Thursday, December 29, 2011
Miscellaneous 103
1) Ed Schultz is insane. The man actually thinks that CNN's Anderson Cooper ( a person whose pencil Mr. Schultz couldn't even carry) and GQ Magazine are conspiring against him. And he doesn't just think it, folks, he says it (on the frigging air, no less)! HE SAYS IT!! How anybody could give even an ounce of credence to this Hannityesque lunatic is astonishing.............2) And, no, splicing tape in order to make a person who you happen not to like look bad (as Mr. Schultz and his staff absolutely did to Governor Perry) isn't an "error" or a "mistake". It's a willful act of character assassination and Schultz should have apologized (not to his audience, I'm saying, but to Mr. Perry) IMMEDIATELY.............3) Hm, let's see here, who do I pick; the Thomas Edisons, Steve Jobses, Henry Fords, Walt Disneys, Eli Whitneys, Oprah Winfreys, Dorothy Gerbers, Alexander Graham Bells, Clarance Birdseyes, Samuel McIntires, Robert Fultons, William Randolph Hearsts, Charles Goodyears, and John D. Rockefellers of the world, or the idiots who gave us the Alien and Sedition Act, the Missouri Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Enlarged Homestead Act, Strategic Hamlet (not to mention the Vietnam War in general), Prohibition, Watergate, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ethanol subsidies, the Shah of Iran, Amtrak, nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, Cash for Clunkers, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, etc., etc., etc.?....Ah, yeah, that's a really tough one. NOT!............4) Look, folks, I'm not saying that there isn't a role for government in the economy. There definitely IS a role, a significant role. But it has to be more along the lines of a facilitator and collaborator, not along the lines of a dictator....At least that's the way that I see it anyway.............5) As I was watching Sean Hannity lob one softball after another at Rick Perry and Ed Schultz doing something very similar to one of his guests, I couldn't help but lament out loud, "Man, do I ever miss Tim Russert." Yeah, huh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
" "Man, do I ever miss Tim Russert." Yeah, huh? "
Being balanced, unbiased, and nonpartisan is pretty hard to acheive, but Russert did this or came pretty close. A real class act.
John King and Candy Crowley over at CNN are probably the fairest of the mainstream interviewers now, IMO.
Its pretty obvious MSNBC does'nt think much of Sgt.Schultz.They changed his time slot and threw him into the 8:00 p.m. meat grinder that is Bill O'Reilly.They were trying to save Laurence O'Donnell who was getting hammered by O'Reilly by moving him against Greta at 10:00 p.m..The 8:00 p.m. spot belongs to O'Rielly and has for over ten years.That time spot has chopped up Dan Abrams,Olbermann,O'Donnell and is now gutting Schultz.
He thinks that Anderson Cooper and GQ are conspiring against him, Russ. That's about as crazy as a person can get and still be allowed to walk amongst us.......I actually kind of like Abrams, btw - especially now that ABC is strictly using him as a legal analyst. The fellow definitely knows his stuff.
Will: It's part for MSNBC. Paranoia, rage, and obsession with their competitors. Like Olbermann proclaiming that O'Reilly was the worst person in the world for beating him in the ratings. That indeed is journalism at its very worst. Petty and pointless grudges against ratings rivals taking up any time in the program.
The only one of their prime-timers that I can watch is Lawrence O'Donnell. He regularly has Republicans on and sometimes even finds common-ground with them; guys like David Frum, Mark McKinnon, Bruce Bartlett, Alan Simpson, Steve Scmidt, etc..
Will: He thinks that Anderson Cooper and GQ are conspiring against him...
So you say... I've got no clue what the hell you're talking about. I hope Schultz's program stays on the air for many years to come. I like it. I'm sure that people like Will not liking him has Ed Schultz laughing all the way to the bank.
Will: ...it has to be more along the lines of a facilitator and collaborator, not along the lines of a dictator.. At least that's the way that I see it anyway.
