Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
"Winston_Smith" wrote in message ... Hawke wrote: There is no doubt that the tone around here is not very civil these days. So what is causing it? I think it has to do with the Democrats being in power and most of the guys in here are strongly right wing in their politics. The fact that they lost the last election and their side is now pretty much powerless has them very ****ed off. They don't get to call the shots anymore and to make things worse Obama is doing things exactly the opposite of how they would do them. More troops for all the wars. But...but...the wingers were *for* the wars! Guantanamo still open. Wingers LOVE Guantanamo, and want to keep it open! More raids on the treasury to pay off the banksters. NO! The banksters raided the Treasury under the last president. They haven't gotten more than the initial $700 billion since. (In fact, I saw the estimate today that the cost to us was actually $117 billion, of which Obama is trying to recover $90 billion). Increase the debt limit some more. That's the price of a stimulus. If you aren't going to run a stimulus deficit in a downturn -- all presidents have since the 1930s, including Reagan -- what in the hell is your magic solution to a declining economy and rising unemployment? Cut taxes? ggg Ignore open borders. Hell, we've ignored them under five or six presidents. If a Republican won't do it, why do you expect a Democrat to do it? Exclude the other party from deliberations. Oh, that's supposed to be something new? Yeah, right, big change. George Walker 0bama is in his third term. He didn't start the polarization. And he isn't going to let the Republicans exploit his efforts so they can push a minority agenda. No one in his right mind would do so. My prediction is that they will keep it up until another right winger is elected president. Is it fair to say another left winger has been elected president? No, it's a foolish thing to say. Where is the difference? An effort to reform health care; to bring Guantanamo prisoners into the US prison system; and to regulate non-bank-banks and to re-regulate commercial bank/investment bank combinations. And what have the Republicans done? Resisted every step of the way, with the help of a few conservative Democrats. This Congress sucks worse than most, and the Democrats in Congress suck plenty. But the irrational, ideological and political resistance to some needed changes goes beyond stupidity. It's reprehensible politicization of the country's well-being. The stupidity of it is beyond belief. -- Ed Huntress |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:59:39 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: An effort to reform health care; to bring Guantanamo prisoners into the US prison system; and to regulate non-bank-banks and to re-regulate commercial bank/investment bank combinations. And what have the Republicans done? Resisted every step of the way, with the help of a few conservative Democrats. This Congress sucks worse than most, and the Democrats in Congress suck plenty. But the irrational, ideological and political resistance to some needed changes goes beyond stupidity. It's reprehensible politicization of the country's well-being. The stupidity of it is beyond belief. America, the land of the free, where anything/one can be bought for enough money ;-) Mark Rand RTFM |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
"Mark Rand" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:59:39 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: An effort to reform health care; to bring Guantanamo prisoners into the US prison system; and to regulate non-bank-banks and to re-regulate commercial bank/investment bank combinations. And what have the Republicans done? Resisted every step of the way, with the help of a few conservative Democrats. This Congress sucks worse than most, and the Democrats in Congress suck plenty. But the irrational, ideological and political resistance to some needed changes goes beyond stupidity. It's reprehensible politicization of the country's well-being. The stupidity of it is beyond belief. America, the land of the free, where anything/one can be bought for enough money ;-) Mark Rand RTFM Well, pard', the Supreme Court made it official today: Businesses and unions can spend as much as they want to for political campaigns, advertising, and so on. Any Congressman who makes a deal with them now can write his own ticket. We're for sale! How much money ya' got? We're not cheap, but the view is great. You can see Russia from here! -- Ed Huntress |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
: "Mark Rand" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:59:39 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: An effort to reform health care; to bring Guantanamo prisoners into the US prison system; and to regulate non-bank-banks and to re-regulate commercial bank/investment bank combinations. And what have the Republicans done? Resisted every step of the way, with the help of a few conservative Democrats. This Congress sucks worse than most, and the Democrats in Congress suck plenty. But the irrational, ideological and political resistance to some needed changes goes beyond stupidity. It's reprehensible politicization of the country's well-being. The stupidity of it is beyond belief. America, the land of the free, where anything/one can be bought for enough money ;-) Mark Rand RTFM Well, pard', the Supreme Court made it official today: Businesses and unions can spend as much as they want to for political campaigns, advertising, and so on. Any Congressman who makes a deal with them now can write his own ticket. We're for sale! How much money ya' got? We're not cheap, but the view is great. You can see Russia from here! I guess I just don't understand why unions and corporations have all the rights as people and it seems more. Where is it in the Constitution that gives them this right? Not being a constitutional scolar I would really like to know what the rational is for this. The news report I saw also postulated that soon the Supreme court will give them the right to contribute directly to political candidates, something that hasn't been allowed for over a hundred years. Yes I do believe you are right, in the next couple of election cycles our goverenment will be truly bought and paid for by corporations and we (the USA) will become a corporate state run by and for corporations. Von |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
