random off-topic thread

[BigRapidsJackass]

You can't have people who are ideologically opposed to the uses of government actually running the government, and have good governance.

You were doing real good until this line.

It simply doesn't follow from your discussion of the pervasive power of corporate lobbyists. The more power the government has to influence private economic activity, the more rent-seeking behavior we'll see.

Rent seeking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

You were doing real good until this line.

It simply doesn't follow from your discussion of the pervasive power of corporate lobbyists. The more power the government has to influence private economic activity, the more rent-seeking behavior we'll see.

Rent seeking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jackass, the line to which you refer is in no way advocating excessive government regulation of private industry. I'm not a proponent of broad-brush regulatory schemes where none is necessary. For example, many years ago the cable industry was rate-regulated by the FCC, and I followed the industry at the time for a Wall St. firm. I didn't believe then, nor do I believe now, that the government should be in the business of setting prices for a consumer discretionary industry such as cable. Utilities which have monopolies (and thus pricing power) for vital services such as heat and electricity is another matter, and should be rate-regulated by PUCs. But I realize that governments can go too far in regulating what isn't necessary.

Rather, the line regarding governance has to do with the "good faith" efforts of ideological opponents of government entities to govern properly and not gut the system to prove their points about government. In my view, the motivation to govern in good faith by these ideologues doesn't exist. You should have a government that has people who try to make it work. Instead, under conservatism, we have a government with people who don't believe it CAN work, and thus are not ideologically invested in a good outcome. That mindset breeds inefficieny, corruption, cronyism and more calls for the free market capitalist system to save us from our government. Basically, "the fix" is in when anti-government corporatatists (i.e. small gov't. conservatives who are bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists) are in power. That's my point.

[Newman]

Jackass, it all comes down to the role of government. What is the role of government? Is it just to make war? Collect taxes? Test water and food and air? Should government test for lead paint in toys that come from China or are we on our own, as Republicans would say?

Should the government provide single payer healthcare? Other civilized countries like Germany and France do. They cover their citizens. If they can do it, why can't we. Have you watched Sicko, Michael Moore's movie yet, or has the right wing attack machine convinced you that anything MM does is crap?

[BigRapidsJackass]

Newman, the right-wing attack machine has zero effect on me.

As far as Michael Moore goes, I liked the first half of Fahrenheit 9-11. The second half kind of lost me.

Looks like John Edwards is done.

Time to get behind Barack, Newman.

BTW, your question about postal workers is a good one. I don't think I've ever seen a postal worker called to testify. Why not? After all, didn't Bush try to get you guys to be our first line of defense against suspected terrorists? (Remember that one?)

And you're right about Ringolsby. I hope he starts reading this board again. That HOF crap went to his fat head. Did you see how he lead the charge against allowing internet writers into the Baseball Writers Assoc? (And then of course denied doing so.)

"I'm just a beat writer." One with a bunch of axes to grind.

[BigRapidsJackass]

About to go to sleep ... flipping through channels one last time ... espn clown Stephen A. Smith doing his schtick ... I stop momentarily to see what NBA team he's talking about (could it be his mancrush on Kobe again?) ... no, he's talking about "Hillary" and "Barack" ... it's Hardball on MSNBC ... with the prognostications of Stephen A.

Stephen A. says he would vote for Obama.

I may have to reconsider my vote.

[Newman]

Look Jackass, that clown SASmith has to vote for someone. Don't jump off the Obama bandwagon just because Smith is voting for him.

I'm sticking with Edwards. He's closest to my views, after Kucinich of course. Can't wait to caucus for him in Colorado on Feb 5, if he doesn't drop out that is. Obama is my next choice.

I wonder where my caucus is.

[wolf213]

Newman,

I can't for the life of me, figure out why anyone wants Kucinich for President. Here is a guy, who openly admits to seeing UFO's, spending stupid money on a department of peace (what the hell would they do, and why do we need it?), and was recently named as one of the 10 Worst mayors ever. He has already proven he can't even lead at the local level, why would we give him a chance to lead a nation?

He and his supporters have a few screws loose if you ask me.

For me? Well I'm leaning toward Obama at the moment, however I hope that McCain pulls it out and gets the Rep nomination. I figure, we need to plan for worst case here, and if our choices are Obama or McCain come November, and Obama looses, well, McCain isn't as bad as the other idiots from the Rep side.

[TheIncredibleRox]

1. Evidence? Just ask yourself what are the main issues in the country today. They are the war in Iraq, illegal immigration, and the healthcare crisis. They all directly go to the undue and negative influence that multinational corporations have on our government, on our people, we the people.

We are in Iraq, why? For oil. For profit. For war profiteering. Iraq certainly is not a threat to us, never attacked us, doesn't even have an air force or a navy. We are there so that corporations can make a huge profit.

