In my opinion, one person's waffle is another person's compromise.
Meaning, what one might interpret as a complete disband from their platform is just trying to accomplish something that will appease everyone. Sometimes that's not enough (especially when there is a certain group who will never be pleased with anything one certain person does), but sacrifices sometimes have to be made.
George H.W Bush once told your parents to read his lips and believe that he wouldn't raise taxes. He ended up having to raise taxes to prevent serious economic turmoil. Would you sacrifice one of your policies to benefit the greater good?
Seems pretty obvious. And I know that's just one instance, but sometimes being able to compromise is a sign of a good leader. However, some people just weren't born to lead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I dreamed I was playing D3 beta. What the hell... I'm not even interested in playing the beta.
Guess I'm in conflict with my subconscious or I'm spending too much time here...or both.
Funny thing is the WD is the only character I recognized. There were 3 other totally awesome characters. A wizard/warrior type and a shape-shifter char along with another one that I can't quite remember enough details of.
Which means....WD is the best. Here's your dream interpretation.
I think there is a big difference between a waffle and a compromise. If you say your going to close down gitmo, then you don't, that's a waffle. If you take some of the Democratic and some of the Republican ideas for a Health Care Bill, that's a compromise. (Not a good example, but it's 7:30 am so shush. Lol.)
Sadly, there are far more waffles then compromises.
And on the note of The Avengers, after seeing the trailer, I cannot wait for it. I think Marvel did the other hero movies just so they could do this one. o.o
I don't know much about politics, but even with Ron Paul's consistent and admirable stances, he still has to go through a lot of hoops to get what he wants done if he ever does get into office. He criticizes the congress' monetary policy and economical prowess, but at the end of the day, he has to go through them still.
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
As Link said, some of his policies just make me cringe. I would not want this guy in office pushing his agenda, no matter how "pure" he was as a person.
...
Benjamin Franklin said that we have a Republic "if we choose to keep it." We should be able to show this through our participation, but since we have very little participation, it almost seems like we don't even know what to do with it.
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate but you have to choose from what you got. Like I said earlier, the candidates running are just full of shit, the below video really brings that point home and effectively shows the massive holes in Keynesian economics. LinkX and Azriel, the reason it seems scary to you probably is because for your entire lives all you have experienced is the current system which now's finally collapsing.
Benjamin Franklin was adamantly against central banks as we're most of our founding fathers having all personally escaped the monetary nightmare of King George III. He, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson all argued and fought against the central banking polices used throughout Europe. The system that seems scary to you is actually closer to how this country operated for nearly 200 years.
Proletaria is old enough remember but has bought into Keynesian economics, I would submit John Keynes wouldn't even like what he is seeing today, even he knew the dangers of debasing our currency like is happening now.
"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens...There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." (John Maynard Keynes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o038RvQW90
The problem with our current system is we pay interest on our very money, even Colonial Script used by Franklin at least was honest in that it was interest free. The main problem is the fact our currency is literally a liability, compounded by elf'n magic Fractional Reserve Banking. It punishes savers and robs the wealth of the people handing it back to the government and the banks. If your money is created from debt, then you can never pay down your debt because in the end there is always more debt than there is money to pay it with.
The end game of that reality is playing out right now. This type of monetary system is the proverbial frog being slowly boiled alive. As currency becomes debased back to it's intrinsic value of zero, the US dollar has lost 95% it's purchasing power in the last 40 years. People who play by the rules saving their money find they can't get ahead in their savings, their money doesn't go as far as it did a 5 or 10 years earlier, next thing you know families need two incomes where one use to suffice (like in the 70's and early 80's). All these things are the result of our current fiat currency system.
The problem with the current system is... the current system.
Also, Salv has an exellent point that a lot of libertarians miss: How does a libertarian executive tackle the issue that his agenda will die in a legislature that doesn't have a super-majority of libertarian-minded politicians too, not to mention the courts who are going to be snubbed hard (having hundreds of their previous rulings on the constitution called into question). And all that comes BEFORE you consider the latent undercurrent of special interest lobbies, donations, and soft politics in general.
I've said this to libertarians and socialists alike for decades: one branch of the government won't win you sweeping changes and the first step is ALWAYS going to be the congress. Currently I don't think there are enough libertarians in congress to fill a thimbal, but perhaps i'm under-estimating the teaparty's ability to compromise their republican social agenda for economic policy gains.
I'd agree with that, I think we'll see serious political consequences in the coming years as we become more, and more of a banana republic. We need someone with the political will to do what must be done, I don't see that person out there. While I like Ron Paul, I'm not sure he has that in him.