You want government (we the people) to kowtow to the business because you're a corporatist. Those of us in the majority (the 99 percenters) strongly disagree.
WD said: "You want government (we the people) to kowtow to the business because you're a corporatist. Those of us in the majority (the 99 percenters) strongly disagree."
A perfect example of a bunch of slogans (including the vague "corporatist" insult in the middle which has never applied to Will) devoid of any real meaning.
No, wd, so says Schultz himself. It's how he responded when GQ put him on their 25 least influential people in America list. Instead of taking in stride and having a little bit of fun with it, he got all defensive and bonkers.............And, no, again, wd, I DON'T want the government to cowtow to business. That's in fact how we got into trouble with ethanol, Solyndra, Amtrak, rich people getting electric golf-carts for literally nothing, etc..
dmarks, I'm beginning to think that wd is 99% full of poop.............And, really, what an absolutely pretentious label for an organization, to actually proclaim to speak for 297 million people. I really think that they need to tweek it a bit.
Will: The claim that the Occupy movement represented 99% ia a flat out lie.
This is far more typical: a poll that showed that this movement represented the interest of 58%. Yes, roughly half. That's far less than roughly everyone. And the place that supports the movement by 58% is a "blue" state, which means that much less than that supported it in the country overall, and especially in red states
And this poll was from before a lot of the bad news about the movement (the rape camps, the squalor, the antisemitic rants from protesters, the protesters harassing average citizens) which surely made support for OWS go down.
So the thing from WD about "99%" is just him flapping his jaws, and has no basis in anything.
The 99 percent movement DOES represent the interests of 99 percent of Americans. The figures dmarks cites are for SUPPORT, which is a different matter. Those who don't support the movement are still having their interests represented by it... they're just too stupid to realize it.
Also, dmarks LIES regarding "rape camps", squalor, antisemitic rants, and harrassment of average citizens. "Rape camp" is a flat out lie. There was never any "rape camp".
"Antisemitic rants" was one crazy dude who wasn't a protestor. And, I only saw the one story that could be considered protestors harassing "average citizens".
Certainly, in a large movement, not everyone can be kept in line. There will be isolated incidents which are not representitive of the movement.
In conclusion: the thing from dmarks about the movement not representing 99 perenct of Americans -- and "bad news from the movement" is just him flapping his jaws, and has no basis in anything.
Will: I'm beginning to think that wd is 99% full of poop.
I think you're 99 percent full of poop. But you still come out above dmarks... he's 99.9 percent full of poop.
WD said; "The 99 percent movement..."
Its accepted name is the Occupy movement, "Occupy Wall Street", or OWS. Few of the 99% have bought the "99%" line.
"DOES represent the interests of 99 percent of Americans."
No, it does not. Roughly half of Americans reject this movement.
"The figures dmarks cites are for SUPPORT, which is a different matter."
It is really a closely related matter. The support is based on how well OWS represents people's interest. Those whose interests it does not represent reject it.
"Those who don't support the movement are still having their interests represented by it..."
That's arrogant, patronizing, and flat-out false. I don't support this movement, nor does Will, nor do a large number of people I talk to, and we know this movement does not represent us
"they're just too stupid to realize it."
There you go with the arrogance and condescension. Half of America is too stupid to know what is best for their own lives.
"Also, dmarks LIES regarding "rape camps", squalor, antisemitic rants"
These are very well documented. How many scores of links to you want?
"Antisemitic rants" was one crazy dude who wasn't a protestor."
You have no idea what you are talking about. The first antisemitic OWS protester I found was a woman.
"And, I only saw the one story that could be considered protestors harassing "average citizens".
You obviously stopped looking after one.
"In conclusion: the thing from dmarks about..."
In conclusion, you failed to refute a single point, you insulted and lied about half of the 99% you claim to be "representing", and you were basically absent from the idea to make any case at all.
dmarks: Half of America is too stupid to know what is best for their own lives.
