Grizzly~Adams
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Sander said:
Laugh at Bush, laugh at France
- Thread starter Paladin Solo
- Start date
It Wandered In From the Wastes
welsh
Junkmaster
Grizzly~Adams said:
Grizzly~Adams
It Wandered In From the Wastes
welsh said:
Yeah that is true, but its likely to happen when a more liberal party gets votes. Its just too bad there aren't any popular far right religous freak concervative partys... fascists?
What's your point? Name a single president or important political figure that SNL hasn't made a little humor about.King said:
Tromboner999
First time out of the vault
LoOzrat said:
Well, Millard Fillmore, for one. I don't think they've ever made any Calvin Coolidge jokes, either.
--Boner
Liberals... Croatia has not one, not two, but THREE liberal parties, and they were all in power at the same time, in coalition with another five parties! Our political scene is really something... 
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Ozrat...did you read what I posted? I said he is called an idiot by SNL "ALL" of the time. Not just once or twice here and there. So in turn, people begin to sink it in. Whatever man, I know SNL makes fun of almost all political leaders, I could care less. I was trying to say it was funny, but now you make it seem as I was trying to say it is wrong.
Once again King, what's your point? Name one friggin' political icon on SNL who wasn't joked about all of the time? In fact, just name a single person or character on the show who has been spared from the wrath of humor. Nobody.
That's like saying Nuclear Wolf posted a lot of spam. Thing is, everything he posted was spam all of the time. You're just making a redundant comment that doesn't really serve a purpose in your post.
It's called a comedy show. That's just their style and what they do to make a living. So sue them.
P.S. I really don't think that you should be claiming that SNL is brainwashing the masses into disliking Bush and what he does when he does that by himself in the first place.
That's like saying Nuclear Wolf posted a lot of spam. Thing is, everything he posted was spam all of the time. You're just making a redundant comment that doesn't really serve a purpose in your post.
It's called a comedy show. That's just their style and what they do to make a living. So sue them.
P.S. I really don't think that you should be claiming that SNL is brainwashing the masses into disliking Bush and what he does when he does that by himself in the first place.
Heh heh, I think King is actually a field operative of Dept. of Homeland Security... 
welsh
Junkmaster
Grizzly~Adams said:
Wait-
(1) populist party run by neo-conservative far right that has created a strange alliance between big business (generous grants from the government plus tax cuts) and has created an alliance with
(2) the charismatic/evengelical christian right by allowing them hidden benefits packages (school vouchers, grants to charities) which blinds poor whites with a platform of family values, religion and morality while masking the fact that their quality of life has gone down for 30 years,
Hmmmm..... sounds familiar....
and that to
(3) Generous tax cuts to the middle classes which creates short term gains (money in their pockets) while forestalling long term costs (creating huge deficits and debts that will probably become a long term burden for future generations and lets not forget bankrupting the states).
add a rhetoric that says they are cutting big government when in fact they are expanding the coercive powers of the state.....
Hmmmmmm sounds like Republicans to me.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The whole point of 3rd party politics is to steal votes away from the two larger parties.
This is supposed to encouage one of the two parties to adopt at least some of the third party's policies into their own.
Libertarians don't have to be Liberal either. I myself am a Libertarian supporter yet my views on foreign policy coincide more with the conservative crowd. Libertarianism is more a view on the responsibilities of government than some sort of political division.
And Nader was a Green Party member, so I don't quite see your point.
This is supposed to encouage one of the two parties to adopt at least some of the third party's policies into their own.
Libertarians don't have to be Liberal either. I myself am a Libertarian supporter yet my views on foreign policy coincide more with the conservative crowd. Libertarianism is more a view on the responsibilities of government than some sort of political division.
And Nader was a Green Party member, so I don't quite see your point.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Ok, once again Ozrat, did you read my friggin post? I cleary stated just one little thing, and you blow it out of proportion. We were talking about how he is an idiot, and I said that is because of what the media and t.v./movies/music says of him. And yes, SNL does brainwash, not adults, smart ones at least, but children and teens. They see the shows, and sink it in. So please next time you have to say I had no point, try and read what I wrote and have a point of your own.
Edit: Don't get all pissy, I said the stuff they say and do is pretty funny.
Edit: Don't get all pissy, I said the stuff they say and do is pretty funny.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
This is the very reason I labeled myself as a Libertarian sympathizer. Libertarianism as a whole represents smaller government. By voting Libertarian in the coming election, I'm sending a message to both parties that I don't support an expanding of Federal or State government, and do support a reduction of it.
Smaller government is stronger government.
However, Libertarianism does go too far. Putting complete responsibility of civil works such as highways and such in the commercial sector is extremely short-sighted.
welsh
Junkmaster
A cliche and not a very good one.
This one has been drum beat for so long people aren't thinking about it anymore and therefore just thinking "yes big government means more of my individual taxes."
But what if those invested tax dollars lead to net gains for society? What if those dollars we, individually, invest in our government lead to not only net increases in the quality of our economy as well as other, less tangible, benefits- like a better environment, more stable world system, better education, etc.
Who would pay for all of that without tax dollars?