I'd agree with that, I think we'll see serious political consequences in the coming years as we become more, and more of a banana republic. We need someone with the political will to do what must be done, I don't see that person out there. While I like Ron Paul, I'm not sure he has that in him.
We've really had a bananna republic since our rise to global affluence allowed it. The system was more or less engineered to scale (a really small scale) and we grossly out-grew it. The ad-hoc solutions applied by sucessively more corrupt legislators and in-pocket jurists has left us with what we see today. Of course we can agree to disagree about how to write the screenplay for reform, but I think it's better to focus on how we can ad-hoc a platform on which to build that reform.
I linked this article in the wallstreet thread, but it bears repeating. What great things we could accomplish if the Paulites, Tea Baggers, and Occupiers would agree to push for:
Sounds like as long a shot as any cause or candidate being backed by those three groups, but if the three could co-opt some kind of legislative pressure, protest the same issues, and bring a more unified voice to the media... that would be something special.
And then we could, of course, go back to the finer points of disagreeing. =)
The Tea Party was a great idea, but it was bastardized by anti-Obama angst. In my opinion, they're conservatives in 17th Century garb.
I think it's a pompous initiative to want to conform to the ideas of our founding fathers. They couldn't see the future; they didn't have a plan for the future; they only laid down the foundation for our system of government. They didn't know that we would see telephones, televisions, or the internet. They didn't know that the automobile would radically change how and where we lived. They only knew about mail, horses, and the very few hubs of activity in the colonies.
So why would anyone think that their ideals would fit in today's society? They wouldn't, so we shouldn't feel guilty when our vision is different from theirs. Our Constitution was formed because we needed a way to protect ourselves both domestically and militarily. If anyone tried to infringe on our personal freedoms, the Constitution would be there to end that. If anyone tried to attack us from the outside, then we would have a military and a navy to combat them. It wasn't to lay down this master dream.
The Preamble of the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Where does it state any master dream? It doesn't. All it says is that the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. We needed government, so we gave people the ability to make laws for us so we could be protected.
That's why I really don't like the Tea Party. They're so full of this pompous attitude that Benjamin Franklin and George Washington would be on their knees and thanking them for preserving this idea that they never had. If it was any other populist movement, then it'd be different, but when John Boehner wants to read the Constitution like it means something other than just the foundation of our government, that's when I see serious fucking problems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
The Tea Party was a great idea, but it was bastardized by anti-Obama angst. In my opinion, they're conservatives in 17th Century garb...
Actually, i'd argue it's been a draw-string toy of the the far-right money men such as Murdoch, who have brough them into the lime-light. What's more, I have to concur with your caricature of the typical tea partier being a serf and a stooge (my paraphrasing, I hope you don't mind) for an agenda they don't understand and certainly doesn't benefit them.
Having said that, if the people of the movement could be persuaded to protest with their OWS counterparts against the few points on which they agree (term limits, corruption) they'd be working against their masters and in the best way possible.
Wishful thinking, I know, and I don't know I could come up with a more far-fetched scheme if I had an old tyme mustache and top-hat, but it is one of the few scenarios where populism could make headway against money'd interest.
I linked this article in the wallstreet thread, but it bears repeating. What great things we could accomplish if the Paulites, Tea Baggers, and Occupiers would agree to push for:
The Tea Party was a great idea, but it was bastardized by anti-Obama angst. In my opinion, they're conservatives in 17th Century garb.
The Tea Party was inspired by hypocrite ass hat Rick Santelli having a fit on the Chicago Trading Floor. Rick decided in early 2009 it was time for a Tea Party at the scene of the crime (if you will) where all the too big fail banks and trading houses got bailed out. He decided in his infinite wisdom that home owners were losers but the banks that raped us with the derivatives (turds wrapped in paper and then called assets) should have a chance. All the traders on the floor are all to happy to be the supporting peanut gallery.
What happened to those all so deserving too big to fail banks? Like a few expected, they're now zombie banks more corrupt than ever and too big to live. Some clownish pundits on the TV have suggested they paid back their loans and hail them as successes, but that's simply not true. In addition to the banks being bailed out by the FED, the FED also injected them with massive Quantitative Easing liquidity which they were supposed to loan out but instead bought US treasuries with (debt you and I must pay interest on). They took the interest they earned on those T-Bills and paid off their bailout loans, in other words you and I bailed them out via the national debt which we must laughably repay.
What about those financial weapons of mass destruction as Warren Buffet called them; the derivatives? Well the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) shows in their Quarterly Derivatives Report for Q1 2011 the banks have racked up $244 TRILLION in bets. Click on the link below, go to page 24, look at the bottom of column 5 for total derivatives.
