My Senator blasting away at the Assholes holding up the appointment of the Transportation Safety
GLOBALIST
I heard some outstanding predictions for McCaskill's future lately
Charlie
> http://www.politico.com/singletitlevideo.html?bcpid=19407224001&bctid...
>
> I heard some outstanding predictions for McCaskill's future lately
Do you get a lot of admiration from democrats by calling anyone who
doesn't share your opinion, an asshole?
Charlie
Ga...@comcast.net
"Charlie" <anonym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3e96213-963c-44d6...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Charlie
why not shut the fuck up you ignorant asshole, you gutless, fat ass
hillbillies sure can run those
big mouths until you get your fat asses whipped and your clocks cleaned,
then you little whining, dick sucking bitches want to play nice,
go fuck yourself, and see if you can pay somebody to fuck that dog ugly, hog
of a fat ass wife of yours gomer
yes it makes us feel good to call you cross eyed, bow legged, inbred, nascar
watching, trailer park,alcoholic,
daughter and sister raping, child abusing, dog kicking cocksucking
hillbillies,republicans and conservatives assholes
only an asshole would be one of you, a loser, failure, and fuckup who loves
being exactly that
Charlie
> "Charlie" <anonymouse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
HEY GLOBALIST! It's for you.
Charlie
Ga...@comcast.net
Charlie
damn boy, what happened to that big hillbilly mouth ?
yall used to be more uppity, did Obama git yer stupid mind set right there
gomer ?
GLOBALIST
8 years of the son of bitch Bush, bandrupted us and now refuse to do
ANYTHING that helps the American people. Republicans are hypocrites,
pretentious and the most selfish people walking the planet. They are
only concerned with someone taking something from them and they don't
have jack shit.
freeisbest
OK, well, I guess sooner or later somebody was bound to break it
to them...
I feel especially bad when certain people that we know, the
'good-spouse-good-parent-good-local-citizen' Repub, suddenly turn
vicious and stupid in defense of radicalright ideas they obviously
don't understand.
McCaskill scares h*ll out of rightwingers by demonstrating that
Senate repubs could actually pursue the business of the American
people instead of sucking up to power and money.
Evelyn
"freeisbest" <demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c376b7a-05a4-4e23...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
The way things are going, the current degree of polarization can lead us
only into further problems. We have so many REAL dangers to deal with in
the current political and social climate, yet all the right does is waste
time in obstructionism.
What I can't figure out is; Why it is that so many are fooled by these
people!!!!? I cannot for the life of me understand how any poor person,
any working man or woman, any former middle class individual, anyone with
children growing up in these times, can possibly accept the line of malarkey
that is being thrown at them by the right! How does FOX and Limbaugh et al
manage to fool so many?
Power and money are no good if there is no one with the money to buy
anything. Even those who own huge businesses should be able to see that
there has to be enough disposable income in the hands of the people, in
order that their businesses should survive and prosper. All these
foreclosures benefit no one. All these people out of work benefits no one.
The trickle down effect, DIDN'T! Yet they still sing the same song, even
though tax cuts for the rich never worked the first time, and it won't work
no matter how often they say it.
The prosperity of a nation is built from the ground up. When the little
guy can buy a house or a car, and send his kids to school, he will also be
spending some of that money, stimulating the whole economy. When people
are able to afford some few little luxuries for themselves, save a couple of
dollars, and feel happy and secure in their lives, the whole nation
benefits.
Union busting only hurts the working people. The right to organize is a
basic human right, if you ask me. It was only the unions who gave this
country any kind of prosperity.
The only message of the republicans these days is to tear down the democrats
and in particular to discredit the president. They have no other message.
Yet there are still those who buy into that sort of stupidity.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Olly Mensch
essay
on the pros and cons of the Republican party merely served to show your
own lack of maturity, and poor judgment.
I don't know who you were trying to impress- but it did not do so; not
those who have fair and mature judgment of things. Your constant
"hacking' of Fox and Limbaugh is just an exercise in immaturity and
frustration on your part.