Illegal immigration is all about cheap labor, let the cheap labor come in so transnational corporations can make a bigger profit.

Healthcare. Pharmaceutical industry. It's all tied together. WE have healthcare for a profit. The only civilized western nation that does not have healthcare for it's people, doesn't have total coverage. And premiums keep going up. And deductibles go up. And care gets worse. Why? So the health care corporations can make more and bigger profits.

I've already noted in re: Iraq, the idea that the war is solely for the purpose of Bush's a couple of friends being able to get richer is ludicrous. (If nothing else, you have to admit that starting war would make the oil far less secure rather than more).

But nonetheless, we have gone to war for oil interests before. First Gulf War; true, Kuwait was our ally and a peaceful nation being invaded by a strongman. But they were our ally largely because we had friendly trade relations with them, and they provided a huge amount of the oil this country and it's economy so desperately needed. It's not not as if this was purely for the benefit of oil companies or something.

I don't know how you get the notion that Healthcare is a free market. Between all the regulation of HMOs, drugs, equipment, techniques, and all the beaurocracy of Medicare/Medicaid and other state and Federal programs, it's probably the most government-run national industry.

2. What can be done? Vote for Edwards. He speaks directly to the issue. The Repubs all want to stay the course. If you want change, then vote for Edwards and a Democratic Congress, and hope they kick out Pelosi and Reid and get new leadership there.

3. We need to take the lobbyists out of the election process, special interest groups like the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, and so forth, who own Congressmen and Presidents alike.

Vote for Edwards isn't a policy, it's a hope. How bout a guy with an actual record of doing this stuff, not a record of starting to talk about it for political expediency 3+ years ago after losing an election.

Of the issues you site, John McCain has a track record. He reached across the aisle to co-sponsor a bill with Feingold severly reforming campaign finance, and once again with Kennedy to put forth the first serious, comprehensive bill dealing with illegal immigration.

An essential difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that government may actually be able to run programs more cost effectively and efficiently than profit-making enterprises

Roxpert, there are a number of examples of successful Federal deregulations. Can you name me a successful example of the opposite?

[Newman]

Incredible,

I wish you could have heard the Ed Shultz Show on Air America radio today. He had some nurse on who was a great speaker. Her website is:

Guaranteed Healthcare | We Don't Need Insurance, We Need

She wants everyone to go there and sign a petition which essentiallys says that all Americans should get the kind of healthcare that Dick Cheney gets, and for the same low price.

She pointed out that healthcare organizations take a 30% profit right off the top. Medicare has something like 3% overhead. Do you see the difference there, between FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE corporations and not for profit government run health care?

Only Kucinich, wolf, is in favor of the not for profit health care system that other European countries have. Why can't we have it here. And cover everyone? Why does health have to be "for profit"?

Edwards, as a trial lawyer, has fought against huge corporations and for the common man his entire life, Incredible.

Examples of successful government regulations? Seat belts? Child labor laws. Secondhand smoking rules. Lead paint testing? Food testing? Air and water standards? If there weren't necessary government regulations in place here in America, corporations would be polluting the water and air like they do in China. Is that what you want, Incredible?

[TheIncredibleRox]

Newman, I think you misunderstand the conventional definition of deregulation.

[John Cocktoston]

Ahhh, the family vacation...it's a wonderful thing!

Newman, I know you missed me and were hoping that your "Monfort apologist" comment would draw the reaction that your pathetic attack on my wife did not, but I"m not going to take the bait. Go sell crazy somewhere else, Claven.

And I wish I had something more for you on the Ringolsbly thing, but I really don't read him much and don't care one way or the other. Jim Murray? Hall of famer. Peter Gammons? Hall of famer. Ringolsby? Ehhh...

In other news, as much as I hate seeing the hateful, race-baiting, leftist propaganda machine tear into another victim, there's a perverse irony in this particular dropping of the race card, don't you think? I mean, it's almost poetic...

I guess it's true: what goes around comes around.

Racial tensions roil Democratic race - Ben Smith - Politico.com


“A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements,” said Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver, who said that Clinton would have to decide whether she owed anyone an apology.

“There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months,” she said. “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?”

[Roxpert]

This is just too funny and clever not to share....

NEW BUSH COINS

[Newman]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

Newman, I think you misunderstand the conventional definition of deregulation.

OK, then educate me.

And give an example. Please.

[indianadrew]

very good article JC, but you know that the clintons dont think they have to abide by the same rules as everybody else.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Newman, deregulation basically refers to a government letting a nationalized industry go to the free market.

For example, both railroad companies and airlines in this country were basically government monopolies; you couldn't start Newman's Airlines in 1960, because you would have needed (and not received) the governments approval. The airlines that did exist were told where they would fly, what their fares would be, etc.