Politics & Propaganda

Sun Aug 01 2010 09:40:21 AM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

Perhaps you should research the subject more before offering an
uneducated opinion.  As before you speak in absolutes, "proof". 
One must look at the evidence and studies by experts as to validity
of torture-derived testimony.

I've looked many times. Neither side can provide statisics to prove their point. You're guilty of the exact same thing, just spouting "it doesn't work".
And the works you've cited are no better.

Show me the science, and then maybe we can agree. Otherwise, we're both stating opinions, and we disagree.

Yes, we disagree.  I've provided cites, you've waved your little hand.

Sun Aug 01 2010 09:47:11 AM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

Returning to that thread, we are now seeing the result of Republicans
cutting taxes for the rich, conducting two constitutionally illegal
wars simultaneously, without budgeting costs and off-shoring of
jobs.  Are those the programs you and the other guy want to return
to?

How are the wars Constitutionally illegal? Or are you going to say that Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Lebannon, Libya, and the first Iraq war were too?

Guess what, Congress voted to fund all of the above. No, there may not have been a declaration of war, but funding the damn things is tantamount to the same.

And, since when did the government offshore jobs?

American companies have been offshoring for decades. Why? Unionization, bad environmental laws, and a hostile tax code.

Make America a place where companies WANT to do business, and that will stop.

I simply do not believe you are that ignorant and denial will get you nowhere fast.

Sun Aug 01 2010 10:04:25 AM EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

 

Sun Aug 01 2010 05:36:01 EDT from Rob Miller @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

Fri Jul 30 2010 08:52:20 PM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

Funny how you're quick to blame Bush for a devestated economy, yet you don't blame the Democrats for the last 4 years of their control of Congress, nor the unimaginable damage they've done since Obama took office.

2- I do not consider the devestated economy funny in the slightest.

Okay, if I felt like continuing this game, I would say, "Since you don't see anything at all peculiar about the economy, you have no problem with it.  So why are you going on about it?"

Or, I might react with something like, "Funny how you can't discern when someone means funny-peculiar vs. funny-amusing.  Which do I mean right now?"

But, instead, I'll just suggest that your acidic attempt at word play curried no favor with me, and makes me less-inclined to take you seriously.  But, I'm still holding out hope.  It's at least an interesting conversation, so far.  But if you're truly interested in debate and not just trashing people with a different point of view, you might avoid doing stuff like that.

As for the topic itself, the economy is not 'devastated'.  It's suffering, badly, but it isn't destroyed by a long shot.  If it were truly destroyed, I think you'd see some really radical changes going on in this country, along the lines of what happened to the Roman Empire after Constantine separated the rich half from the poor half (and took the rich half).  That's about the time Europe devolved into a feudal society, with lords and vassals.

I would argue that the economy is correcting itself from previous abuses, and will be stable in a few more years, regardless of who is at the helm of the country.  Unless, of course, some new form of abuse fucks it up.

Which kind of makes me worry about the Democrats.  This foray into social medicine (if by another name) is disturbing, and doesn't look to me as if it actually solves the underlying problem of skyrocketing medical costs.  It seems more like it's making the ridiculous costs of medicine somewhat more affordable to certain people without actually doing anything to prevent them from getting further out of control.  It's... well... stupid.  Right at a time when we need smart.  We've already had about eight years of stupid... it sucks that we're enduring four more.

Much as I love bashing the Democrats ballooning of expenses, I don't view the Republicans as having helped in the matter.  They have been following the lessons of Reagan for too many years, in spending more than the country takes in through taxes (kind of like a reverse Robin Hood... they want to rob from the poor, and give to the rich).  They've taken our military and expanded it beyond reason.  It's sick, really.

And both of those parties don't even blink about saying some of the most fucked up things I've ever heard in my life, as it relates to public policy.  I never thought Americans would become so ... I dunno ... stupid?  That both sides of the political fence can say and do whatever the fuck they feel like, it seems, and get away with it.  Like they're some kind of damned lord or something.  I would not be at all surprised if Congress eventually enacted legislation saying that some people are more equal than others (a la Animal Farm).

