News Stories

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by SSIlanya

When I mean people I don't mean everyone. But it is enough to give Republicans an advantage. And as for politics if the results are disappointing, the masses turn against you. Welcome to democracy.


Korea, China and Russia are all stabbing Japan.

The difference is that post-war Soviet Russia was able to reinforce it's territory control.

Korea and China weren't able to.

Funnily enough on Arirang, they actually have Dokdo as part of the weather bulletin.

How is that funny .

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by SSIlanya

Korea, China and Russia are all stabbing Japan.

The difference is that post-war Soviet Russia was able to reinforce it's territory control.

Korea and China weren't able to.

Funnily enough on Arirang, they actually have Dokdo as part of the weather bulletin.

What those 3 countries have in common is that they have mandatory military service of +/- 21 months

japan does not

new generation of japanese men don't have the same drive as their predecessors and they're now effectively effeminated.

come on... japanese used to be the 'economic animal' of asia.
these days they're just coasting along. I guess the japanese are in for a 3rd Lost Decade.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I'm not so sure it's a Republican revival as much as it is a protest against Progressive-Socialist policies.
I was a Dem for a very long time, but when they started espousing socialist ideas I left and became Independent.
I'd go back if they'd return to Liberalism of the "Old" Left.

So Hispanics are angry too?
Any idea why, or is it the same as what was in the opinion piece?

Reagen would likely be considered a socialist by the tea party types if he ran for office today.

[GundamFan0083]

If you're asking if I know what Progressive-Socialism then let me rest assure you that I most certainly do.

I've been getting The Progressive since the mid 1990s to keep up on which candidates they support, why, and how much influence they have on them.

Now I'll admit that there are certainly Progressive-Corporatists, but they're usually of the Republican ilk, like Nixon, Bush jr., or way back to Teddy Roosevelt.

@Kamui4356:
Nah, I think the hard core Libertarian/Anarchists of the Tea Pary view him as more of a Corporate stooge or Neo-Con.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Any idea why, or is it the same as what was in the opinion piece?

I added a link on that post.
it's from NYTimes

[GundamFan0083]

Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If you're asking if I know what Progressive-Socialism then let me rest assure you that I most certainly do.

I've been getting The Progressive since the mid 1990s to keep up on which candidates they support, why, and how much influence they have on them.

Now I'll admit that there are certainly Progressive-Corporatists, but they're usually of the Republican ilk, like Nixon, Bush jr., or way back to Teddy Roosevelt.

@Kamui4356:
Nah, I think the hard core Libertarian/Anarchists of the Tea Pary view him as more of a Corporate stooge or Neo-Con.

If so, then you'd recognize that Obama and most of the team that entered the White House in 2008 were from the corporatist wing of the DNC. There's really no such thing as a "progressive-corporatist". And you're having to seriously revise history to call Nixon, Eisenhower, or Teddy "progressives". Eisenhower and Teddy were not terribly corporate-friendly but that doesn't make them "progressive".

... unless of course, you mean "community minded" to be "progressive".... hmmm?

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Now I'll admit that there are certainly Progressive-Corporatists,

Does George Soros ring a bell?

[Vexx]

Soros is for Soros just as Murdoch is for Murdoch. Applying labels is a way not to have to think hard about a subject. If people are going to insist on using broken dictionaries rather than discussing specifically what they have problems with, then I'm not going to take them very seriously and neither will anyone else who is actually thinking about the problems.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SSIlanya

When I mean people I don't mean everyone. But it is enough to give Republicans an advantage. And as for politics if the results are disappointing, the masses turn against you. Welcome to democracy.

But the results haven't been disappointing. They've just been portrayed as such by the media because the results aren't instant. The fact is without things like the bailout, we'd be in great depression 2 right now. I'll remind you that sequels are always worse than the original. Seriously, that's how bad the financial situation was.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

If so, then you'd recognize that Obama and most of the team that entered the White House in 2008 were from the corporatist wing of the DNC. There's really no such thing as a "progressive-corporatist". And you're having to seriously revise history to call Nixon, Eisenhower, or Teddy "progressives". Eisenhower and Teddy were not terribly corporate-friendly but that doesn't make them "progressive".

... unless of course, you mean "community minded" to be "progressive".... hmmm?

I disagree.
I don't see a massive exspansion of corporations under Obama, nor do I see corporations taking over government functions through privatization.
In fact I see him seizing portions of the economy and bringing it under heavier government regulation.
Cap and Trade, the Health Care Law, and the Financial Reform bill do not appear Corporatist to me.
I could be wrong, but those three legislative measures are more about government control of business rather than a marriage between business and government.