Unfortunately, yes. But of course you'd deny it, since you are one of them.
dmarks: These are very well documented. [offers links]
Well-documented lies and exaggerations? No thanks. I'm not denying some of these things have happened (unlike the Tea Baggers and their flat out denials of anyone bringing racist signs to rallies), but they are isolated incidents, perpetrated by people who weren't protestors, and gross exaggerations. You're lying about them being representative of the movement.
The 99 percent movement most certainly is not Anti-Semitic -- that is a rightwing smear.
dmarks: Its accepted name [blah, blah blah].
Says you, an opponent of the movement. I'm a supporter of the movement, and I don't give a damn what you say is the "accepted" name.
"[OWS] most certainly is not Anti-Semitic -- that is a rightwing smear."
Actually, the antisemitic rants I saw from OWS had left-wing rhetoric, so the right had nothing to do with it.
"Unfortunately, yes. But of course you'd deny it, since you are one of them."
If your arrogance (which is basically an f-you attitude toward 50%) rises to the top, most vocal OWS leaders, watch support for OWS to plummet.
wd - you the 99%, oh yeah, I'm quite sure you (and the rest of OWS) ARE very representative of what, about 340,000,000 million people?
Yeah, right...
Rational: Perhaps WD should check out North Korea. Where the ideals of OWS (increased statism, lazy people getting ahead by stealing from those who are productive and make lots of money) ARE very popular. Supported by 100% of the people. It's the law there.
dmarks, you are a huge liar. You should be (although I know you are not) extremely ashamed. You know the 99 percent movement does not want this country to be anything like North Korea. I used to think you had some... but now it's obvious you've got ZERO integrity.
wd, we're still waiting for you to give us one example of a purely socialistic country that WASN'T also authoritarian.
Will: we're still waiting for you to give us one example of a purely socialistic country that WASN'T also authoritarian.
Nice try Will, but I never claimed there was one. What I said is that one doesn't lead to the other. The problem isn't socialism, it's handing over power to a small group of people. That will cause problems whether the government is Left or Right. That's why I support DEMOCRATIC socialism. I don't support pure socialism.
As for waiting for austerity to produce wonderful results in England (or anywhere else where austerity is being imposed against the will of the people)... it won't happen. It's going to make things worse.
WD said "The problem isn't socialism, it's handing over power to a small group of people."
So, what you are saying is, the problem is not A, but it is A. Socialism is exactly handing power over to a small group of people.
"That's why I support DEMOCRATIC socialism. I don't support pure socialism."
Which means that you support the small group of people you want to run/ruin our lives being chosen in a democratic fashion. That's only a little better than otherwise.
Germany in the 1930s and 1940s is a good example of democratic socialism.
It apparently worked in Canada, wd. And it apparently worked in the U.S. in 1921.............And if one "doesn't lead to another", then why has one ALWAYS led to another; the fact that you can't name a single, solitary instance of pure socialism existing absent toltalitarianism?
You say that one doesn't lead to another but then you can't cite one single case in which pure socialism HASN'T led to totalitarianism. And, yes, you defended Soviet and Eastern bloc socialism when you said that it didn't fail (one more thing that puts you at odds with literally every other sentient creature).
Will: You say that one doesn't lead to another but then you can't cite one single case in which pure socialism HASN'T led to totalitarianism.
I say pure socialism has NEVER lead to totalitarianism. It's the concentrating of power in few hands and the elimination of democracy that lead to the totalitarianism, not the socialism.
I bet you can't give one example of where pure socialism (and ONLY pure socialism) lead to totalitarianism.
Will: And, yes, you defended Soviet and Eastern bloc socialism when you said that it didn't fail (one more thing that puts you at odds with literally every other sentient creature).
I said no such thing. Please read more carefully in the future. Perhaps then you can avoid embarrassing errors like this.