Remember where this discussion began, with someone's "the Obama Recession" (I think that's correct) when referring to events precipitated by the Bush administration and Republicans.  Yeah, some Democrats too but the movers and shakers of invading Iraq, for instance, were Republicans.  "NeoCons."  At least they got the last half correct.

I've certainly not defended Democrats, they live in a reality distinct and apart from ours.  Or at least mine.  However I view them with sadness, altruism with others money and lives is pathetic.  Republicans, on the other hand, are either evil or stupid.  That is intolerable.  We seem to be pretty much on the same page, evidently I have less tolerance for the Republican apologists than you do.

Sun Aug 01 2010 08:58:30 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

It's exactly that polarization that's doing so much of the damage.  Now, I'm sure Ragnar will say "having two opposite parties is good because it usually puts us somewhere in the middle" but we need to get off that ride entirely.
Two sides of the same America-destroying coin. We need accountability, responsibility, transparency. Instead of raising the debt ceiling every time we're about to hit it, we need to pass a balanced budget amendment and stick with it.
Who's going to do that? Democrats and Republicans, both beholden to special interests? We all know it isn't going to happen.

That, I can agree with but wasn't it you who blamed today's economic conditions on Obama?

Only time will tell whether Obama's massive spending truly halted world economic disintegration, deferred it, or added to it.  The jury is still out on how that history will be written.  It is clear though that the Bush Administration drove the bus into the sink hole.

Sun Aug 01 2010 08:58:30 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

<snip>
The only people who seem to be making any sense right now are the Tea Party movement. Sure, the Democrats keep saying that they're just a bunch of troublemaking Republicans, but that's not how I'm seeing it. The tea partiers are calling for a return to responsible, accountable, and SMALLER government -- something the GOP failed to do when they were in power. (The democrats are far worse, but they're both responsible.)

Most are well-meaning but there are *many* provocateurs, quite a number of stealth Republicans, and an inordinate number of bigots and racists.  Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff is difficult.  Economic conservativism is fine, laudable even, but people like Sarah Palin are a blight on any association which tolerates her idiocy.

Sun Aug 01 2010 10:50:14 PM EDT from Harbard @ Uncensored

Fleeb...it's because the Republicans were NOT following the policies of Reagan that we we have the the economic problems we have today.

Note:  Reagan believed in smaller goverment, lower taxes.  He didn't always live up to his own ideals. Like every other human being.

I commend you on being a master of understatement.

Tue Aug 03 2010 20:22:51 EDT from Rob Miller @ Uncensored Subject: Re:

Remember where this discussion began, with someone's "the Obama Recession" (I think that's correct) when referring to events precipitated by the Bush administration and Republicans.  Yeah, some Democrats too but the movers and shakers of invading Iraq, for instance, were Republicans.  "NeoCons."  At least they got the last half correct.

I do remember that the discussion started with IG saying that, not Ragnar.

However, your words were aimed at Ragnar.

And, in any event, I love seeing reasoned discourse, but I'm not as much a fan of outright flames.  Which isn't entirely true, I suppose... I love watching a creative flame war, but that's mostly out of an appreciation for the creative effort some people put into the art of the insult.  In a political discussion, it's more interesting to see reasoned arguments.

Ragnar and I have a long history of sparring here (at least during Bush's terms), so if I seem like I am tolerant of his views, it's mostly that we agree to disagree, or at least have already covered a lot of ground with each other and don't have as much to rehash.  It's even more amusing, though, when we agree on something, which happens on rare occasions.  It's almost like Armageddon is coming or something.

Wish you had been around back when we decided to swap places.  That was kinda funny.  For a full month, we privately sent each other arguments, swapping them publically, in part because it was funny, but also in part to see if anyone would notice.  Folks here did notice, which proved to me that our particular extremes don't seem to come back around to the middle again.

I guess I'm just pointing out that you can still have pointed discussions here, but you'll probably enjoy it more if you don't get too personal.

obPolitics: I do think it's unfair to characterize this recession as 'Obama's' recession, but I don't think the man is doing much to improve things.  He seems, likely, to be doing things that will drag it out.