I never mentioned Eisenhower.
I said Bush Jr. and we all know that George Bush Junior was very friendly with Big Oil.
Teddy was very friendly with big-business as well.
Gabriel Kolko’s groundbreaking book The Triumph of Conservatism explains how government expanded to help rather than hinder Corporate interests during the Progressive-Era.
Roosevelt was very much involved in government working with corporations in order to maximize profits for said businesses.
Unless you're using a different definition than I am, I'm positive that's Corporatism.
As for Nixon, the "War on Drugs" is a direct result of him.
That was a Progressive (in the Fabian sense, i.e. incrementalism) move to shut out drugs which were IMO, in direct competition with Pharmaceutical companies.
Like Marijuana for example which can be used to treat cancer, and other ailments without the side effects of Pharmaceuticals.

I guess I should clarify.
When I say Progressive-Socialist I mean people who are using the Fabian model to slowly implement socialism through legislation.
That's been going on since Woodrow Wilson.

Hope that clarifies my position for you.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I disagree.
I don't see a massive exspansion of corporations under Obama, nor do I see corporations taking over government functions through privatization.
In fact I see him seizing portions of the economy and bringing it under heavier government regulation.

... What is there left to privatise in America? The post office system?

Cap and Trade, the Health Care Law, and the Financial Reform bill do not appear Corporatist to me.

Financial Reform was necessary because the a-holes in question not only fucked over the American economy because of a lack of regulation, it also had an effect on the entire world. It was already considered too tame by progressives, and you want to cut them loose some more?

Health Care Law does not even feature a public option when it was supposed to. That was a compromise, by the way. So I don't see how the law was 'progressive' in anyway, or how it affected the health industry to the degree you're saying. Half the effects of the law haven't even started yet. Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Cap and Trade didn't even go through and has already died in the Senate, why are you bringing imaginary stuff up as an argument? By the way, big oil supported it, probably because they had subsidiaries in the green energy field.

Originally Posted by From the Article

"BP still firmly believes that the best way to move this process along and tackle man-made climate change is by putting a price on carbon," said BP America President Lamar McKay in testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday. "A price reflecting tightening constraints on carbon would both drive energy conservation and make lower carbon energy choices more cost competitive."

I could be wrong, but those three legislative measures are more about government control of business rather than a marriage between business and government.

I love how you were saying you were a Dem', but from all your posts, I can only come to the following conclusion.

[ganbaru]

Canada agrees to take Khadr back
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1781699/

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

But the results haven't been disappointing. They've just been portrayed as such by the media because the results aren't instant. The fact is without things like the bailout, we'd be in great depression 2 right now. I'll remind you that sequels are always worse than the original. Seriously, that's how bad the financial situation was.

Hmmm. I thought we already were in The Great Depression 2. I guess I was wrong?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I disagree.
I don't see a massive exspansion of corporations under Obama, nor do I see corporations taking over government functions through privatization.
In fact I see him seizing portions of the economy and bringing it under heavier government regulation.

Even if he did that, it wouldn't last very long because the next president would just privatize everything again.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Cap and Trade, the Health Care Law, and the Financial Reform bill do not appear Corporatist to me.

They should do. The pharmaceutical industry is a place where you could make tons of profit because everyone needs health care. That's why health insurance is so expensive and not accessible to everyone. People want to make money from it because it's something everyone needs. Thinking of it in economic terms, the demand for health care is really high, which will drive the price up because it becomes more scarce as more people consume health care goods and services. That's what the vast majority of pharmaceutical companies are doing. Seems rather corporatist to me.

[flying ^]

OMG

Aya Hirano has cancer!

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Hmmm. I thought we already were in The Great Depression 2. I guess I was wrong?

You are. What we faced was a global recession that will have a prolonged recovery. You'd need to double the current unemployment rate to get great depression levels. Most banks didn't fail. GM didn't collapse. There was a very real threat of that happening. If it had, we'd be talking millions more unemployed than we see now. AIG collapsing would have been the real killer though. Given the assets it was holding, it would have taken down a lot of companies with it.

Originally Posted by flying ^

OMG

Aya Hirano has cancer!

Sankaku complex. Plus it doesn't say she has cancer. Most tumors are not in fact cancerous, as is apparently the case there. I'll wait for another source to confirm it though.

[sa547]

Originally Posted by flying ^

OMG

Aya Hirano has cancer!

As with anything coming from Sankaku, I'd take that declaration with a pinch of salt; you'll never know that it's probably snapped from some Japanese tabloid website.

[MeoTwister5]

The more important question is this: Is her relative break from general reality due to the adenoma (which I assume is non-functional), or is the adenoma due to her break from general reality?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by flying ^

Does George Soros ring a bell?

I think the closer one would be Trump rather than Soros. Both he and Buffett went through alot of shit to build their wealth.

They are more market smart than connection smart (remember the Lehman hearing a few months ago which pulled Buffett in as a witness? He screwed himself up totally by slamming the share buyers - goes to show he completely suck at PR). But then again, the public are more likely to slam the ones who build their wealth from shithole level up than to blame themselves for being greedy. Typical human behaviour.

[thevil1]

Google suing the government... I'm curious as to what some others thoughts are on this.
http://mashable.com/2010/11/02/google-doi-lawsuit/