That is roughly 20x all the money in the world. $244/T in chips on the poker table and there is only about $14/T in the casino cage to pay out. Someone is going to be sorely disappointed when even a fraction of that crashes.
You people who are into politics need a separate politics thread. I'm tired of reading over something I don't care about and that is politics. I want to see a political figure change a tire. Chances are great that he will need help.
I WANT TO SEE BLOODSHED!!! WHERE'S THE GORE IN Al Gore? WHERE'S THE TRU(E) IN Truman?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just as the Scorpion hunts...
Silently Lurking...
"Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted." ~ Ezio Auditore de Firenze
You people who are into politics need a separate politics thread. I'm tired of reading over something I don't care about and that is politics. I want to see a political figure change a tire. Chances are great that he will need help.
I WANT TO SEE BLOODSHED!!! WHERE'S THE GORE IN Al Gore? WHERE'S THE TRU(E) IN Truman?
You people who are into politics need a separate politics thread. I'm tired of reading over something I don't care about and that is politics. I want to see a political figure change a tire. Chances are great that he will need help.
Meaning, what one might interpret as a complete disband from their platform is just trying to accomplish something that will appease everyone. Sometimes that's not enough (especially when there is a certain group who will never be pleased with anything one certain person does), but sacrifices sometimes have to be made.
George H.W Bush once told your parents to read his lips and believe that he wouldn't raise taxes. He ended up having to raise taxes to prevent serious economic turmoil. Would you sacrifice one of your policies to benefit the greater good?
Seems pretty obvious. And I know that's just one instance, but sometimes being able to compromise is a sign of a good leader. However, some people just weren't born to lead.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Guess I'm in conflict with my subconscious or I'm spending too much time here...or both.
Funny thing is the WD is the only character I recognized. There were 3 other totally awesome characters. A wizard/warrior type and a shape-shifter char along with another one that I can't quite remember enough details of.
Which means....WD is the best. Here's your dream interpretation.
Also,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zatgnqdIefs
I would have preferred Edward Norton as hulk but I need to see more of the new one in action to really compare.
Sadly, there are far more waffles then compromises.
And on the note of The Avengers, after seeing the trailer, I cannot wait for it. I think Marvel did the other hero movies just so they could do this one. o.o
I WANT MY AVENGERS!!
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate but you have to choose from what you got. Like I said earlier, the candidates running are just full of shit, the below video really brings that point home and effectively shows the massive holes in Keynesian economics. LinkX and Azriel, the reason it seems scary to you probably is because for your entire lives all you have experienced is the current system which now's finally collapsing.
Benjamin Franklin was adamantly against central banks as we're most of our founding fathers having all personally escaped the monetary nightmare of King George III. He, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson all argued and fought against the central banking polices used throughout Europe. The system that seems scary to you is actually closer to how this country operated for nearly 200 years.
Proletaria is old enough remember but has bought into Keynesian economics, I would submit John Keynes wouldn't even like what he is seeing today, even he knew the dangers of debasing our currency like is happening now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o038RvQW90
The problem with our current system is we pay interest on our very money, even Colonial Script used by Franklin at least was honest in that it was interest free. The main problem is the fact our currency is literally a liability, compounded by elf'n magic Fractional Reserve Banking. It punishes savers and robs the wealth of the people handing it back to the government and the banks. If your money is created from debt, then you can never pay down your debt because in the end there is always more debt than there is money to pay it with.
The end game of that reality is playing out right now. This type of monetary system is the proverbial frog being slowly boiled alive. As currency becomes debased back to it's intrinsic value of zero, the US dollar has lost 95% it's purchasing power in the last 40 years. People who play by the rules saving their money find they can't get ahead in their savings, their money doesn't go as far as it did a 5 or 10 years earlier, next thing you know families need two incomes where one use to suffice (like in the 70's and early 80's). All these things are the result of our current fiat currency system.
BTW, the Avengers is going to rule!
Also, Salv has an exellent point that a lot of libertarians miss: How does a libertarian executive tackle the issue that his agenda will die in a legislature that doesn't have a super-majority of libertarian-minded politicians too, not to mention the courts who are going to be snubbed hard (having hundreds of their previous rulings on the constitution called into question). And all that comes BEFORE you consider the latent undercurrent of special interest lobbies, donations, and soft politics in general.
I've said this to libertarians and socialists alike for decades: one branch of the government won't win you sweeping changes and the first step is ALWAYS going to be the congress. Currently I don't think there are enough libertarians in congress to fill a thimbal, but perhaps i'm under-estimating the teaparty's ability to compromise their republican social agenda for economic policy gains.
