Fun Stuff...Off Topic(O/T)

[Karel]

Snopes is great for determing Urban Legends and so forth , BUT they are definitely liberal on any politcal commenting. All one has to do is go to the SNOPES site and Type in George Bush and then Barack Obama .......the contrast in reporting is evident .........hardly any negative stories for Obama , but tons for Bush!

And I would rather be liberal and right, than right and wrong.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Karel

[billyjoe]

I know Billie hates those small pizzas ......but how about some 600g German Sausage Billie .......check this out LOL!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...7761788002074#

Pete,
I am German and it is hard to find good sausage. Since I owned stock in Bob Evans as a youngster over 40 years ago ( he only had 4 restaurants then) it's been my duty to search for high quality, not dripping in fat and fillers, sausage and bratwurst. If you're ever in Ohio in August come to the Bratwurst Festival in Bucyrus. Sponsored by Tums. Here's a video. Be sure to watch till the end and see the bratwurst casserole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VHBn6_pxuQ

----------billy

[Karel]

While Pete is desperately looking for the tons of negativity he has mislaid, I would like to give an example of how Snopes treats Bush. In my list of the Snopes G.W. Bush page you'll find the rumor that Bush is supposed to have waved at Stevie Wonder to attract his attention at a concert. Snopes considers this rumor to be false.

After pointing out that G.W. Bush most likely waved at someone else, they add:

Stories that showcase blockheadedness stick to George W. Bush like feathers to a tar-coated chicken because they seemingly confirm what much of the public already holds as true about this public figure, that he's not the brightest fellow that's ever been. It is human nature to revel in yarns that the hearer at some level agrees with, thus tales of this sort will always fall upon appreciative ears. Witness the excitment with which the false story about presidential I.Q., as Bush's ranking upon this list was greeted as another example of this phenomenon in action.

And yet, even if the story had been true, even if President Bush had waved at a blind man, hard-up comics might have seen that as fodder for their "Bush is so dumb!" routines, but most folks would have seen such a gaffe as something that can — and does — happen to anyone.

People who can see and who have good hearing react with the world around them in the manner they are accustomed to. Our methods of greeting those we encounter are so deeply ingrained that the sighted and hearing don't think twice about them — a hand goes up or a name gets called out while we're still on autopilot. The realization that the person being waved to couldn't have seen the gesture only begins to sink in when the one offering the greeting fails to get the expected wave in return and starts wondering if his friend is peeved with him. Likewise, only when "Bob, hey Bob; over here!" fails to provoke a response does the shouter remember that his friend is deaf.

George W. Bush may or may not be a brilliant man, but this "waving at Stevie Wonder" anecdote would fail to prove anything, even if it were true. However, like the "Hilary throws a lamp" tale (which supposedly offered confirmation that she is an evil-tempered virago via an illustrative story about her pitching a lamp at Bill's head), this story is likely to trail after President Bush for as long as he's in office and for years beyond that. We like our caricatures drawn with simple lines, after all.

Compare this to the malicious posts Pete likes to quote and decide for yourself what you like best. I know I prefer Snopes.

Regards,

Karel

[peanuts]

Sentiments like these make me feel, when I am really blue, that we are witnessing the selfdestruction of democracy.

On a more positive note: In our country, the Netherlands, the larger political parties are more or less obliged to present a reasonably detailed budget proposal, which is then fed into an economical model so that the models not only can be compared on their inputs (tax breaks etc.) but also on their likely outcomes (economic growth, jobs, how much people will be able to spend, etc.). Is something tike that available for the US, and if not, do parties/factions present detailed and reasoned budget proposals?

Regards,

Karel

No sir.

We elect jackasses and have them tend our pumpkin patch. The problem we face is that the jackasses only know how to eat pumpkin and not grow it.