But I'm not ready to blame this recession on Bush, or Republicans, either.  I think we were due.  The banks engaged in risky practices, made more attractive by some incentives the government provided (Democrats, primarily).  Had certain banks not given in to the government's temptation, we might be on far more stable ground now... or something else might have happened.  We'll never really know.

I've certainly not defended Democrats, they live in a reality distinct and apart from ours.  Or at least mine.  However I view them with sadness, altruism with others money and lives is pathetic.  Republicans, on the other hand, are either evil or stupid.  That is intolerable.  We seem to be pretty much on the same page, evidently I have less tolerance for the Republican apologists than you do.

Hrm... I'm not sure I entirely buy that the Democrats are all that altruistic, though.  They just want to take our public funds and put them into their own happy little projects, which happen to seem altruistic.  Republicans want the money to go into businesses.  I wouldn't mind that so much if the businesses they helped were small to medium sized businesses... but they focus instead on large businesses, which to me is rather short-sighted.  Innovation takes place at the small to medium sized business, not at the large ones.

I'm a pretty tolerant person, overall, I guess.  Experience has taught me that people rarely change their views, even in the light of reasoned discourse.  But I still like the reasoned arguments here as I occasionally learn something interesting as a consequence.

Mi Aug 04 2010 12:23:14 EDT von Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

fleeb - you say innovation comes from small and mid-sized firms, but there are certain types of research that can only be done by large companies. Take a look at the number of patents filed by IBM as an example......

take a look at what IBM did way back in the 80'ies and 90'ies, not much of inovation. Its been an oil-tanker dead in the water loaded with MS-Smart-ship, and took 20 years to get itself going again

a little to mid size company simply can't afford to stagnate that long.

Also have a look at your mobile market... Ma-Bell had been from the 70'ies what IBM was in the 90ies. A nerdy person like IG would have owned a smartphone in europe for almost 8 years now. He eventually managed to get one half a year ago, and not from one of those traditional US telcos. why?

Ragnar:

Typically, large companies buy little companies that are doing ground-breaking innovation within their general area of expertise.  They do not, as a rule, innovate.

IBM holds a lot of patents, but I don't know if they gained those patents while they were a large company, or from smaller companies that held them first.  Purchasing patents with the smaller companies is part of the game.  Part of the draw, too.

This said, I don't know if IBM follows the general rule in that way.  Most large companies spend a lot of money not on R&D, but on mergers and acquisitions.  Or holding off lawsuits, heh.

Mi Aug 04 2010 17:24:21 EDT von Nite*Star @ Uncensored

This said, I don't know if IBM follows the general rule in that way.
Most large companies spend a lot of money not on R&D, but on
mergers and acquisitions.  Or holding off lawsuits, heh.

In 2009, IBM had a R&D budget of $6billion (US $6,000,000,000)

A number of nobel prize recipients (in science) received their prize for work they performed on behalf of a big corporation (as an employee thereof).

See, e.g., http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/193405661.html

and

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/20/technology/obrien_ibm.fortune/index.htm

there is a difference between innovation and innovation. There is the 'I want that chip 30% smaller, use 50% less energy and deliver 50 % more performance, I want to achieve that in 2 years, i'll put n-persons at it; in the average everybody will do n % of what needs to be done in half a year, so I need a 50 people team.

After two years, you'll have a look at it, and maybe its 10^ smaller, uses twice as much power, but has 3000% of the original performance; you'll have several dozend patents shielding those advances.

And then theres stuff like the 'flux compensator'(you probably know the story ;-) which is totaly unparalelled, nobody else has even had the visiot this could be done, and that it could be done that way.

the later you won't find in big companies. They evolve (a little) and move into directions like giant snails, but they don't jump like a cangoroo

ok, there is an exception to that, its nintendo and the wii.

though it most probably was done because of they couldn't hold step with the computing power race.

but for a that big company, quiet a big jump.

Yeah, now it goes to the Supreme Court, I'm sure.

The argument will likely come down to whether or not, legally, homosexuality is viewed as a state of being, or a chosen behavior.  It's gonna get weird.