it and many many more times that paid back to Bain, there was no risk..
Further thinking, suggesting that this kind of shifting money and dodging risk is some kind of admirable trait, and that that shows what a Great shrewd "businessman" Bain leader Willard is, and thus is materiel to lead a whole country seems well, flat stupid.
The vision, the drive, the risk to establish a company to do, or make a tangible thing, like for example what his dear Daddy did, starting as he did as an undocumented alien from Mexico and ending up head of American Motors and even a Governor of a heavily idustrialised state, is one thing, and is pretty damn impressive.....
But swooping in on and wresting control (via buying up stocks with, in short, by amassing other people's capital, a company other people conceived of, built, ran, risked their futures on, not making anything except a "deal' is another thing entirely.
There is good reason these kind of people are called "Vulture Capitalists"
Is a man whose only real claim for fitness is "I crushed companies in trouble" who the country needs for a president?
Oh it is idiocy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
The fact that you only have two is really dumb.
In Australia, because of preferential and compulsory voting, in the House of Representatives, we didn't even have a government until 24 days after the election because there was a hung parliament. There are now two coalitions in the Australian federal lower house, one as the government; the other in opposition.
In the upper house there actually is no majority on the floor at the moment because apart from the two majors, there are seven other parties with seats.
The point is that there isn't really a plurality of voices in American politics even though if enough people got off their butts and voted for a third or fourth party, there'd be real campaigning about actual policy on the hustings instead of this ridiculous PR charade.
I'd be undecided in the lead up to practically election in America for the simple reason that to allow someone to wield power for four years is a highly responsible action and if you're only limited to a choice of "two less than perfect candidates" you'd better make sure that the decision is right.
"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."
- Jerry Garcia
Just out of interest, does Australia use proportional representation of first past the post?
In the House of Representatives (the equivalent of the Commons) it uses preferential voting, specifically the Alternative Vote. That is, the system which was voted against in the referendum in May.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
In the Senate (the equivalent of the Commons) it uses proportional voting. The number of seats in the Senate is allocated 12 each for the states with two each for the territories of the ACT and NT.
Duverger's Law suggests that in any one-seat constituency system, voting will tend towards a duality of parties and this is generally the case, but unlike the UK where first past the post is used, it actually does force a change in policy because suddently the majors find themselves fighting over third and fourth preferences in some cases such as in 2010, a few seats ran down to sixth and seventh preferences.
not to pick nits, but if there are only two, then not having made up one's mind till late is not necessarily dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Personally I'd prefer at least a third major party. And there are in fact several more parties, though none commands the membership and influence of the dems & reps. Teddy Roosevelt & Ross Perot were the only third party candidates of consequence in the last hundred years or so. But I still don't see why two HAS to be dumb. Everything is relative and two parties have pretty much been the deal through most of the last century and longer.Quote:
The fact that you only have two is really dumb.
A senior BBC journalist has written about a colleague in one of the US TV networks being told during the Balkan wars not to report on the fact of there being more than two factions fighting each other, on the grounds that viewers would find it too hard to understand. Might this be another reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
But that shows you what the (American) media thinks of the average citizen. All of them are wrong on that - including Fox (because I knew someone would bring that up). Another reason NOT to get accurate information from the TV people over here.
Well, I'm sure it's wrong to tar all American media with the same brush. I wouldn't say that NPR treats its audience with such contempt, for instance. And there is an extent to which a certain section of any population gets the media it deserves. This is certainly true in the UK, and, judging by some of what we see on here, for instance, it must be in the US too. How else can one explain avid consumers of Fox?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
It would be quite an understatement to say that I am very unimpressed and rather underwhelmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanicaFan
How lame and infantile.
This is political campaign fodder and not thought.
By the way, you can think, can't you?
It would be an insult to the box of rocks that one could use as a comparison to the perceived abilities you continue to demonstrate when it comes to the process of actually thinking and expressing thoughts that are either simplistic blather or the sort of mindless garbage that one parrots from Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter or O'Reilly.