I was afraid the answer was negative. But in my more positive (orange?) moods I could allow that it has more or less worked until now. From a too large distance, the problem seems to be that the majority vote currently is in favor of eating, regarding every tax cut as sacrosanct, if not a promise of more to come. But if someone finds a balanced budget on the current levels of taxation without killing the economy or creating havoc elsewhere, more power to him/her.

Regards,

Karel

Hi Karel,

Yes, on a positive note, the foundation of the country has carried it to this point. But that is only because the foundation was strong enough to handle the wear and tear of the latest season of change. The distance from which you look is long, and your vision is good, but could be focused on some other areas. Namely, the system basics which are being corrupted. This is not supposed to be majority rule. Our political voting structure is to be for a representative republic.

As I stated earlier, it is those which we have voted into office who are eating the pumpkin. As an insider, at least in my region of the country, there are far more people against the actions of the majority in government. Many people that I know feel that the actions are NOT a representation of there own ideals and interests. The representatives are taking advantage of a system to their own benefit, or to the benefit of a party for which they will expect retribution in the future for today's support. It's rotten, the whole thing. It's something which the people will need to fix. Americans are great people, being pushed down the global ladder by the very people they entrusted with their world-wide status.

Our only hope is to only vote against all incumbents for DECADES. Never let any politician sit in office for more than 1 term.

A cleansing must occur.

/rant

Karel and others, please watch this video. To be honest with you, I've never been a big fan of Dillan Ratigan. Just something about his delivery rubs me the wrong way. But, that is not to say that he doesn't know his FACTS, and can construct a present image of the state of affairs. Here, he lays it out well. Pay attention. There are some true gems of truth in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z1XOBDbIy0&feature=player_embedded

[Peter Hansen]

Who Kicked THe Hornets Nest?

PEACE brothers ...let us all agree that we all have different opinions , but who is really right? That is a question with no easy answers.
There should be room for liberal, conservative and libertarian opinions.

[Karel]

PEACE brothers ...let us all agree that we all have different opinions , but who is really right? That is a question with no easy answers.
There should be room for liberal, conservative and libertarian opinions.

Oh well, Pete as the reasonable guy with live and let live. As the man with opinions that deserve a hearing. Which means that he will feel fully justified to return with the next bunch of smears that suits him and that can be debunked all too easily.

This is indeed a site where opinions can get a hearing, but not smut. Time and again I have tried to show the disregard for truth and reason in Pete's positions, but now it is time for me to realize that not only is this not a site for smut, it is also not a site for the debunking of smut. There are other sites that do that job, who specialize in it and do it well.

I may come a bit late to this realization, but that is also because it requires a definite and unpleasant measure: Pete has got a permanent ban now.

Regards,

Karel

[billyjoe]

Goodbye, Pete, you were too young to leave so soon. Who knows, ye may be reincarnated?

-----------billy

[Karel]

Karel and others, please watch this video. To be honest with you, I've never been a big fan of Dillan Ratigan. Just something about his delivery rubs me the wrong way. But, that is not to say that he doesn't know his FACTS, and can construct a present image of the state of affairs. Here, he lays it out well. Pay attention. There are some true gems of truth in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z1XO...layer_embedded

Sorry Peanuts, but I like my discussions in one place. When I mention a source elsewhere on the web, I always (or so I hope) quote, or try to capture the essence of the reference for the sake of the discussion here, so that people can keep up without the need to jump all over the web.

So: pop it at us. But remember that I am mostly interested in solutions. Rants are a dime a dozen.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

Goodbye, Pete, you were too young to leave so soon. Who knows, ye may be reincarnated?

-----------billy

Good thought billyjoe. That reminds me not to be such a wimp with the next mudslinger.

Regards,

Karel

[billyjoe]

Karel,
I don't especially like any politicians and there are some I despise more than others. There has been an unrelenting attack on Obama since he first showed his face. Does he deserve it any more than Bush, Clinton, Bush, Carter, Ford, Reagan, Nixon ? Makes a person wonder if there's an underlying reason for the mudslinging.