This is one of those great culture issues that defines americans- the desire for individual self-interest (low taxes) at the cost of collective social gains leading to sub-optimal results.
One of the more important arguments today in economics is the role of government in facilitating the existance of markets, exchange, and public goods. Without the state such public goods or markets would not be forthcoming- think of road construction, public safety, a quite a bit of the research and development that allowed the US to maintain itself at the cutting edge of the product cycle comes from the state itself. This all requires an overcoming of the collective action problem which economists leave to the state.
For the core argument about the importances of bureaucracies, states, etc- read Max Weber, but also try Peter Evans.
In the age of globalization, those countries that have benefitted have, in fact, expanded their government spending on bureaucracy to harness the opportunities of a more global economy. The results have been pretty consistent- but for more I think you want to read Dani Rodrik.
If you read Sam Huntington earlier work Public Order in Changing Societies, one sees the argument most clearly about the importance of capable institutions in running of a successful state and in the mediation of civil conflicts. For a short history of the world on this issue you might also want to read Robert Bates- Prosperity and Violence.
True, there is a danger that the bureaucracy might be an excessive tax on the state. This rent-seeking argument was developed by Mancur Olson in his Rise and Decline of Nations.
But the problem is not so much one of size but quality- how effective are the institutions at providing public goods, what kinds of safeguards are instituted have been created to prevent the preying of the state on the society (See the new institutionalism school for more of this).
In real terms, go to a hiring person at the next college job fair and ask what the hiring trends will be. You will find that in most government services there has been a huge lack of jobs. They have not been hiring significant numbers for almost 20 years. So you have little trained middle management to take over the positions when the trained civil servants retire, and they are starting to retire now as the baby boom exits. So its a good time now for young college grads to look for jobs in the government. The bad thing is that there is a lack of experience at the top and thus little transference of expertise from senior management to more junior management.
That's a problem.
Look, one can think of this simply as such- the expansion of the franchise of governance (democracy) came for three basic reasons-
(1) the need of the state to conscript soldiers led to a exchange of benefits- the state got soldiers to fight its wars, the soldiers got rights as citizens, including the right to choose their leaders. Note that the civil rights movement in the US comes during the 1960s- during the Vietnam War, but had it seeds in the 1950s- Korean war. Gulf War- led to women being allowed to be combatants.
(2) the demands of workers for greater power- rise of industrialization led to the rise of organized labor, and thus the spread of a social legislation- one sees more of this in Europe than the US- which is why they get off for longer holidays, have better unemployment benefits, etc.
(3) income taxes- If you are going to be forced to pay taxes you get more right to vote.
The problem in the US isn't big government, but unaccountable government- a consequence of not enough people saying they have a right to demand that their government do something good than just the basic rights and duties. What do people want- lower taxes. What has that done- bankrupted the states.
But states are still expected to give services, or people bitch and moan about the loss of services. Because politicians want to get elected, they don't want to see a decline in services. So the state has to borrow, which becomes debt that has to be repaid of the state looses its credit rating and no one wants to invest in the state anymore, or in the society which the state governs. Low credit means the economy takes a beating. It also means future generations have to pay the cost of current tax cuts. Future generations means you.
Just look at what Ozrat has posted n $87 billion. Don't you think that the country would be better off if that money was put into things like R&D, education, job creation, tax incentives for cutting edge industries so they hire more people?
"Smaller government is stronger government"? Please. Yet another example of words of wisdom found at the bottom of the Cracker Jack box.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Actually it is 87 trillion. Or that's how Ozrat posted it.
King said:
Keep dreaming pal.Uhhh... WTF? Say what? Where'd I say that? How exactly did I say trillion? Was it by adding nine zeros between the 87 and the decimal place that would symbolize "billions"? Or was it by saying the word "billions"? Either way, I did in fact say billions and not trillions. What exactly are you trying to pull/say/troll here?King said:
You couldn't have said it better for me myself. Please go take your own advice rather than posting some random mindless spam here.King said:
Grizzly~Adams
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I never said anything about Nader being a Libertarian, and I know there are more 3rd parties besides the libertarians.(like the Green, Socialist, etc.) I was just stating that his whole point to his campaign was to try and get people to realise that there is more choices, and make money for his campaign in 2004. Plus the Democrats and Republicans haven't been around forever, and the USA is the one of the few countries that have just two major Political parties. Your looking at third party Politics with too much cynisism, either that or your just afraid of change.Bradylama said:
Libertarianism is a lot more than just the responcibilities of the Government. If you have been to there website they have all sorts of views on Foriegn Trade and Policies. An like I said Libertarians have been elected into office, so yes they are a Political division.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Woops my bad oz, didn't quite look carefully and must've missed the decimal. Call me an idiot now if you wish. But please tell me how I posted mindless spam here.
IDIOT!King said:
Even if you didn't see the decimal place, you would've still noticed that it was a zero short of being trillions like you claimed. No, you didn't even bother to double check your own damn mistake.King said:
Don't mind if I do.King said:
Idiot.
You mean like what you just did?King said:
King, stop fucking around now. The joke's over.