I am NOT a Republican (nor a Democrat) but your constant angry,
repetitive posts against the same thing over and over again, are
tedious. You may ask, why do I address my reaction to YOU - and why not
to those unacceptable characters, such a "Globalist' and other
erratic,wild, angry posters,(especially High Miles) whom no one should
read, and whose middle name seems to be"shit" - which she loves to use,
plus other obscenities -especially against old people, who are useless
and for whom she wishes death - that is High Miles - and her "arrested'
need to be"different". Juvenile.
Well, I am sure you know those are best served by ignoring them;their
wild and dirty and angry contributions offer nothing - whereas you
usually do remain civil (sort of!!) - but, frquently, step out of
character - when it comes to Republican issues and seem to lose your
otherwise mild and friendly conributions, by giving in to childish
name-calling and wildly exaggeraed political views.= = = = I will never
forgive Bush for the Iraq war, but, in economics, he had more knowledge
on one finger than the present democratic crew has on the whole hand.
AND - I felt far more reassured with him at the top, when it dealt with
matters of security, than I do now with the "step-softly' - ever
forgiving "peaceniks', whose well-meant attitude will bring nothing but
disaster for us.
Olly
Evelyn
"Olly Mensch" <liese...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15063-4B4...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
Olly,
I disagree with you on every point you have made, including those made about
High Miles and Globalist, whose posts I read, enjoy, and agree with
heartily, though not all the time, just most of it.
Bush made NO provision to pay for his wars, and in THAT issue alone, he does
not show an iota of economic sense. Bush inherited a surplus and left
office with a nearly insurmountable deficit and with the nation teetering on
the brink of a depression. If that is any inkling of his economic savvy, I
would say that he failed miserably and your judgement is skewed where he is
concerned.
If my posts seem extreme and leftist, it is because my opinions ARE leftist,
in fact more leftist than ever before. My opinions were more moderate
before, but not now. I find that the more I see of republican values,
aims, and opinions, the more I lean left.
I think that the republicans have become a group of obstructionists nay
sayers and who stop this government from achieving anything. Thus they
are punishing the people. For that they are in my eyes, utterly evil.
There is not a one among them who deserves his office.
Rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
>What I can't figure out is; Why it is that so many are fooled by these
>people!!!!? I cannot for the life of me understand how any poor person,
>any working man or woman, any former middle class individual, anyone with
>children growing up in these times, can possibly accept the line of malarkey
>that is being thrown at them by the right! How does FOX and Limbaugh et al
>manage to fool so many?
They wave a flag.
<snip>
Islander
There is a lot more to it than that. Reagan recognized the smoldering
anger that existed in the country while he was still Governor of CA.
There were (and still are) a lot of people who are still angry about how
Vietnam ended, angry at the hippies and their disrespect for the law,
angry at minorities who threatened their jobs or who might get an
advantage that they didn't get. It was pretty well explained by Thomas
Frank in "What's the Matter with Kansas" and elaborated further by Paul
Krugman in "Conscience of a Liberal." Krugman tended to place more
emphasis on discrimination than Frank, citing the loss of liberal
influence in politics on the loss of the South after LBJ signed the
Civil Rights Act.
Overall, it is mostly about poorly educated people who become
increasingly desperate as they see life becoming more and more
difficult. Of course, it is also about those who exploit these people
with propaganda about free markets and the American dream.
Note that most of the strength in the Republican party is found in older
white men, many of whom saw what was possible during the two decades
following WWII. They were and are proud of their nation and their
accomplishments. What they fail to understand is how that was lost and
who was to blame.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:14:24 -0500, "Evelyn" <evely...@gmail.com>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>> What I can't figure out is; Why it is that so many are fooled by these
>>> people!!!!? I cannot for the life of me understand how any poor person,
>>> any working man or woman, any former middle class individual, anyone with
>>> children growing up in these times, can possibly accept the line of malarkey
>>> that is being thrown at them by the right! How does FOX and Limbaugh et al
>>> manage to fool so many?
>>
>>
>> They wave a flag.
>>
>
>There is a lot more to it than that. Reagan recognized the smoldering
>anger that existed in the country while he was still Governor of CA.