Once upon there were conservatives whose ideas were well-thought out as well as being well-articulated. Whether one agreed with those ideas or not, one certainly did respect the fact that much thought and consideration -- and intelligence -- had gone into them. They made one think and ponder the ideas and the consequences of those ideas. They were not the sort of mindless drivel that you and others spew forth into the increasing toxic sewer that the American political process has become. While I may have rarely agreed with Bill Buckley, I certainly respected his opinions and carefully considered his ideas. The Republican Party and conservatives of all stripes were not mindless, unthinking idiots whose
Plus, you seem to have avoided providing an answer to what happens when Obama is re-elected. The Republicans secede from reality? Oh, sorry! that has already happened in many cases. As you were. The Republicans in Congress suddenly begin to embrace the concept of governing for all rather the plutocrats? The Supreme Court recognizes its error in the Citizens United case and reverses itself? Wall Street is reined in and sanity -- or something as close as can found -- returns to the financial markets? Grover Norquist is struck by lightning when Congress finally raises taxes to actually address the issue of debt rather than pander to the monied interests? The sky falls? The oceans roil? The color red disappears?
Step up your game. Man up. Show everyone you have something besides air holding your ears apart. Support Romney and the Republican campaign by providing convincing arguments -- concepts, ideas, reasons -- as to why people should be for him. Being against Obama is not the same as being for Romney, although that is the simplistic notion that seems to be operating at the moment. Use words that convince and not vitriol for a change. Defend your side for a change rather than continue to recklessly attack Obama and the Democrats -- my goodness, plankton can do that. Show that you are a cognitive being rather than someone whose brain got fried by watching too much television, especially Faux News.
Fox is not much more biased than the other major TV media, just on the other side. NPR is hardly the epitome of inbiased reporting either. They are more "liberal" than the other outlets. All of that is not new of course. Media outlets, of all stripes, have been biased for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I respectfully disagree. I have never seen any news outlet as biased to the left as is Fox, and none of which I can think is quite as — what's the word? — bonkers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Where one stands depends mainly on where one sits. To wit:
I bet if we took a straw poll of everyone on these fora who lives outside of the United States, the general suggestion would be that the entire of American politics and media generally is shifted to the right. The fact that you say that "Fox is not much more biased than the other major TV media" indicates that what Americans perceive to be the centre of politics is different to the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
The output of NPR which we get in Australia, appears on the ABC which is a government owned and run media network and even then most of what NPR still appears slightly to the right of centre. PBS Newshour, which shows on SBS in Australia which is a part-public/private venture, for the most part appears centrist when compared to the Australian media landscape.
I'd go so far as to say that the funding models of the ABC in Australia and especially the BBC in Britain would scare and be heavily resisted if they were attempted in the US.
And if it helps as far as I can make out the term "liberal" as applied in US politics and media, acts as a code word in place of "people and things I don't like". It certainly doesn't appear to have the same definition as economists have; hence the reason why the Liberal Party in Australia is named for the older definition of the word.
Incidentally the Liberal Party of Australia, the Conservative and Unionist Party of the UK (proper name) and the Republican Party of the US are all members of the International Democrat Union which is a centre-right international alliance of conservative parties; probably blurs the term even further.
A lot of right-leaning people in Europe would baulk at Fox, just as they baulk at the Republicans generally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I would suggest that this is an opinion that some might disagree with, or at least question how bias is defined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
One of the interesting aspects regarding NPR, which tends to have its reporting automatically labeled as "liberal," is that it is nearly always several (more like many) notches intellectually above that of the other media. This may also be applied to the PBS News Hour. Anti-intellectualism is alive and thriving in the US.
Fox News is a media hybrid attempting to provide both news and serve as a platform for opinions reflecting that of its owner and management. Those opinons are much more pronounced and readily identified than any bias that can be found in the major networks. Although Fox News does attempt to report most news in a straight-forward manner, its selection and coverage can drift towards the ideological biases of the opinion part of the organization. The content of Fox News reflects the political views of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, none of the other news media outlets (the networks, CNN) serve as party organs; so there is bias and Bias, if you will.
To shift the discussion to another track: It could be suggested that people are suffering from Campaign Fatigue. The overly long, seemingly endless crawl to the Republican nomination with its endless and intellectually vacant debates, ersatz issues, inept candidates, and mind-numbing rhetoric has probably worked against Romney. It is more that Romney stumbled to the nomination, surviving the winnowing of a field that, frankly, was not only weak, but devoid of anything remotely resembling the sort of folks one could imagine being in the White House other than being on a tour. That Romney flipped and flopped and did what was convenient to capture a nomination that was, given the opposition, his for the asking, resulted in a Romney that is far removed from the Romney that once existed. By drifting so far to the right and away from many of his former positions during the process of gaining the nomintion, it may be that Romney forfeited any real chance of victory in November.