Pure socialism ALWAYS leads to a concentration of power in the state. Yeah, there might be an election here and there but the ruling elites always end up in power. Never read Animal Farm, huh?
You defended the Soviet economic model when you said that it wasn't the economic model but the totalitarianism that sunk that particular empire. It was a totally ignorant statement and showed just how little that you've learned from history.
Will: You defended the Soviet economic model when you said that it wasn't the economic model but the totalitarianism that sunk that particular empire.
Wrong AGAIN Will. I did not defend the Soviet economic model, nor did I say it wasn't the economic model but the totalitarianism. I didn't say either of those things.
For the record, what I said was, "I reject your claim that the old Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries were "purer socialistic models". These countries combined socialism plus totalitarianism. It was much more the latter and significantly less the former that caused them to fail. And, for the record, I support a mixed economy".
Note the bolded section. What I said was not as black and white as you are now claiming.
You said that it wasn't the SOCIALISM (i.e., the state control and owning of all industries) that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. You gave that a total frigging pass and I completely reject your notion that a purely socialistic system can ever exist without a repressive central government to steer it, and history bears me out.
Soviet socialism failed and it failed abysmally. The fact that you would even try and cushion it's culpability is disgusting.
Will, I just quoted to you what I previously said... and you're still going to lie about it?
"Significantly LESS the former" is EXACTLY what you said, that it wasn't the corruption and the inefficiency of the socialistic model that caused the Soviet empire to fail.......And you also said that pure socialism, in which the government controls ALL the means of production, doesn't necessarily leads to totalitarianism - this, despite the fact that you can't come up with a single, solitary example lt when it hasn't.
And I ask you YET AGAIN, wd - are you actually saying that free-market Capitalism, as it was espoused by Adam Smith, is MORE oppressive than Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, the Khmer Rouge, Minhism, etc? Why won't you answer this?
Will: "Significantly LESS the former" is EXACTLY what you said...
So, you admit you lied? Saying something is less to blame isn't giving it a "total frigging pass".
Will: Why won't you answer this?
Because it's a dumb question, and has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said. btw, Did Adam Smith say a country should destroy itself engaging in free trade?
Will: ...corruption and the inefficiency of the socialistic model that caused the Soviet empire to fail.
Corruption isn't a part of the "socialistic model". As for inefficiency, no, I do not think it was that. A certain degree of inefficiency is a good thing.
"Did Adam Smith say a country should destroy itself engaging in free trade?"
It can't. A country only enriches itself if it allows the people (instead of the ruling elites) to make these personal decisions, such as free trade.
Free trade is freedom. Trade controlled by the government is fascism.
You're playing idiotic semantics here. No, significantly less isn't the same a free pass but it's pretty God-damn close. And the way that you casually throw around the word, "lie", is extremely obnoxious. A lie is a willful misstatement. What I said was an assessment based upon the fact that you're always running down free market capitalism and never criticizing the palpably disgusting excesses on your side of the ledger. And that's why I was asking you if you thought that free market capitalism was worse than the regimes that I mentioned. I mean, I understand why you probably don't want to answer it but to simply say that it's a stupid question is a total dodge.
Actually, unregulated free trade is fascism, because it allows the corporations to make our trading decisions.
Also, it CAN destroy a country... this is exactly what is happening to our country.
And I'm still waiting - one purely socialistic system in which the state has sole ownership of production that isn't also totalitarian. One.
Let's see if I've gotten this straight, wd. Because people like you haven't adequately prepared themselves for the rigors of the 21st century economy, people like me and dmarks, who have, have to pay SIGNIFICANTLY more the bulk of our goods and services?......Not without a frigging fight, buddy.
I'm not "playing idiotic semantics", I'm calling you on your gross mischaracterization of what I've said.
Will:And that's why I was asking you if you thought that free market capitalism was worse than the regimes that I mentioned.
I already said (a long time ago) that I supported a mixed economy, so question answered. You're just trying to make me look bad with your ridiculous question.