"Von" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in : "Mark Rand" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:59:39 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: An effort to reform health care; to bring Guantanamo prisoners into the US prison system; and to regulate non-bank-banks and to re-regulate commercial bank/investment bank combinations. And what have the Republicans done? Resisted every step of the way, with the help of a few conservative Democrats. This Congress sucks worse than most, and the Democrats in Congress suck plenty. But the irrational, ideological and political resistance to some needed changes goes beyond stupidity. It's reprehensible politicization of the country's well-being. The stupidity of it is beyond belief. America, the land of the free, where anything/one can be bought for enough money ;-) Mark Rand RTFM Well, pard', the Supreme Court made it official today: Businesses and unions can spend as much as they want to for political campaigns, advertising, and so on. Any Congressman who makes a deal with them now can write his own ticket. We're for sale! How much money ya' got? We're not cheap, but the view is great. You can see Russia from here! I guess I just don't understand why unions and corporations have all the rights as people and it seems more. Where is it in the Constitution that gives them this right? Not being a constitutional scolar I would really like to know what the rational is for this. It's a debatable point, which is why we got a 5:4 decision. An "originalist" (conservative) would say they have the right under the 1st Amendment. A normal person would say that treating corporations or unions as "people" is absurd. The legal "person" status of corporations was established solely to limit their liability, to make it easier for them to attract investors. Originally, it was a strictly commercial decision. The people in the corporations already have the right to contribute to whomever they want to. The news report I saw also postulated that soon the Supreme court will give them the right to contribute directly to political candidates, something that hasn't been allowed for over a hundred years. Maybe. I haven't read the decision. It may be limited to advertising and other promotion. But I've read two contradictory accounts of that point so far. However, the power they have now, under PACs, is not to be sneezed at. It was already too much, IMO. Yes I do believe you are right, in the next couple of election cycles our goverenment will be truly bought and paid for by corporations and we (the USA) will become a corporate state run by and for corporations. Von The corporatism is starting to look alarming. It appears that the Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution *is* a suicide pact, after all. You'll know for sure if the motto on the dollar bill is changed from "In God We Trust" to "Always Low Prices." Wal-Mart gave it up as a slogan so it may be available. -- Ed Huntress |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
On Jan 21, 7:05*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Well, pard', the Supreme Court made it official today: Businesses and unions can spend as much as they want to for political campaigns, advertising, and so on. Any Congressman who makes a deal with them now can write his own ticket. We're for sale! How much money ya' got? We're not cheap, but the view is great. You can see Russia from here! -- Ed Huntress Ye of little faith. Corporations can spend as much money on advertising for products as they want . Yet somehow people manage to think for themselves and don't blindly buy things because a company spent a bunch of money advertising. The same applies to politics. Advertising is not a magic potion. It does make people aware of things, but it does not control their minds. It is called a "free market place of ideas". The good ideas will prevail. Look at the last election. Hillary had all the money in the beginning, but did not get the votes. Obama got elected, but will only get re-elected if he does well. Dan |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
America, the land of the free, where anything/one can be bought for enough money ;-) Mark Rand RTFM Well, pard', the Supreme Court made it official today: Businesses and unions can spend as much as they want to for political campaigns, advertising, and so on. Any Congressman who makes a deal with them now can write his own ticket. We're for sale! How much money ya' got? We're not cheap, but the view is great. You can see Russia from here! There's your right wing, free market fundamentalist court at work again. This is a perfect example of how the policies and people that a president put in place has effects that go on far after the president has left office. This decision is what only a right wing court would do. They have basically said that corporations have the right to put as much money into the electoral system as they want. The joke of it is that they are trying to pass off simple bribery as "free speech". Just chalk up one more Supreme Court decision that stinks to high heavens and gives the corporations even more ability to run the country. I sure hope a couple of right wing justices die in the next three years so Obama can load up the court with left wingers. Turn about is fair play. Hawke |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
wrote in message ... On Jan 21, 7:05 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Well, pard', the Supreme Court made it official today: Businesses and unions can spend as much as they want to for political campaigns, advertising, and so on. Any Congressman who makes a deal with them now can write his own ticket. We're for sale! How much money ya' got? We're not cheap, but the view is great. You can see Russia from here! -- Ed Huntress Ye of little faith. Corporations can spend as much money on advertising for products as they want . Yet somehow people manage to think for themselves and don't blindly buy things because a company spent a bunch of money advertising. The same applies to politics. Advertising is not a magic potion. It does make people aware of things, but it does not control their minds. Dan, for around 15 years I lived with the LAP (McGraw-Hill), CARR (Cahner's) and PIM (MIT/Harvard) advertising reports. You want to know how market share relates to advertising expenditures? On the whole, it's a rising curve that starts as a parabola, then straightens out, and finally tops out with a plateau and then a sharp curve downward. Mostly it's a straight line, within normal limits of expenditure. The correlation coefficient is over 0.7. In some product categories, the plateau is reached at around $100 million/year. And there's amazing consistency across product categories. That's why US ad spending in 2007 was $279.6 Billion -- 2% of the US GDP. It is called a "free market place of ideas". The good ideas will prevail. Thanks. Were you a civics teacher? g It's called a propaganda machine; the ideas pressed with the most money win. Look at the last election. Hillary had all the money in the beginning, but did not get the votes. Obama got elected, but will only get re-elected if he does well. As I said, the CC is over 0.7. If you want something meaningful, look at the advertising spending of the winners versus the losers in a large number of elections over a few election years. -- Ed Huntress |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
On Jan 22, 1:53*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Thanks. Were you a civics teacher? g It's called a propaganda machine; the ideas pressed with the most money win. -- Ed Huntress No, but I took civics, did you? g You just have no faith in the public. So you think that Obama should have accepted campaign limits? You think that Obama won because he raised the most money? So you are against the free market place of ideas? So you want censorship? Dan |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
wrote in message ... On Jan 22, 1:53 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Thanks. Were you a civics teacher? g It's called a propaganda machine; the ideas pressed with the most money win. -- Ed Huntress No, but I took civics, did you? g You just have no faith in the public. I have faith in the public. I also have faith in the power of propaganda. It used to pay my bills. Like investment banking, it's something that has to be regulated and controlled, or they'll run all over you. Advertising is a positive and useful force that, left on its own, will transmogrify into a cancer. So you think that Obama should have accepted campaign limits? You think that Obama won because he raised the most money? So you are against the free market place of ideas? So you want censorship? That's quite a string of non-sequiturs, Dan. d8-) Yes, I think the candidates in 2008 should have stuck to campaign limits. Obama harnessed a new way of accumulating money that sounded like it was all sweetness and light -- tens of millions in the form of little contributions gathered through the Internet -- but it's still a hammer that beats down fair debate, no matter where the money comes from. Whether he won because of the money is questionable. Anecdotes are not very useful for analysis. It's the difference between a correlation coefficient of 0.7 and a coefficient of 1.0. It doesn't work all the time. It just works *enough* of the time that advertisers spend a couple of hundred billion dollars per year on it. The free marketplace of ideas and advertising, in the real world, have little to do with each other. Censorship is controlling what can be said. Campaign limits are for avoiding having our representative democracy become a plutocracy. Advertising works. It's an important element of the golden rule: The one with the gold, rules. -- Ed Huntress |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
On Jan 22, 3:18*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
The free marketplace of ideas and advertising, in the real world, have little to do with each other. Ed Huntress But in the real world of politics you don't have just one side presenting ideas. So even with advertising you have a free marketplace of ideas. Sit back and relax. You are going to see just how little this changes things. The political advertisements just before elections already consume all the time available for advertising. And the public gets sick of the adds. Dan |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:28:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Von" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in : I guess I just don't understand why unions and corporations have all the rights as people and it seems more. Where is it in the Constitution that gives them this right? Not being a constitutional scolar I would really like to know what the rational is for this. It's a debatable point, which is why we got a 5:4 decision. An "originalist" (conservative) would say they have the right under the 1st Amendment. A normal person would say that treating corporations or unions as "people" is absurd. The legal "person" status of corporations was established solely to limit their liability, to make it easier for them to attract investors. Originally, it was a strictly commercial decision. So when a company gets prosecuted for causing one or more deaths, can the company be shut down for 25-to-life? Mark Rand RTFM |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
wrote in message ... On Jan 22, 3:18 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: The free marketplace of ideas and advertising, in the real world, have little to do with each other. Ed Huntress But in the real world of politics you don't have just one side presenting ideas. So even with advertising you have a free marketplace of ideas. But it ain't free. The majority of it goes to those with the most money. Sit back and relax. You are going to see just how little this changes things. The political advertisements just before elections already consume all the time available for advertising. And the public gets sick of the adds. 40 CEO's from major companies just sent a letter to Congress today, telling them to lay off and not to use this as an excuse to call them for money even more than they already do. They anticipate a flood of solicitations. Who knows? Lobbies are already gearing up for much higher volumes of work, as of yesterday. We'll be pledging allegience to the United States, and to the plutocracy for which it stands... Maybe Alexander Hamilton was right. He called this new system of government a "Commercial Republic." -- Ed Huntress |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Repackaging Wingers
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Wingers Lose Again | Metalworking | |||
Wingers Lose Again | Metalworking | |||
Wingers at Work | Metalworking | |||
Wingers at Work | Metalworking | |||
OT - NPR: Don't let the wingers win | Metalworking |