We've really had a bananna republic since our rise to global affluence allowed it. The system was more or less engineered to scale (a really small scale) and we grossly out-grew it. The ad-hoc solutions applied by sucessively more corrupt legislators and in-pocket jurists has left us with what we see today. Of course we can agree to disagree about how to write the screenplay for reform, but I think it's better to focus on how we can ad-hoc a platform on which to build that reform.
I linked this article in the wallstreet thread, but it bears repeating. What great things we could accomplish if the Paulites, Tea Baggers, and Occupiers would agree to push for:
-Universal Fiscal Transparency
-Term limits
-Corrupt former-politicians becoming lobbyists
Sounds like as long a shot as any cause or candidate being backed by those three groups, but if the three could co-opt some kind of legislative pressure, protest the same issues, and bring a more unified voice to the media... that would be something special.
And then we could, of course, go back to the finer points of disagreeing. =)
Also, Resident Evil: Retribution is coming out next year. I know what I'm doing on the 14th of September, 2012. Working then going to see that movie.
I think it's a pompous initiative to want to conform to the ideas of our founding fathers. They couldn't see the future; they didn't have a plan for the future; they only laid down the foundation for our system of government. They didn't know that we would see telephones, televisions, or the internet. They didn't know that the automobile would radically change how and where we lived. They only knew about mail, horses, and the very few hubs of activity in the colonies.
So why would anyone think that their ideals would fit in today's society? They wouldn't, so we shouldn't feel guilty when our vision is different from theirs. Our Constitution was formed because we needed a way to protect ourselves both domestically and militarily. If anyone tried to infringe on our personal freedoms, the Constitution would be there to end that. If anyone tried to attack us from the outside, then we would have a military and a navy to combat them. It wasn't to lay down this master dream.
The Preamble of the Constitution:
Where does it state any master dream? It doesn't. All it says is that the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. We needed government, so we gave people the ability to make laws for us so we could be protected.
That's why I really don't like the Tea Party. They're so full of this pompous attitude that Benjamin Franklin and George Washington would be on their knees and thanking them for preserving this idea that they never had. If it was any other populist movement, then it'd be different, but when John Boehner wants to read the Constitution like it means something other than just the foundation of our government, that's when I see serious fucking problems.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Actually, i'd argue it's been a draw-string toy of the the far-right money men such as Murdoch, who have brough them into the lime-light. What's more, I have to concur with your caricature of the typical tea partier being a serf and a stooge (my paraphrasing, I hope you don't mind) for an agenda they don't understand and certainly doesn't benefit them.
Having said that, if the people of the movement could be persuaded to protest with their OWS counterparts against the few points on which they agree (term limits, corruption) they'd be working against their masters and in the best way possible.
Wishful thinking, I know, and I don't know I could come up with a more far-fetched scheme if I had an old tyme mustache and top-hat, but it is one of the few scenarios where populism could make headway against money'd interest.
I agree with all of those points, it's a start to be sure.
The Tea Party was inspired by hypocrite ass hat Rick Santelli having a fit on the Chicago Trading Floor. Rick decided in early 2009 it was time for a Tea Party at the scene of the crime (if you will) where all the too big fail banks and trading houses got bailed out. He decided in his infinite wisdom that home owners were losers but the banks that raped us with the derivatives (turds wrapped in paper and then called assets) should have a chance. All the traders on the floor are all to happy to be the supporting peanut gallery.
Here watch the tea party inspiration in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k
What happened to those all so deserving too big to fail banks? Like a few expected, they're now zombie banks more corrupt than ever and too big to live. Some clownish pundits on the TV have suggested they paid back their loans and hail them as successes, but that's simply not true. In addition to the banks being bailed out by the FED, the FED also injected them with massive Quantitative Easing liquidity which they were supposed to loan out but instead bought US treasuries with (debt you and I must pay interest on). They took the interest they earned on those T-Bills and paid off their bailout loans, in other words you and I bailed them out via the national debt which we must laughably repay.
What about those financial weapons of mass destruction as Warren Buffet called them; the derivatives? Well the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) shows in their Quarterly Derivatives Report for Q1 2011 the banks have racked up $244 TRILLION in bets. Click on the link below, go to page 24, look at the bottom of column 5 for total derivatives.
That is roughly 20x all the money in the world. $244/T in chips on the poker table and there is only about $14/T in the casino cage to pay out. Someone is going to be sorely disappointed when even a fraction of that crashes.
I WANT TO SEE BLOODSHED!!! WHERE'S THE GORE IN Al Gore? WHERE'S THE TRU(E) IN Truman?
Fight the power!
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Yeah, it's mine. It's actually pretty dead though.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
This one always pisses off the reps.