The poverty and wage slavery that occur under unregulated laissez faire free market capitalism isn't quite as bad as the regimes you mentioned.
I never said my opposition to free trade has anything to do with my personal situation liar. Not only do you apparently think you've read my educational transcript, now apparently you think you know my job history?
What are the "rigors of the 21st century economy"? No jobs? Not everyone can be employed in the service industry. White collar jobs are being outsourced too you know (or perhaps you don't).
Anyway, haven't you previously expressed concern over workers in other countries and implied it was somehow the obligation of the US to provide them with jobs? Now we see what BS that was. This is all about you and your greed for low priced goods made in 3rd world sweatshops. I find your selfishness disgusting.
A GROSS mischaracterization? Now that's a gross mischaracterization. You said SIGNIFICANTLY LESS, MEANING not very much. I was off by a little. You're off by a frigging lot............."Free market capitalism isn't QUITE as bad" as Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, the Khmer Rouge, etc. (regimes that slaughtered literally TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE)? Dude, you're showing absolutely zero perspective here. Capitalism helped to create more wealth in this society and a higher standard of living than other system ever devised. Yes, we need a safety net and a streamlined set of rules to go by but, come on, Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller vs. Marx and Engles, you're living in a fantasy world, wd.
And I find your micromanagement and meddling in the economy disgusting. And there ARE jobs, asshole. They're in high tech, medical, and other jobs that require a brain (it's called making yourself recession-proof, goofy). But, because our educational system is so pathetic and the family structure has been obliterated by a dependency culture, we're simply incapable of filling those jobs.............And, what, you don't care that people have to pay significantly more because you want to chase these chimpanzee jobs that clearly can be done so much more efficiently overseas? Why do you hate the consumer so much, wd. And why do you want to deny poor countries a way out of poverty, for Christ? Oh, yeah, that's a great idea. Let's smack a jingoistic tariff on them and impoverish them even more. That'll work - NOT!............And not ALL service jobs are minimum wage jobs, you clown. They also involve reading X-rays, fixing automobiles, doing peoples' taxes, managing warehouses, installing security equipment, etc.. You've got this idiotic notion that this is all some zero-sum game and it isn't. China has already put a 21% tariff on all cars made in America. China is an emerging market and this tit for tat trade game is very destructive. And, plus, the money that I save by buying foreign goods I SPEND IT elsewhere; art galleries, restaurants, hotels, etc.. Oh, but you probably don't care about those peoples' jobs, huh?......Look, I've been intellectually honest about this issue. I've admitted that free-trade is a double-edged sword. Compare this to the simpleminded approach by you; not seeing the downside to protectionism, referring to people who believe in free trade as despicable people, etc.. You're so frigging close-minded, dude.
Will said: "And why do you want to deny poor countries a way out of poverty, for Christ? Oh, yeah, that's a great idea. Let's smack a jingoistic tariff on them and impoverish them even more"
Yes, the movement against free trade is quite often quite jingoistic. It shows contempt. often fueled by racism, for foreign workers. It shows contempt for American workers too, and assumes that they can't compete on a level playing field, and American workers are so fragile that their jobs can only exist if they are "protected" by draconian laws.
dmarks, you are totally full of shit. Jingoism is "excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others". People who are jingoistic would view American workers as superior, not have contempt for them. Your argument is nonsense.
I do believe you're right about racism playing a part in this, however. I think (for at least some of) those in favor of free trade... racism is a factor. These people believe workers located in poorer countries should act as slave labor to produce cheap goods for Americans... and make corporations richer.
Also, it's the free traders who have contempt for American workers. They deny the fact that the cost of living is higher in the United States... thus an American worker can't subsist on the same wages as a worker in a poorer country. The end result is that American workers lose their jobs; but the free traders don't care (they even blame them, like Will did).
The only things that matter to them is that they get their cheap foreign goods and corporations get richer. It's disgraceful, IMHO.
Post a Comment