----------billy

[Karel]

Karel,
I don't especially like any politicians and there are some I despise more than others. There has been an unrelenting attack on Obama since he first showed his face. Does he deserve it any more than Bush, Clinton, Bush, Carter, Ford, Reagan, Nixon ? Makes a person wonder if there's an underlying reason for the mudslinging.

----------billy

Could be billyjoe. But then this would be the first case of mudslinging by wellmeaning citizens.

Regards,

Karel

[peanuts]

Sorry Peanuts, but I like my discussions in one place. When I mention a source elsewhere on the web, I always (or so I hope) quote, or try to capture the essence of the reference for the sake of the discussion here, so that people can keep up without the need to jump all over the web.

So: pop it at us. But remember that I am mostly interested in solutions. Rants are a dime a dozen.

Regards,

Karel

Hi Karel,

I understand. To summarize Mr Ratigan: Politicians are the problem because they are corrupted by power, money, and laziness.

Power: They are given the voting rights for their constituents, whether they voted, voted for him/her or did not vote for him/her. The bottom line is their yea or nay. Having this power is intoxicating to the soul and inflates the majority of political egos

Money: The wealth that is obtained by a politician is staggering in comparison to the average guy. On top of the benefits, they are paid well and consistently give themselves raises even in bad times. But the real money maker is passed under the table through bribery, campaign contributions, and specially awarded projects. There is an unequal distribution of wealth among politicians and citizens. Percentage-wise, the financial make-up of congress does not compare with the financial make-up of the country. Many of them are out of touch with the very people that they represent

Laziness: Why get a real job, or start a company, when you can suck from the teet of the American public coffers and simply tow the party line to get re-elected? Either party, as we really are bi-partisan, acts the same way... one side gets together and starts counting votes on an issue and then gang up on the uncommitted fellow party members... rather than thinking it through and making a truly informed decision, most of those uncommitted just simply tow the party line because they want to be re-elected. They won't get their own party's support if they are abrasive to the issues that the party tries to push.

This didn't just happen over night, Karel. No, this was something established in the 60's and has been slowly eating away at the moral fiber of our political system. It is a machine. And the controls are not in the hands of the people. That is the TRUE problem. So many Americans feel helpless to affect change. The moral fiber of the American people is still intact. There are fantastic human beings living in America who reflect everything that made this country what it is. But, they are becoming disenchanted with what has become of their representative republic. Why? Because they are NOT being represented. It's becoming a democracy

And this was all typed out to reiterate my solution which I have already given to you: VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS

No, that was not a rant that I was giving you earlier regarding this. It was a genuine solution to the problem that is infecting our political system. i.e. the career politician. They breed corruption. That corruption affects the direction this country is heading, and every American is along for the ride. So, in order to take back the political system, and put the power back into the people's hands, then every politician must know that:

1) being an elected official is a PRIVILEGED SERVICE TO YOUR FELLOW MAN
2) being elected means that you are a representative of your constituents
3) they are there to do a job, not build a network of go-to buddies
4) they will not have time to make the long-term relationships with banking, industry, or foreign influences
5) they do not have to win any popularity contest for re-election. They are out of there when its over, and they have to go home and face everyone they just represented

Doing this (voting them all out) over a period of several decades will wash the system of this corruption. No more power struggles, no more pandering, no more greasy palms. It will become, "America, Back In Business"

Yes, good guys will come and go. But the really good ones will leave a blueprint of success for others to follow.

Hercules had to cut off all of the heads for him to destroy the hydra.

