NationStates Jolt Archive


Do the Republicans in Congress have no shame?

Silliopolous
09-02-2006, 01:54
I mean - what the fuck isthis? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_go_co/delay_appropriations)


Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.

DeLay, R-Texas, also claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA — a top priority for DeLay, since the Johnson Space Center is located in his Houston-area district.


Delay, while under indictment - gets to oversee JUSTICE?


It's like they don't even care how bad it looks anymore - as long as they get to keep their noses at the trough for just a little while longer.
Sdaeriji
09-02-2006, 01:56
I think they have a shame and dignity check at the door of the building.
Skaladora
09-02-2006, 01:58
I mean - what the fuck isthis? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_go_co/delay_appropriations)



Delay, while under indictment - gets to oversee JUSTICE?


It's like they don't even care how bad it looks anymore - as long as they get to keep their noses at the trough for just a little while longer.
Well, I must say that is indeed very ironic.

Sad, but ironic.
Silliopolous
09-02-2006, 02:01
I think they have a shame and dignity check at the door of the building.


Yep. Just put your shame in that closet, your scruples on the rack, and slip your ethics onto the shelf over there. You can pick them up later and pretend that you always adhered to them when you get that pundit's job after the people hoof your corrupt ass out of office....
Lunatic Goofballs
09-02-2006, 02:04
Putting Tom Delay on a committee investigating campaign ethics abuse is like putting Clinton on a committee investigating marital infidelity. :p
New thing
09-02-2006, 02:15
Putting Tom Delay on a committee investigating campaign ethics abuse is like putting Clinton on a committee investigating marital infidelity. :p
or like putting the Sudan on the Human rights committy.....

oh wait, that wasn't the Republicans, it must be ok then.
Liverbreath
09-02-2006, 02:17
Somewhat reminiscent of Patrick Leahy being removed from the Intelligence Committee for leaking classified information only to find his way to the Judicial committee instead of being tried for espionage.
Katzistanza
09-02-2006, 02:18
This is how government's always been. Which is why it must be kept in check, and not to be trusted.

Although the american repubs seem to be particualrly unseemly.
Teh_pantless_hero
09-02-2006, 02:50
Well, I guess the seat on the Appropriations Committee is warranted...
Zatarack
09-02-2006, 02:54
Well, I must say that is indeed very ironic.

Sad, but ironic.

That's not ironic at all.
Syniks
09-02-2006, 03:32
Do the Republocrats have no shame?

No. But they have to compensate for their lack of a Kennedy somehow. ;)
Syniks
09-02-2006, 03:34
Putting Tom Delay on a committee investigating campaign ethics abuse is like putting Clinton on a committee investigating marital infidelity. :p
Or letting McCain, the only Republocrat member of the Keating Five Corruption scandal (remember that?) write incumbent protection... errr... Campaign Finance legislation...
La Habana Cuba
09-02-2006, 03:39
Do the Democrats in congress have no shame, are there no crooked, corrupt, greedy, intolerant, partisan Democrats in congress?
Liverbreath
09-02-2006, 03:55
Or letting McCain, the only Republocrat member of the Keating Five Corruption scandal (remember that?) write incumbent protection... errr... Campaign Finance legislation...

Actually I am still trying to figure out why the soviet papers were referring to him as the "American Song Bird" and just exactly why they errected a statue in his honor at the the lake he bailed out over. BTW, how does someone go through an entire military carreer and retire as a captain? I bet his CIA file is some really interesting reading.
Syniks
09-02-2006, 03:59
Actually I am still trying to figure out why the soviet papers were referring to him as the "American Song Bird" and just exactly why they errected a statue in his honor at the the lake he bailed out over. BTW, how does someone go through an entire military carreer and retire as a captain? I bet his CIA file is some really interesting reading.
Manchurian Candidate. I'd vote for Hillary first. (If there were no Libertarian Candidate)
Silliopolous
09-02-2006, 05:08
Do the Democrats in congress have no shame, are there no crooked, corrupt, greedy, intolerant, partisan Democrats in congress?


Well, feel free to look into it and report back to us.

Of course, the fact that the seat that Delay took was only vacant because of a certain other Republican member having to resign after pleading guilty to certain criminal actions regarding accepting bribes might not be the best place to start.

But dig deep and see what you get. When it comes to actual instances of corruption - I'm an equal opportunity hater.
Free Soviets
09-02-2006, 05:15
Do the Democrats in congress have no shame, are there no crooked, corrupt, greedy, intolerant, partisan Democrats in congress?

tu quoque, tu quoque, tu quoque!

i'm sure that eventually it'll stop being fallacious.
Free Soviets
09-02-2006, 05:19
Well, I guess the seat on the Appropriations Committee is warranted...

he definitely knows all about moving money around
Santa Barbara
09-02-2006, 05:22
This is how government's always been. Which is why it must be kept in check, and not to be trusted.

Although the american repubs seem to be particualrly unseemly.

Yep. Powermongering is mostly what government is about. It never fails to amaze me how people blindly trust government but blame businesses for the worlds problems.
Gymoor II The Return
09-02-2006, 05:48
or like putting the Sudan on the Human rights committy.....

oh wait, that wasn't the Republicans, it must be ok then.