Under normal circumstances, this election should not even be close, yet it is becoming clear that Romney and the Republicans may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Indeed, one question that occurs to me is just what happens to the Republican Party after the election when -- not if as one might have suggested several weeks ago -- Romney loses? The question becomes even more interesting if the margins of the Republicans in the House and Senate are reduced significantly. Will they give in to the urge to be even more disruptive or begin to grasp the concept of governing by finding mutual solutions through compromise? One tends to think it will be the former, but stranger things have happened. There is still the question of whether the Republicans will continue their slide to the right or being to move back towards the middle. As a party composed largely of whites and opposed almost by reflex to the concept of the commonwealth, the notion of there being interests greater than own own, how the Republicans face the future is going to determine its role in shaping the way forward. If the GOP continues to drift to the right and reject/ignore the reality of a changed American culture, one senses that it will be shaken up by forces that will either fracture the party or pull it together.
The leanings of the GOP towards a theocratic philosophy of governance is certainly at odds with what the Founding Fathers envisioned, should one care to take the time to examine the record. Few do, of course. Similarly, that the GOP has embraced plutocracy as a pillar of its beliefs, despite many in its numbers being the victims of the greed that results, suggests that there may be disconnects within the party that might be a latent factor leading to discord in the future. Even lemmings have mavericks.
Someone once observed that Sacred Cows make the best burgers. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are going to have to both accept that each will have to toss some of their sacred cows on the barbeque grill in the coming years. Raising taxes and cutting/reducing programs seem to be blinding flashes of the obvious to even The Untrained Eye. Doing so at all, much less wisely, seems beyond the ability of the American political system at the moment. That should be a sobering thought to one and all, yet we stumble along bickering and arguing over what are really petty issues. Then again, this has been going on for some time, with sufficient blame to spread around so that no one is spared, which does mean that some do not deserve more than others, of course. That said, the Blame Game is easy, governing is hard.
So it goes.
I couldn't agree more, and I wouldn't apply this trend solely to the US. There is definitely a certain section of opinion on the right that would dismiss the likes of NPR as being 'liberal', or 'left-wing', merely because of that more intellectual approach. Leaving aside how the BBC is funded, which is, of course, often a target for the right, the more rigorous, questioning nature of the best of its current affairs programming leads on occasion to the same criticisms. It's nonsense, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Capps
In fact, regarding the BBC, it could be argued that in recent times it has become ever more of a mouthpiece for whatever the government of the day might be, so afraid is it now to offend, but this is another issue entirely.
The term "yellow journalism" goes back to the 19th century and is an example of media bias then. Not the first instance here either. Various media like newspapers (then) and electronic forms always reflect to some degree the opinions and agendas of their owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Capps
Some would say "intellectualism" others "eliteism".Quote:
One of the interesting aspects regarding NPR, which tends to have its reporting automatically labeled as "liberal," is that it is nearly always several (more like many) notches intellectually above that of the other media. This may also be applied to the PBS News Hour. Anti-intellectualism is alive and thriving in the US.
One of Fox's primary objectives is entertainment. Including the so called news departments. They succeed very well, given their ratings. I'd also note that you just contradicted yourself in your last sentence where you say Fox serves as a party organ after saying they "reflect the political views". One implys being part of that party as opposed to just agreeing with the party.Quote:
Fox News is a media hybrid attempting to provide both news and serve as a platform for opinions reflecting that of its owner and management. Those opinons are much more pronounced and readily identified than any bias that can be found in the major networks. Although Fox News does attempt to report most news in a straight-forward manner, its selection and coverage can drift towards the ideological biases of the opinion part of the organization. The content of Fox News reflects the political views of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, none of the other news media outlets (the networks, CNN) serve as party organs; so there is bias and Bias, if you will.
Couldn't agree more.Quote:
To shift the discussion to another track: It could be suggested that people are suffering from Campaign Fatigue.
Again, agree.Quote:
Someone once observed that Sacred Cows make the best burgers. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are going to have to both accept that each will have to toss some of their sacred cows on the barbeque grill in the coming years. Raising taxes and cutting/reducing programs seem to be blinding flashes of the obvious to even The Untrained Eye.