>There were (and still are) a lot of people who are still angry about how
>Vietnam ended, angry at the hippies and their disrespect for the law,
>angry at minorities who threatened their jobs or who might get an
>advantage that they didn't get. It was pretty well explained by Thomas
>Frank in "What's the Matter with Kansas" and elaborated further by Paul
>Krugman in "Conscience of a Liberal." Krugman tended to place more
>emphasis on discrimination than Frank, citing the loss of liberal
>influence in politics on the loss of the South after LBJ signed the
>Civil Rights Act.
Personally, I always felt the dixiecrats were more a contamination
than a help on the Democratic party, and I'm not sorry to see them
go. Not having them might make it harder to win elections, but
there's more point to winning an election if one didn't have to
compromise basic principles to do it.
As to hippie disrespect of the Vietnam war, that's because the
Vietnam war was a disaster, as the Iraq war has been. Disrespect
for the war It shouldn't have extended to disrespect for the troops
who were just doing what they were told, as troops always have
to do. I didn't see any of that disrespect myself. I just heard
about it, but don't know firsthand how prevalent it was.
>
>Overall, it is mostly about poorly educated people who become
>increasingly desperate as they see life becoming more and more
>difficult. Of course, it is also about those who exploit these people
>with propaganda about free markets and the American dream.
I can't really speak to life becoming more and more difficult,
since I was luckier than many, and have had a relatively pretty
easy time of it in life, at least in the financial aspect.
>
>Note that most of the strength in the Republican party is found in older
>white men, many of whom saw what was possible during the two decades
>following WWII. They were and are proud of their nation and their
>accomplishments. What they fail to understand is how that was lost and
>who was to blame.
What made this country great in the two decades after WWII
wasn't the Vietnam war, or the Iraq war. McCarthyism was
around when I came to the USA, and though I was a little kid
it was a big shock to me, so that period certainly wasn't great
in every way. I don't know if McCarthyism was such a big shock
to me because I came from England where there was nothing
like it, or whether my apparently instinctive opposition to far-right
attitudes, like my instinctive opposition to theism, would have
been the same even if I had been born in America.
Islander
I have no love lost on the Dixiecrats, but they helped to pass some good
legislation. After LBJ, they became Republicans and helped Reagan
capture (and ruin) the nation.
>
> As to hippie disrespect of the Vietnam war, that's because the
> Vietnam war was a disaster, as the Iraq war has been. Disrespect
> for the war It shouldn't have extended to disrespect for the troops
> who were just doing what they were told, as troops always have
> to do. I didn't see any of that disrespect myself. I just heard
> about it, but don't know firsthand how prevalent it was.
It was disrespect for the law that I was referring to. Civil
disobedience was not part of what the men returning from WWII saw as a
good thing.
The disrespect for the troops (exploited by the political right out of
all similarity to what actually happened) was something different. Yes,
there were a lot of people who saw what was happening in Vietnam and
opposed it, sometimes vigorously. That, IMV, is the best argument to
return to the draft. The all volunteer army was and is a strategy to
create a separate mindset about war. In the final analysis, it serves
to divide us.
>
>
>> Overall, it is mostly about poorly educated people who become
>> increasingly desperate as they see life becoming more and more
>> difficult. Of course, it is also about those who exploit these people
>> with propaganda about free markets and the American dream.
>
>
>
> I can't really speak to life becoming more and more difficult,
> since I was luckier than many, and have had a relatively pretty
> easy time of it in life, at least in the financial aspect.
As was I. My brothers served in WWII and seemed puzzled by what
happened when their children rebelled. Their kids and my kids have had
a tough time, not at all like the opportunities that were given to you
and me.
>
>
>> Note that most of the strength in the Republican party is found in older
>> white men, many of whom saw what was possible during the two decades
>> following WWII. They were and are proud of their nation and their
>> accomplishments. What they fail to understand is how that was lost and
>> who was to blame.
>
>
> What made this country great in the two decades after WWII
> wasn't the Vietnam war, or the Iraq war. McCarthyism was
> around when I came to the USA, and though I was a little kid
> it was a big shock to me, so that period certainly wasn't great
> in every way. I don't know if McCarthyism was such a big shock
> to me because I came from England where there was nothing
> like it, or whether my apparently instinctive opposition to far-right
> attitudes, like my instinctive opposition to theism, would have
> been the same even if I had been born in America.
