KEEPING SUCKING ON THE TEET THAT HAS BEEN SQUIRTING YOU LIES, BOY

ONE DAY YOU'RLLL WAKE UP

I want to suck on a teat.

GAITHERSBURG, Md

FTN wrote:

GAITHERSBURG, Md

Are you complicit in the cover up?

Philly the Kid wrote:

Woody wrote:ptk -- you realize that a household income of roughly $150-160k puts you in the top 5%, right?

Isn't that, like, the bare minimum required to live in San Fran?

I started with 1-2% -- need to look at the numbers speciifcally (yes, you are correct) -- the real point is that I used the term "perversely wealthy", and people rarely any of whom are part of that group no less, get all up-in-arms with the idea that those with so much should should pay the lion's share, even if it still leaves them with far more than the rest of us.... why? And the corporations get off the hook over n over n over, loopholes up the ying yang, corporate welfare dwarfs public citizen social welfare by orders of magnitude. I merely suggest there is a way to fund the nationizations and social programs. I also called for a reduction in militarism.

I'm sympathetic to a lot of this, but mindless demonizing of corporations isn't really helpful for the debate. Unless you're really looking to overthrow capitalism (hint: very bad idea), there's huge risk of unintended consequences--everything from capital flight to huge dropoff in patent applications--if you start quashing the profit motive.

My wish was that corporations might start in some ways to self-regulate--bring CEO compensation back toward where it was in the '80s, relevant to average-employee compensation--and in turn this would help facilitate a new understanding of the social contract that includes the responsibilities of the state (or, we could say, "the public") vis-a-vis capitalists and vice-versa. This was why I had such my hopes for Eliot Spitzer before he became better known as a whoremonger than as a "cop of capitalism."

The problem, and the reason why I still swing between moderate incrementalism and greater sympathy for your sort of fight-the-power rhetoric, is whether the system is still capable of self-reform. If you take what Floppy wrote--a government by and for lobbyists, in which politicians keep renting power with giveaways and coercing it by fear and divisiveness ("DeLayism"), as inalterable, then more serious fixes are necessary.

At his best, Obama represents a bet that we retain possibilities for self-correction and self-improvement. It seems like a huge longshot to anyone who's paying close attention, but then that doesn't describe all that many Americans.

dajafi wrote:Yeah, I was thinking about that on my way home just now. Was trying to get the internet on my iPhone to see if he'd announced the pick, and when I finally got on, I saw nothing. Then went to Kos, figuring if there was any new rumor it would be there, and saw something like four straight stories on "McCain's McMansions."

His problem is that if not today, then when? It's generally considered a bad idea to do anything on Friday if you want attention (that's why bad news is so often "dumped" toward the end of the day on Friday), then this weekend is closing ceremonies of the Olympics, and the DNC I think starts Monday.

Though I think he'd get plenty of attention if it happened tomorrow.

I agree with regards to timing. I really thought that sometime tonight the mass text message/email announcement would be made but Obama may want this home thing to linger for a little longer.

The thing about timing though is that just about anything can be buried in the 24/7 news cycle. Obama can continue to make a deal out of McCain not knowing how many homes he owns and roll out his VP choice at the same time. I think that the fact that they came up with an ad using McCain's comments so quickly let it be known that this isn't something they are going to forget overnight. So if that's the case, don't let something like this derail your VP rollout, which has been in the works for weeks. Announce the VP and get some good press (which would be nice in the wake of the whole McCain poll surge the last few days) and allow the ad you just came up with to hammer away at McCain for forgetting his address.

Philly the Kid wrote:As well, with so much Obama-mania, I personally am convinced that Obama is no liberal at all, and the compormises or evolving of his political-self in the process of trying to reach the White House has made him even less liberal and more hawkish and more a product of the system.

Obama had to move more towards the center and go more populist... that's the game of prez election politics. Doesn't mean he's changed his political ideologies or whatever, doesn't mean he's "less liberal", just that his campaign has to make adjustments because they want to win. Thus far he hasn't won over the Hillraisers (not to the desired extent)... of which 52% say they'll vote for Obama, 21% are going McCain, and 27% percent are either undecided or want someone else (NBC/WSJ poll). "The Clinton Factor" (what that article calls it) still looms large, so Obama's campaign has to make strategic "adjustments". That's politics. Remember, GWB said "I'm a uniter, not a divider"...

I've kind of come up with a mental image of what Congress is like. I think most every rep or senator starts out with the same goal; I want to make the country a better place. That goal is like the point of light, fifty miles away, across the channel, with a strong current against you. You jump in the water and start swimming after you get elected. You're probably a strong swimmer if you managed to navigate the negative attack ads to win your seat, so you keep swimming against the current. After a while (2nd term), you start to feel exhausted, and you start to question why you ever thought you could change the world. You start to think less clearly, you start treading water. You might make it half way, which is pretty admirable considering youre trying to reach a point far far away and you're swimming against the current. As you keep swimming (3rd term), a boat pulls alongside and offers to give you a lift. At this point you're desperate, you're exhausted, so you get on board. As the boat starts cutting through the waves, the captain (Lobbyist) tells you that the fee for the lift is your soul. If you don't want to pay the fee, he's going to throw you off the boat and you have to swim the rest of the way. Oh, and there are sharks in the water. So what do you do? Well, I mean I guess selling your soul isnt that big of a deal. He also mentions that if you're smart, you'll be well compensated for your troubles, and when the mission is over, you'll go on book signing tours, give commencement speeches, and possibly even get a job in the Executive Branch. When he puts it this way, it really doesn't even feel like you're doing anything wrong.

Some people get on the boat earlier than others. Some people (Feingold) seem to resist getting on the boat. But he's never going to reach the point of light. Because there is no point of light. Its a mirage.

Can you fish on the boat

Woody wrote:Can you fish on the boat

with dynamite

jerseyhoya wrote:Report Says Fire, Not Explosions, Felled 7 W.T.C.

Chalk another one up for sane people everywhere.

With all due respect, you don't really expect me to just believe a govt report printed in the NY Times? Until I hear a discussion with both sides -- to hear other engineers not possibly paid off or part of a contnued govt coverup. There have been lots of 'reports' asserting lots of things. This report gives an explanation but not facts, just an asserted explanation. Unchalleneged by those qualified to challenge its science, the methods of the report makers to even make such a claim, and any history on the people andthe process as to know whether its objective at all.

I'm not an engineer, but from everything I've seen an read -- it appears to be a pancake demoltion collapse. Not a long burning fire induced big impact event. The debris patterns etc... aren't consistent with the 6 hour fire theory. It may in fact be what happened. But given all the shennanigans and unreliable reports from govt and govt contracted sources, I'd like to hear from others about this report -- and would prefer a debate of a variety of so-called conspiracy theorists with so called govt experts on national prime time TV. Let them all make their cases for all to hear and see, and then we can decide what is credible and what is likely.

my brian hertz

dajafi wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

Woody wrote:ptk -- you realize that a household income of roughly $150-160k puts you in the top 5%, right?

Isn't that, like, the bare minimum required to live in San Fran?

I started with 1-2% -- need to look at the numbers speciifcally (yes, you are correct) -- the real point is that I used the term "perversely wealthy", and people rarely any of whom are part of that group no less, get all up-in-arms with the idea that those with so much should should pay the lion's share, even if it still leaves them with far more than the rest of us.... why? And the corporations get off the hook over n over n over, loopholes up the ying yang, corporate welfare dwarfs public citizen social welfare by orders of magnitude. I merely suggest there is a way to fund the nationizations and social programs. I also called for a reduction in militarism.

I'm sympathetic to a lot of this, but mindless demonizing of corporations isn't really helpful for the debate. Unless you're really looking to overthrow capitalism (hint: very bad idea), there's huge risk of unintended consequences--everything from capital flight to huge dropoff in patent applications--if you start quashing the profit motive.

My wish was that corporations might start in some ways to self-regulate--bring CEO compensation back toward where it was in the '80s, relevant to average-employee compensation--and in turn this would help facilitate a new understanding of the social contract that includes the responsibilities of the state (or, we could say, "the public") vis-a-vis capitalists and vice-versa. This was why I had such my hopes for Eliot Spitzer before he became better known as a whoremonger than as a "cop of capitalism."

The problem, and the reason why I still swing between moderate incrementalism and greater sympathy for your sort of fight-the-power rhetoric, is whether the system is still capable of self-reform. If you take what Floppy wrote--a government by and for lobbyists, in which politicians keep renting power with giveaways and coercing it by fear and divisiveness ("DeLayism"), as inalterable, then more serious fixes are necessary.

At his best, Obama represents a bet that we retain possibilities for self-correction and self-improvement. It seems like a huge longshot to anyone who's paying close attention, but then that doesn't describe all that many Americans.

I really don't think dis-mantling of capitalism is fatal, if done correctly and in a way that is evolutionary, not repressive. I don't want Fritz Lang's Metropolous.

You mentioned CEO salaries back to 80's levels, but what about back to Carter-era levels. I sited (i can try to find the source) that supposedly pre-Reagan US CEOs made 40X the average worker. (12X in Japan), once mature REagonomics were in full effect, that went to 400X, is 40X enough? Are you will to concede even within capitalism, there is a reasonability of things to keep it all viable? And we are way over the red line??

There was a composer Charles Ives. He lived in the late 1800's and early 1900's. He couldn't make a lviing as a music/composer guy and did very well in insurance. He made a lot of dough and supported his family nicely. But he had a protestant New England ethic and he felt that after a certain figure, he and his wife and family didn't need any more. He set a self-imposed salary cap on himself. He didn't give the money back to clients, but he lived on what he thought was reasonable for a successful person in that time and place and lifestyle. The rest, he tried to do good with. This was not a communist, socialist, Marxist -- he was a good ole protestant from New England, Yale grad, insurance man. I was always struck my this kind of thinking. I think a lot of Americans have ethics like this, if they felt everyone was working hard and playing fair.

Lobbyists and our current system have made it not fair. And I contend for capitalism to live a longer healhtier existence -- its in its own best interests to reign things in a bit and not have such disparities which foment revolution. No empire in history has survived.

I don't think implementing national health care and airlines would kill all patents and new innovation and it people were to re-adjust their thinking and expectations of what is normal and reasonable, within a generation or two we could have a much more egalitarian society and healthier and more fulfilled.

jerseyhoya wrote:Report Says Fire, Not Explosions, Felled 7 W.T.C.

Chalk another one up for sane people everywhere.

That is interesting. I was under the lingering impression that the fuel oil stored in tanks stored in the building had contributed to the collapse, although I had not really looked into the issue in quite a while.

It's quite refreshing when new information clears up misconceptions-I'm sure everyone would agree with that.

Philly the Kid wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Report Says Fire, Not Explosions, Felled 7 W.T.C.

Chalk another one up for sane people everywhere.

With all due respect, you don't really expect me to just believe a govt report printed in the NY Times? Until I hear a discussion with both sides -- to hear other engineers not possibly paid off or part of a contnued govt coverup. There have been lots of 'reports' asserting lots of things. This report gives an explanation but not facts, just an asserted explanation. Unchalleneged by those qualified to challenge its science, the methods of the report makers to even make such a claim, and any history on the people andthe process as to know whether its objective at all.

I'm not an engineer, but from everything I've seen an read -- it appears to be a pancake demoltion collapse. Not a long burning fire induced big impact event. The debris patterns etc... aren't consistent with the 6 hour fire theory. It may in fact be what happened. But given all the shennanigans and unreliable reports from govt and govt contracted sources, I'd like to hear from others about this report -- and would prefer a debate of a variety of so-called conspiracy theorists with so called govt experts on national prime time TV. Let them all make their cases for all to hear and see, and then we can decide what is credible and what is likely.

I'll keep this civil. But please just stop. Think about what you're saying and the implications of all your theories. You're a top 5%-er man, enjoy the good life

While I have a general disdain for the government in Washington, there is nothing wrong with Capitalism. In fact, its far and away the most efficient, well designed system. I love Karl Marx, I found his stuff that I studied in college really interesting. But Marxism is fatally flawed because it doesn't accurately measure human greed. By nature, we always want more. You can't really unteach that. And you'll never get people to buy into it, at least not in this country.

FTN wrote:While I have a general disdain for the government in Washington, there is nothing wrong with Capitalism. In fact, its far and away the most efficient, well designed system. I love Karl Marx, I found his stuff that I studied in college really interesting. But Marxism is fatally flawed because it doesn't accurately measure human greed. By nature, we always want more. You can't really unteach that. And you'll never get people to buy into it, at least not in this country.

The Law of Entropy says otherwise. People can't conceive of things because they've never seen it in-action. We have today a contemporary 21st century version of Pharoahs and Monarchs, Feudal times. Transnational Mega-corps have carved the globe up in to fiefdoms. We don't have true capitlaism. There is no level playing field and FTN, you're a bright guy but excuse me if I don't take your word as the authority on the true nature and capabilities of humankind.

Rome never saw their demise coming and yet it came. Ottomans. Find an empire in history that survived? The system we have is not sustainable, and not in the form its devolved in to.

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Report Says Fire, Not Explosions, Felled 7 W.T.C.

Chalk another one up for sane people everywhere.

That is interesting. I was under the lingering impression that the fuel oil stored in tanks stored in the building had contributed to the collapse, although I had not really looked into the issue in quite a while.

It's quite refreshing when new information clears up misconceptions-I'm sure everyone would agree with that.

I've heard other engineers say other things. Why would anyone oppose a debate between experts, let them make their presentations, show their drawings and PPTs and site data and get to challenge each other? Why would any American oppose that?