Why the problem with 'intellectualism'? This is a positive trait, surely? It only translates into 'elitism' if people can't be bothered to try and understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I've been saying that for years. They can be mean and some people are amused by that, but it's not funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
We're talking about American politics, so the definition of "left" and "right" elsewhere is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
To be blunt, who cares what anyone outside the US thinks about American politics. You don't live here and you don't have to share in the successes and failures of our political system. We're the ones who shoulder the largest consequences of our governments debts and adventures into other people's business - others only periferally so.
Its sad when looking deeply into issues, taking as many information sources as possible, weighing them up, thinking carefully and making a rationale decision is seen as a negative thing. Sadder still when engaging in such a process is viewed as elitist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
That is an elitist response.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I don't have any issue with intellectual pursuits. But that is not the end all, be all, of life. Many people work hard every day to provide a better life for their families and themselves. In many cases, that doesn't leave much time for "intellectual" pursuits. That does NOT mean they are stupid or unaware of what is going on around them.
They are, and have been since oh maybe 1950-52, code words... you know kind of like the words "lib'ral" and "comma'nist" so go "inna'lech-you'all"Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
It was used as accusation against Democrat candidate Adlai Stevenson back in the '52 election that I don't recall really---being born a few weeks after it I suppose, but also against him again in the 56 election and 60, and there I do recall the use---and the Geo W Bush like sneers of those using it..
Now Americans are notorious for sloppy vocabulary and an appalling lack of comprehension of subtleties and nuance in language so follow me a bit so you understand.
It is used as an accusation. It has overtones or undertones of physical weakness, or un-manliness. It is usually thrown out as an accusation by people possessing none of those qualities, especially an the main accusation : an intellect.
There is a difference between an "intellectual" approach/view point/argument and say an analytical approach/view point/argument.. indeed there is some very subtle irony in the way that some--particularly poorly educated, limited experienced ---accuse others of being/using "inna-lech-you-all" --implying that "it's all a buncha theoretical hot-air", when they themselves, like tooo many, always TEND STRONGLY argue theoretical, abstract concepts.
Now I cannot help the reflexive responses I have to stimulus---though of course I can control my actual behaviour, so having been raised here in childhood---in the deeply conservative, segregated, horrible US SOUTH, I have an amusing reflex when idiots have blurted out,or otherwise accused me of being an "Intellectual".....(.merely because I tend very markedly toward sharp analysis and broad scope--and evidently can explain the things I do both broad and close focus..and situate things within social and historical context)..... I have actually clearly "taken offense" and said to the accuser "Me! A fawkin intellectual?!
You come and stand right here and say that to me face." :angryfire Them "Oh but you are" me: "I'm warning you!"
Pretty silly and I catch myself before I beat der scheisse out of them---and when it was just thoughtless use, and I explain the difference between analytical and the ordinary and common connotations of the word, then they understand the reaction..
Ironic indeed because the main problem with USA and US Politics seems to be an impossibility to speak in concrete terms about even the simplest problems (we see this love of mental ****in in the popularity of bench-racing "discussion forums" about racing with fools blithely discussing things they have no way of knowing and no inkling of things significance, but that never deters them), always the drift is toward "idealized" crap.
Just a note on usage. Hope it helps
These are very good points indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
It would be an empty person indeed who didn't want to better themselves intellectually, wouldn't it? I agree intellectual pursuits aren't for everyone, but this doesn't make it right for those on the 'non-intellectual' side to in any way be critical of intellectualism. How could anyone seriously argue that intelligence is a bad thing? In reverse, there is a legitimate argument to be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
What do you mean by that — other than 'I don't know about politics elsewhere, unlike those non-Americans who do know about American politics, so would rather we didn't discuss them'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
An utterly insular view, typical of those Americans with no interest in the world beyond their own borders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Oh, and it's 'peripherally'.
It means exactly what it says. When you are discussing the various shades of red, bringing up green is meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
An inane response. By definition, a discussion of American politics doesn't include any politics not American.Quote:
An utterly insular view, typical of those Americans with no interest in the world beyond their own borders.
I assume you will now note and correct everyone else's typos on this board?Quote:
Oh, and it's 'peripherally'.
But you're not comfortable discussing the politics of countries other than your own, though, are you? This is something common to many Americans, sometimes embarrassingly so, whereas there are many non-Americans very well-informed about American politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I often do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter