The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Veloise]

Interesting editorial from the Detroit Free Press on this very topic.

http://www.freep.com/article/2010040...nymous-vitriol

Leonard Pitts is marvelous (and, I suspect, a fan of Mark Twain). We've got highlights:

... For proof, see the message boards of pretty much any paper. Or just wade in the nearest cesspool. The experiences are equivalent.
...
For every person who offers some trenchant observation on the point at hand, there are a dozen who are so far off point they couldn't find their way back with a compass and road map. For every person who brings up some telling fact, there are a dozen whose "facts" are fantasies freshly made up to suit the exigencies of arguments they otherwise cannot win.

Why have message boards failed to live up to the noble expectations? The answer, in a word, is anonymity. The fact that on a message board -- unlike in a letter to the editor -- no one is required to identify themselves, no one is required to "own" what they've said, has inspired many to vent their most reptilian thoughts.
...
Enough. Make them leave their names. Stop giving people a way to throw rocks and hide their hands. Any drop-off in the quantity of message board postings will surely be made up in the quality thereof.

That's my opinion. If you don't like it, well, at least you know whom to blame.

[imaplanner]

Interesting editorial from the Detroit Free Press on this very topic.

http://www.freep.com/article/2010040...nymous-vitriol

And of course- the comments by anonymous posters just below his article prove his point.

[mgk920]

Besides the potential of such people as USHouse Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1) and former Alaska state governor Sarah Palin going up against BHO in 2012, howabout USArmy General David Petraeus? How would he do? Any thoughts and comments?

Mike

[CJC]

I think he could do well, but unless he plans to retire within the next few months, I don't see it for 2012. Campaigning against your superior officer would seem to be something that four star generals wouldn't do.

I could see a 2016 or 2020 run, and I'd certainly consider him no matter which party he went with. He's definitely a social moderate, so he might not be welcome in the Republican Party of today, but maybe by then.

[Hink]

I think he would fair well, if he kept his current social moderation and fiscal conservative roots. If he starts moving towards christian conservatism, or anything that doesn't moderate the fact that he is a war general, he won't have a chance.

Although people love generals when it comes election time, I don't think 2012 will see a staunchly conservative win, let alone a staunchly conservative war general.

[Whose Yur Planner]

I think he would fair well, if he kept his current social moderation and fiscal conservative roots. If he starts moving towards christian conservatism, or anything that doesn't moderate the fact that he is a war general, he won't have a chance.

Although people love generals when it comes election time, I don't think 2012 will see a staunchly conservative win, let alone a staunchly conservative war general.

The R's need to have a Mondale moment. They need to elect a candate that embodies the extremes in their party-in their case a person the tea baggers would support. Let that person face the people in a general election. Either their political ideas would be validated by a win or rejected by a loss. Until that happens, the arch conservatives will not be happy and will continue to snipe and have idealogical purity tests. McCain's problem was he is a moderate and his feeble attempt to woo the proto tea baggers with Sarah Palin failed.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I would love to see:

PALIN - BACHMAN 2012!

Otherwise known as CLUELESS & NUTS in 2012!






on another note!

Generals actually don't do real well or real bad in our political system (except for Grant, he sucked BAD!). Mostly they are caretakers and not social firebrands.

[TexanOkie]

Generals actually don't do real well or real bad in our political system (except for Grant, he sucked BAD!). Mostly they are caretakers and not social firebrands.

They do do one thing relatively well, though: they seem to do well at maintaining stability through their actions and rhetoric. Well, not including Grant, as you already mentioned. Even Andrew Jackson, though strong-minded, managed to keep things together through a couple crises (including the original Nullification affair, which hopefully we won't repeat).

[Duke Of Dystopia]

They do do one thing relatively well, though: they seem to do well at maintaining stability through their actions and rhetoric. Well, not including Grant, as you already mentioned. Even Andrew Jackson, though strong-minded, managed to keep things together through a couple crises (including the original Nullification affair, which hopefully we won't repeat).

I agree and that is what I was getting at. In this instance though, I would ask what kind of stability we are talking about. Considering most generals by nature, are actually conservative in thought and deed, is the stability being discussed a wished for holding pattern in some kind of vain hope that societies evolution into something else can be prevented.

I don't see where a caretaker president does anything but prolong our national discord. Doing nothing when specific issues need to be addressed makes problems worse.

As far as national crises goes, every single president to date has ordered men into armed conflict in some way shape or form. Armed conflict ordered by the national leader by definition is a "National Crises". Both Generals and non-generals elected to the presidency have handled those relatively well (depending on point of view, the Civil War could be an exception).

So what is the stability we are looking for?

[imaplanner]

Petraeus has even less charisma than Al Gore. I don't see that going too well.

[Hink]

Anyone else enjoy seeing Conservatives put down Fox News? I like it even more that Murdoch tries to defend it...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1514

To me, I think David Frum and other intellectual Conservatives need to fight harder to keep their party from going to the idiots like Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc. who don't care about the party, just making some money.

With all the trouble Michael Steele caused, you would think that the GOP would start doing some damage control or begin to start forcing people to be accountable. I like the the R's are starting to get reasonable though... once they get rid of Fox News type people and the talking heads, their party will attract more people. They have 7 months to figure out how to do that.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I want to know where all the people screaming about self regulating business have gone in the last year and how we don't need regulations to keep people safe?


If you issue orders to specifically skimp and bean count about safety in the mine you own and are the CEO, shouldn't you face the death penalty or life in prison for premeditated murder in the event of worker deaths (ie "The Chinese Method")?

[imaplanner]

I want to know where all the people screaming about self regulating business have gone in the last year and how we don't need regulations to keep people safe?


If you issue orders to specifically skimp and bean count about safety in the mine you own and are the CEO, shouldn't you face the death penalty or life in prison for premeditated murder in the event of worker deaths (ie "The Chinese Method")?

Oh they are still out there. Screaming just as loud on other boards.

I think that guy is going to go to prison. I sure hope so. But the right is already out there claiming it's the government's fault for not regulating properly- and that that just shows that the government should get out of the regulation business because they are so ineffective at it.

[Veloise]

...Photos of Tea Party protesters and their atrociously bad signs
starting with one of the best.

Turns out that the Tea Partiers will be in my fair city this afternoon. I need ideas for a (grammar- & spelling-correct) sign or two, or perhaps a tuba decoration.

[mgk920]

http://www.boston.com/business/healt...ance_standoff/

A few days ago, several insurance companies in MA (remember, they already have the model for Obamacare™ in full operation) were turned down by state regulators for a fairly sizable rate increase that they said was needed to prevent them from going insolvent (you know, bankrupt, as in 'run out of money') and in response, they stopped writing new policies. The state regulators then ordered them to start issuing policies using last year's rates, which they are refusing to do (would YOU want your business to operate at an enforced loss?). The standoff continues.

Unfortunately, THIS is what we *ALL* can happily look forward to as this snake oil begins its spread nationwide.



Mike

[CJC]

^We can look forward to the current insurance companies going bankrupt and being forced to reorganize in bankruptcy court (with court-approved wage scales, etc) or moving aside and letting other companies fill the void? I certainly hope that's the case, but I highly doubt it. Any good poker player knows how to bluff...

[imaplanner]

http://www.boston.com/business/healt...ance_standoff/

A few days ago, several insurance companies in MA (remember, they already have the model for Obamacare™ in full operation) were turned down by state regulators for a fairly sizable rate increase that they said was needed to prevent them from going insolvent (you know, bankrupt, as in 'run out of money') and in response, they stopped writing new policies. The state regulators then ordered them to start issuing policies using last year's rates, which they are refusing to do (would YOU want your business to operate at an enforced loss?). The standoff continues.

Unfortunately, THIS is what we *ALL* can happily look forward to as this snake oil begins its spread nationwide.



Mike

Where are the numbers indicating that they would be operating at a loss using last years rates?

Serious question here Mike. Do you believe everything that private business says is true and everything the government says is a lie?

[fringe]

Most glaring omission from WVA coalmine disaster stories is the UNION.

Less union activity = less safe and worse working conditions.

No mystery about why Chinese coalmines are the least safe.

[ofos]

Most glaring omission from WVA coalmine disaster stories is the UNION.

Less union activity = less safe and worse working conditions.

No mystery about why Chinese coalmines are the least safe.

I thought communism was the ultimate union. After all, isn't all about the worker?

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I thought communism was the ultimate union. After all, isn't all about the worker?

You need to do some research other than what some buffoon tells your about unions. Communism is a form of government, not a workers bargaining collective. Nor is it an economic system. Seriously Ofos, I usually respect the things you say even if I don't agree. On this, you sound like you have dropped 35 IQ points to where mgk920 usually starts his silly rants.

The Chinese government will probably execute the owner(s) of the coal mine. They did that to some of the other top executives/ceo's of companies that messed up. Like the milk scandal. This is not unusual over there.

"Two men get the death penalty and an ex-dairy boss gets life for China's tainted milk scandal which left thousands of children ill."

The ceo in the WVA coal mine disaster will likely never see a day in jail, and he directly caused unsafe working conditions leading to the death of 29 people.

So if empirical numbers show that union mines have a better safety record, you are still against the concept of unions and unsafe practices for cheaper energy. You view those 29 people as expendable and not worth the extra 1,000th/kilowatt hour on your monthly bill, for their safety. That is the only logical conclusion from your basic statement.

[ofos]

You need to do some research other than what some buffoon tells your about unions. Communism is a form of government, not a workers bargaining collective. Nor is it an economic system. Seriously Ofos, I usually respect the things you say even if I don't agree. On this, you sound like you have dropped 35 IQ points to where mgk920 usually starts his silly rants.

I knew I should have tossed the sarcasm smilie out there. We really need a "just yanking your chain" smilie. There's more than one reason that I usually don't throw stuff out in the political threads but I don't mind dropping an occasional mortar round just for effect. I''m well aware that communism is not "a workers bargaining collective" but calling it a form of government is a pretty narrow definition of the term. FYI, I've been a union member. While their past efforts were largely positive, especially in the coal mines, most have stagnated and become self-serving institutions.

[Maister]

You need to do some research other than what some buffoon tells your about unions. Communism is a form of government, not a workers bargaining collective. Nor is it an economic system. Seriously Ofos, I usually respect the things you say even if I don't agree. On this, you sound like you have dropped 35 IQ points to where mgk920 usually starts his silly rants....

The mod hat's not on yet, but... Duke, why insist on making political discussions personal/insulting? In my weaker moments I've done it myself, but to be honest it does little to persuade the viewpoints of either the people being insulted or those reading it. Not to mention if it gets carried too far you can/will get carded.

[Hink]

So after reading a lot of things on the election in November, I have come to the conclusion that the Tea Party is going to either make or break the R's. It is now coming out that people are going to try and make the Tea Party look bad on Tax Day by "pretending" to be Tea Partiers and shouting racial slurs and other lewd remarks. This is being done to try and ruin the image of the Tea Party.

I think that the image of the Tea Party to those of us in the middle has never been good. I don't think that these are regular joe's who just happen to be going out to protest. I have always viewed the Tea Party as a poor attempt at Fox News to create a grassroots effort. As the Tea Party gets more crazy, I think that the R's are going to have to make a choice. Scott Brown has. He is already ignoring the Tea Party, even though that is how he got elected. But it is because he understands that the ignorance of many of the protesters will hurt him in the long run.

I see the Tea Party throwing up candidates for a year or two and then disappearing into the night. Or maybe they will become another random third party that has no effect on national elections. I think once people realize how much effort Fox is putting in to prop up the Tea Parties, they will give up hope that they actually stand for anything.

[Maister]

I suspect the Tea Party appeals to similar demographics as Ross Perot did in 1992. Who knows, maybe they can become a viable 3rd party - but the GOP better hope they don't.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I suspect the Tea Party appeals to similar demographics as Ross Perot did in 1992. Who knows, maybe they can become a viable 3rd party - but the GOP better hope they don't.

I suspect that is not really the case. I know people who voted for Perot the first time around. In the 10 I can name by close personal association, not a single one of them now finds the Teabaggers remotely palatable as a political party nor do they sympathize with their black helicopter ideology.

Perot was a little different, about like electing Ron Paul or Kucinich to the Presidency. Certainly no weirder than that. At least he could stay on message and did not promote the crazy conspiracy theories Teabaggers promote. Ok, maybe some black helicopter stuff if I remember right.

It is now coming out that people are going to try and make the Tea Party look bad on Tax Day by "pretending" to be Tea Partiers and shouting racial slurs and other lewd remarks. This is being done to try and ruin the image of the Tea Party.

If you have a source for this "planning to make them look bad" post it. This is being put out their by people who have just enough control over their paranoia to realize that other nutbags might be making them look bad. It's a denial that race is more of an issue to the fledgling party than anything else it can manage to think about.

Seriously, how many people do you know, would feel good or motivated enough to go out and shout and yell those kind of things in public that they do not believe in? Would they do it on TV where it will haunt them forever?

Unless you really believe that, chances are that the people screaming such things really are Teabaggers who are part of a lunatic fringe or white supremacist groups associating themselves with the lunatics for purposes other than the intended protest.