>
>
McCarthyism was the fear mongering of that period. I'm surprised that
Ike didn't speak out about it until much later. We know now that Ike
didn't approve of McCarthy and worked privately to diminish his power.
But, in the end, even Ike was afraid of McCarthy. Too bad.
Rumpelstiltskin
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
<snip>
>> As to hippie disrespect of the Vietnam war, that's because the
>> Vietnam war was a disaster, as the Iraq war has been. Disrespect
>> for the war It shouldn't have extended to disrespect for the troops
>> who were just doing what they were told, as troops always have
>> to do. I didn't see any of that disrespect myself. I just heard
>> about it, but don't know firsthand how prevalent it was.
>
>It was disrespect for the law that I was referring to. Civil
>disobedience was not part of what the men returning from WWII saw as a
>good thing.
>
>The disrespect for the troops (exploited by the political right out of
>all similarity to what actually happened) was something different. Yes,
>there were a lot of people who saw what was happening in Vietnam and
>opposed it, sometimes vigorously. That, IMV, is the best argument to
>return to the draft. The all volunteer army was and is a strategy to
>create a separate mindset about war. In the final analysis, it serves
>to divide us.
Yes, we should return to the draft IMV, and no special
privileges for the offspring of senators or corporate majesties.
I do feel hypocritical for saying that though, because I got
out of going to Vietnam because I was gay, and I was very
glad to get out. Nobody wanted to go to Vietnam, but we
still had that war. Vietnam was no World War II, there was
no noble purpose there, at least not in the eyes of the
people my age who were the ones asked to fight it. We
all thought that people were dying just for business profits.
It was asked at the time "Are you willing to give your life for
Dow Chemical?". That war created a schism between the
young, who went or whose friends went, versus the old
who were too old to go. But the opposition from the young
was what eventually ended the war, and that opposition
existed because there was a draft.
Only a couple of days after I arrived in San Francisco in
May or so of 1969, I joined a Peace March. I hadn't even
heard there was going to be a march - I just stumbled
across it. There were a quarter million people filling up
Van Ness Avenue, which is a wide avenue. I could see
a good part of the crowd filling up the whole width of Van
Ness when I looked back from Geary Street down the
hill to Market and Van Ness. I never did see the front
of the march from anywhere, it was in full swing before I
found it. I'd never seen so many people in a crowd at
once before in my live, not even to my recollection at
the Barbra Streisand concert in Central Park a year or
so earlier which supposedly had a comparable number
of people.
>>> Overall, it is mostly about poorly educated people who become
>>> increasingly desperate as they see life becoming more and more
>>> difficult. Of course, it is also about those who exploit these people
>>> with propaganda about free markets and the American dream.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't really speak to life becoming more and more difficult,
>> since I was luckier than many, and have had a relatively pretty
>> easy time of it in life, at least in the financial aspect.
>
>As was I. My brothers served in WWII and seemed puzzled by what
>happened when their children rebelled. Their kids and my kids have had
>a tough time, not at all like the opportunities that were given to you
>and me.
I was born at the end of WWII, February 1945, so I didn't see
WWII, although we were on rations in England all the time up to
when I came to America in 1951. I don't remember even noticing
the rationing myself, as a little kid, though we had ration books.
One had to cut out a "butter" square to buy butter, for example.
There was quite a black market going on about ration coupons,
I understand, though of course it was illegal to trade or sell the
coupons.
<snip>
High Miles
>
> I disagree with you on every point you have made, including those made
> about High Miles and Globalist, whose posts I read, enjoy, and agree
> with heartily, though not all the time, just most of it.
>
> Bush made NO provision to pay for his wars, and in THAT issue alone, he
> does not show an iota of economic sense. Bush inherited a surplus and
> left office with a nearly insurmountable deficit and with the nation
> teetering on the brink of a depression. If that is any inkling of his
> economic savvy, I would say that he failed miserably and your judgement
> is skewed where he is concerned.
>
> If my posts seem extreme and leftist, it is because my opinions ARE
> leftist, in fact more leftist than ever before. My opinions were more
> moderate before, but not now. I find that the more I see of republican
> values, aims, and opinions, the more I lean left.
>
> I think that the republicans have become a group of obstructionists nay
> sayers and who stop this government from achieving anything. Thus
> they are punishing the people. For that they are in my eyes, utterly
> evil. There is not a one among them who deserves his office.
>
The old bitch just posted under any old heading so she could complain
about us.
I keep wanting to respond to her with............ain't you dead yet ?
But she knows how I feel about her.
rtk...@gmail.com
We can count on at least one post per day from Olly complaining about
Evelyn.
Her day would be incomplete without at least one.
Diatribes that are poorly written and just go on and on
If only she could strive to be succinct ...such as "screw you Evelyn"
it would save a lot of bandwidth.
Olly Mensch
obstructionist nay-sayers, and who stop this government from achieving
anything. Thus they are punishing the people. For that, they are, in my
eyes, utterly evil. There is not a one among them who deserves his
office."
= = Evelyn -- if you - for a moment - think back to the time when the
Republicans were in the majority, and the Democrats were the minority,
then you could apply every single word you wrote above about the
Republicans -also to the Democrats. What you are describing is NOT a
special, unique function of the Republicans, but is the normal function
of the minority underdog, inCongress. The very same opposition and
behavior was shown and enacted by the Democrats when the Republicans
were on top;. So - therefore - it is not a unique special feature of
the Republicans - but of the "underdog", whose behavior is always
frustration - and, often, fairly "dirty" - - happening and perpetrated
by BOTH parties, when in the minority.
And THAT is why I object to your constant "personalizing" the Repubs.'
supposed behavior- when all they are doing is, what the Democrats also
always do,when in the minority - -namely, stand up for THEIR principles
and fight against the others'.
= =On a less important matter - how you can possibly approve of High
Miles' behavior is a puzzle to me. Even if you approve - - and you do -
- of her political stance, and I know that you do, and you have a right
to your own convictions, but how does that explain her foul language and
icnredibly cheap interaction with those who differ with her - -such as
wishing me to be"dead', and all the other insults she spits out. Even if
you might agree with her on her liberal views, that does not mean you
should agree with her abominable verbal behavior - - which actully
eflects her personal views. So, when you "defend' her to me - - that
rings hollow in my ears!! But this has nothing to do with our exchange
of political views,does it?!
Olly
rtk...@gmail.com
wrote:
My suggestion to you, Olly. Simply write "screw you, Evelyn" and be
done with it.
Olly Mensch
= = 1) You are not angry about how Vietnam ended??? You had stated
that most people were very angry about that
= = 2) .you continue: "angry at the hippies and their disrespect for
the Law" You bet!!! I am one of the "angry" ones!!
= = 3) Of course, it is also about those who exploit those people (the
poor and uneducated) with propaganda about free markets and the American
dream." You do not believe in "free markets"?? I certainly do believe
in the "AmericancDream" - - having come from another country and
appreciating enormously the way of life here.
= = 4) Most of the strength of the Republican party (you wrote) is
found in older, white men many of whom saw what whas was possible during
the two decades following after WWII. They were and are proud of their
nation and their accomplishments. (where is that "Republican slime, when
these are, ad- mittedly, older, wiser and appreciative men??!!) Then,
you continue:"What they fail to understand is how that was lost and who
was to blame." = = It is because they are , indeed, "older and wiser"
that I trust their judgment completely about "how that was lost and who
was to blame."
Olly
Evelyn
<rtk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3r69k59iknuqro4pg...@4ax.com...
If I am succinct she says I am being "simplistic" if I write out in detail
what brought me to my conclusion, it becomes a tediously long "essay" in her
eyes.
You would think that for someone who disagreed with my posts so often and
disliked my writing style so much, she would skip my posts.
Evelyn
Hi Olly, I will reply in between the lines.... you know how it works.......
"Olly Mensch" <liese...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10764-4B...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
> = = Evelyn -- if you - for a moment - think back to the time when the
> Republicans were in the majority, and the Democrats were the minority,
> then you could apply every single word you wrote above about the
> Republicans -also to the Democrats. What you are describing is NOT a
> special, unique function of the Republicans, but is the normal function
> of the minority underdog, inCongress. The very same opposition and
> behavior was shown and enacted by the Democrats when the Republicans
> were on top;. So - therefore - it is not a unique special feature of
> the Republicans - but of the "underdog", whose behavior is always
> frustration - and, often, fairly "dirty" - - happening and perpetrated
> by BOTH parties, when in the minority.
That may be so, but I see it as being especially disappointing now when they
march in lockstep as total nay-sayers on everything in this time of war,
when terrorists are looking to bomb our planes. I don't care what they
think of Obama, he is the commander in chief and he is trying to keep us
safe. It is as though they never stopped the campaign rhetoric...... even
now when we need to work together.
It has long been a valid criticism of our system of government that it
cannot seem to get out of its own way due to partisan interests. It is
discouraging to observe this, no matter who is doing it. Just now it is the
republicans, and they look like a bunch of sour grapes, obstructionist,
partisan fools to me.
> = =On a less important matter - how you can possibly approve of High
> Miles' behavior is a puzzle to me. Even if you approve - - and you do -
> - of her political stance, and I know that you do, and you have a right
> to your own convictions, but how does that explain her foul language and
> icnredibly cheap interaction with those who differ with her - -such as
> wishing me to be"dead', and all the other insults she spits out. Even if
> you might agree with her on her liberal views, that does not mean you
> should agree with her abominable verbal behavior - - which actully
> eflects her personal views. So, when you "defend' her to me - - that
> rings hollow in my ears!! But this has nothing to do with our exchange
> of political views,does it?!
> Olly
I stay out of High Miles disagreements with you, because I get along with
her personally and she has never cursed at me or treated me unfairly. We
don't agree on everything ( but then who does?) though we do agree
politically, religiously, and on many other things. I prefer not to get
in the middle of what is plainly a private matter between you. You need to
make your peace with her, and the problem will end. If that happens, I
promise you I will do my best to support that peaceful interaction.
Olly I have told you this before, but when you pick an argument with
someone, don't be surprised when they come back at you in an unpleasant way.
Don't make reference to her in your posts, no matter what she says. You
just throw gasoline on the fire that way.
Evelyn
<rtk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3a9k59ta378ka5oj...@4ax.com...
That would be so much less interesting!
Islander
Olly, I used to be a Republican. Nixon ended that!
1. Yes, I was angry about how Vietnam ended, primarily because I did not
approve of how a Democratic administration escalated the war and lied to
the American public. LBJ, a Texan, seemed trapped in a belief in
American military might as a solution for everything. He was wrong.
2. I argued against civil disobedience at the time with a co-worker from
Berkeley. In hindsight, I realize that I spent those years on the wrong
side of the barbed wire and missed taking part in that movement. A regret!
3. No, I do not believe in free markets in the same sense that most
Republicans do. I advocate regulated capitalism. I had the good
fortune to live the American Dream, as did you, but most of our young
people today don't have that same opportunity.
4. Some of us older white men learned something over the years. That is
what life should be about, isn't it? Learning things?
Islander
>
> If we look back over American history -- from about 1800 til now, we
> will see that from about 1800 to 1861 and again from about 1890 to
> 1980 America was ruled by a coalition of Southern conservatives and
> Northern liberals. All in all, those were the best years of
> America life. During the period 1861 to 1890, we were ruled by a
> coalition of liberals and Big Business. Those were not good years.
> From (1920 til 1932) and again (1980 til 2006), we have been ruled by
> a coalition of conservatives and Big Business. Not good.
>
> I would suggest that a working relation between liberals and
> conservative tend to have a cooling effect on both extremes -- and
> brings out the best in both. Which is what happened during the
> period (roughly) 1800-1861 and between 1932 and 1980. But when you
> put Big Business in power with either liberal (1861- 1890) or
> conservative (1920 to 1932) and (1980 - 2006) you get a worse of all
> three. Why ? My guess is because Big Business will give their
> co-horts in crime any social programs they want -- in exchange for no
> Federal regulations of business.
>
> In other words, when you couple the amorality of Big Business with
> the immorality of either extreme right or extreme left -- things are
> not good for the people of this country.
>
I have not thought about the broader sweep of history as you have,
especially the half century or so leading up to the Civil War. I'm not
sure that I would agree that these were good times. I would agree that
the period just before the turn of the century were fraught with
financial instability.
Any suggestions of authors who go deeper than Frank and Krugman?
Islander
I was on the other side of the barbed wire those days - something that I
try to make up for now.
The only protest that I saw first hand was at NSA when Jane Fonda showed
up with some protesters. The management announced what was going on
over the PA system and warned us to stay away from the windows. Of
course, everyone went to a window to see what was going on.
Those were grim days and many people suffered. My niece was engaged to
a man who went to Nam. While he was gone, they grew very far apart in
their views of the war. It was a tragedy - two good people who were
victims of the divisions of that time.
High Miles
She must enjoy the abuse.
Perhaps it makes her feel like a martyr ?
To me she just looks like a bored idiot.
Thumper
wrote:
This is the saddest thing of all.
Thumper
Olly Mensch
such a polite and intelligent way - as opposed to perhaps 95% of the
other members of this group.
We do disagree in many areas, but I enjoy your calm and rational
reasoning. Except for occasional past lapses, such as "Republican
slime!!"
1) = I share your feelings about the Vietnam war -completely.
(including former Pres. Johnson!!)
2) =on number two (2) (civil disobedience - hippies) I am in total
disagreement with you - but that cannot be remedied - and we will have
to leave it at that.
3) = I HAVE to state that I do not really have enough economic
background to justify my statement that I do believe in free markets -
but I do -and I also feel that our young today also have good chances -
in our economy - as we did way back when. Excepting, of course, the
recession,etc. But then, our (at least my generation; I do not know
your age!!) went through that and worse, economic ups and downs.
I do believe that our young people will have enormous opportunities- -
in science, technology ,which has opened up fields never dreamed of
before. However, all of this provided we all do not blow ourselves up
in wars with nuclear means - bunker bombs - and being forced to fight
countries such as Iran - not to mention the indefinable and horrid war
against terrorism. It is a dark future. But then - we - - went
through WW One and WW Two, the London Blitz,etc.etc. the concentration
camps, and other horrors, and that tells us the world is a frightful
place - always- no matter our individual political convictions, and we
literally have no choice but to "go with the flow' - so to speak.
Obviously, religion has not helped one bit, yet, millions need it, and
should be allowed to hang on to it, just in order to cope with the world
we are describing, thus learning to accept that, whatever happens, it is
"God's Will"!!! I envy them!!!!
Olly
Islander
It is a sad thing to believe in something and not know the reason. That
is not a situation that I would ever settle for. But then, free markets
are a belief system that fails us in the real world, just as it did once
again last year. Adam Smith's "silent hand" was not only silent a year
ago, it was absent at exactly the time that it was needed.
rtk...@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps the free market zealots failed to pray to Adam Smith hard
enough.
But then religious folks pray to God for many things and if there is
no answer they take that silence for the answer.
Never did understand that...that belief that God always answers
prayers even if the supplicant can't figure out what that answer is.
And unlike, Olly, I fail to see how that gives comfort.
Islander
Oh, I understand how it gives comfort. It is an aspect of what is
called transference in psychology where a patient transfers feelings
about something to another entity, often the therapist. In the case of
religion, anxiety about something is simply transferred to a deity. "it
is God's will" excuses the individual from having to deal with or even
understand something. God simply lifts the burden from their shoulders.
The problem is that it is only a temporary relief. There are good
reasons why an individual is troubled and it is always best to find the
source of the anxiety or fear. Once the source is found, the individual
can deal with it in a healthful and satisfying way.
The Republicans use a similar strategy in promoting fear. If they can
keep a significant part of the population fearful (of terrorists, of
minorities, of government itself) then they seek blind faith that their
ideology will handle it, even with mystical beliefs like Adam Smith's
silent hand. It is a perverted kind of religion in that it promises
freedom from fear, but needs fear to exist.