This is no rant, Karel. This is truly a plan to empower the American people again: VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS, for decades

[Karel]

[...] then every politician must know that:

1) being an elected official is a PRIVILEGED SERVICE TO YOUR FELLOW MAN
2) being elected means that you are a representative of your constituents
3) they are there to do a job, not build a network of go-to buddies
4) they will not have time to make the long-term relationships with banking, industry, or foreign influences
5) they do not have to win any popularity contest for re-election. They are out of there when its over, and they have to go home and face everyone they just represented

Doing this (voting them all out) over a period of several decades will wash the system of this corruption. No more power struggles, no more pandering, no more greasy palms. It will become, "America, Back In Business"

Yes, good guys will come and go. But the really good ones will leave a blueprint of success for others to follow.

Hercules had to cut off all of the heads for him to destroy the hydra.

This is no rant, Karel. This is truly a plan to empower the American people again: VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS, for decades

Thanks, peanuts. And no it does not convince me. Let us look at your proposed measures first. 1) and 2) are elevated pinciples, but as they cannot be enforced and if need be are easy to feign they will serve no practical purpose in the change you envisage. 3), 4) and 5) are presented as having positive consequences. They can equally well be presented as having negative consequences. I don't think the problem is networking (but the use that is being made of it can be positive or negative), or that relations with the corporate world and foreign powers are a problem (but the use that is made of it may be good or bad) or that the freedom of re-election worries will free politicians to do good (it would also make them free to act selfish, as they won't be re-elected anyway).

What I suppose is that proposals 3), 4) and 5) are meant to weaken the political sphere, which is curently being viewed as too strong and as using its strength wrongly too. The next question then becomes: "Cui bono?" "Who will profit from a weakening of the political sphere?" Simple answers like "The nation" will not do; it is not an actor. The most likely gainer from a lessening of the political sphere will in all probability be the corporate sphere, with the biggest corporations lining up in front. Why would that be an improvement? You might want to counter that your proposals would strengthen politics, but why would a politician without career and without network be in a better position to withstand the seasoned lobbyist?

I would plead that the political sphere is not bad per se, nor the corporate world, nor the electorate. And insofar as one sphere exhibits weaknesses these weaknesses may get reflected in and strenghtened by the other spheres. The snatching mindset is not the privilege of the current crop of politicians, but is equally shared by managers and perhaps also the electorate. I don't see a source of "clean" politicians.

The only solution I see is to demand substantiation of claims. Do not make, or do not accept, statements like: politicians are corrupt. Demand to know which politician is corrupt and according to what yardstick. Demand details, demand hard facts. Do not make, or do not accept, statements like: lower (higher) taxes will save the nation. Demand that the tax proposals be worked out, including wider-ranging implications than just the deficit. Demand details, demand hard facts, demand that assumptions be made explicit. Et cetera.

I do not trust the people from which ideas like yours originate. They leave too much out of the equation. They leave too much too vague. They promise to save the nation (they would). Buyer beware.

Can the nation (your nation!) be saved? I don't think it needs to be saved. It could undoubtedly be directed along a more rational course, however. As most other nations, including mine. I appreciate the apprehension a lot of people feel when viewing the political arena and the socio-economic developments. But my suggestion would be to use that as a wake-up call for oneself. Consider what your electoral wishes can do for your country, not what they can make the country do for yourself.

Regards,

Karel

[riverbabe]

Karel and others, please watch this video. To be honest with you, I've never been a big fan of Dillan Ratigan. Just something about his delivery rubs me the wrong way. But, that is not to say that he doesn't know his FACTS, and can construct a present image of the state of affairs. Here, he lays it out well. Pay attention. There are some true gems of truth in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z1XO...layer_embedded

God, I LOVE Dylan Ratigan! He NAILS it again!!! Thank you Peanuts! Never seen him LOSE IT like this, but it has obviously been building up!

[riverbabe]

Good thought billyjoe. That reminds me not to be such a wimp with the next mudslinger.

Regards,

Karel

Karel, so hard on him? Yeah yeah, he was warned repeatedly. But please give credit to the adults here who smirk a little, wink a lot and overall totally ignore his "mud." He has been faithfully giving stock tips every day for years now. You are within your rights absolutely. But, even I will miss him. River