When blaming Democrats doesn't work, there's always the UN. :rolleyes:
Domici
09-02-2006, 06:13
Yep. Powermongering is mostly what government is about. It never fails to amaze me how people blindly trust government but blame businesses for the worlds problems.

You say that like the two are different in this country. Corporate business at any rate is essentially just another branch of the republican party. It's wound its tentacles around a few DLC dems too, but there's not a single pro-worker, pro-education, pro-decency republican in the whole damned capital.
Santa Barbara
09-02-2006, 06:17
You say that like the two are different in this country.

They are. Maybe you didn't notice it, but corporations don't tax people or put them in prison or make war.

Corporate business at any rate is essentially just another branch of the republican party.

So if I formed a corporation tomorrow, I'd become republican?

It's wound its tentacles around a few DLC dems too, but there's not a single pro-worker, pro-education, pro-decency republican in the whole damned capital.

I am rather certain that is an unfair generalization.
Free Soviets
09-02-2006, 06:21
They are. Maybe you didn't notice it, but corporations don't tax people or put them in prison or make war.

yeah, they use the state to do things for them.

the state is the executive committee of the capitalist class.
Santa Barbara
09-02-2006, 06:24
yeah, they use the state to do things for them.

the state is the executive committee of the capitalist class.

Right. Yeah. Uh huh. And of course the "worker class" is oppressed and never, ever uses the state for anything. They are pure and good, and the "capitalist class" is tyrannical and corrupt.

You know, I am SO sick of Marx and his idiotic class theories that have no application in modern society. You people just continue to yap on in his footsteps like its some sort of righteous revelation. :headbang:
Free Soviets
09-02-2006, 06:28
Right. Yeah. Uh huh. And of course the "worker class" is oppressed and never, ever uses the state for anything. They are pure and good, and the "capitalist class" is tyrannical and corrupt.

no.

but the capitalists run the state. this isn't any sort of amazing revelation. it's how the system works.
Santa Barbara
09-02-2006, 06:30
no.

but the capitalists run the state. this isn't any sort of amazing revelation. it's how the system works.

Politicians run the state. That's how the system works.
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 06:36
Actually I am still trying to figure out why the soviet papers were referring to him as the "American Song Bird" and just exactly why they errected a statue in his honor at the the lake he bailed out over. BTW, how does someone go through an entire military carreer and retire as a captain? I bet his CIA file is some really interesting reading.
He retired as a NAVY Captain. A Captain in the Navy is the equivalent of a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. Perhaps you would be wise to check your facts before spouting off, yes? :headbang:

Additionally: McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.

Please note that the DFC (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navawards/bldflyingcross.htm) is the second highest award for valor while flying presented in the Navy, right behind the Medal of Honor.
Zagat
09-02-2006, 06:41
Do the Democrats in congress have no shame, are there no crooked, corrupt, greedy, intolerant, partisan Democrats in congress?
I should expect there are, we are discussing politicians after all. The exceptional aspect of this particular republican administration is the explicitness and sheer overtness of the corruption and poor goverernance. I dont recall any democratic administration sinking to such lows. This could be because they are less scummy, or it could be because, like me, prior to this particular administration, they were unaware of just how much crap a White House administration could get away with...

Honestly comparing the lows of the current republican adminstration to any other modern US White House admin is like comparing the damage bows and arrows can do to the damage a nuclear weapon can do. The fact that so many US citizens are happy to (much less capable of) engaging in such mental contortions and gymnastics as are necessary to find this administration acceptable in any way shape or form, is proof of the old cliche about people getting the leadership they deserve - certainly those that voted for this rotten incarnation of the republican party deserve what they got, it's those who actually had the sense to see the neon-lit writing on the wall that I feel empathy for.

I'd suggest ideological bias was the explanation, except that traditionally the republicans have represented conservative ideology - there's nothing conservative about this particular republican administration. I honestly sometimes think that people who support this administration do so just because they are too lazy to have political opinions based on applying reason to the issues rather simply picking a favourite team (based on thier beliefs about what the team claims to stand for) and wearing their fav team colours no matter how much of a divergence there is between the reality of their team's conduct, and the ideals the team may once apon a time have stood for.

Bush ought to be impeached, but since the voting block that put him in the White House have shown that they will tolerate anything so long as their favourite team is the one doing it, that wont be happening.
Free Soviets
09-02-2006, 06:47
Politicians run the state. That's how the system works.

and the fact that essentially all of them have extensive ties to the capitalist class, even when they aren't capitalists themselves (which they frequently are), is barely worth mentioning? and the routinely having industry come up with drafts of laws to pass is just common courtesy, yes? and the revolving door between industry, government, and lobbying is just natural, right?

as kevin carson once put it (http://www.mutualist.org/id5.html),

"The main purpose of every state activity, directly or indirectly, is to benefit the ruling class. The central or structural functions of the state are the subsidies and privileges by which the concentration of wealth and the power to exploit are maintained. The so-called 'progressive' functions of the state (despite Arthur Schlesinger's fantasies to the contrary) are created by the ruling class, acting through the government as their executive committee, to stabilize capitalism and clean up their own mess."
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 06:48
I dont recall any democratic administration sinking to such lows.
Perhaps your age and lack of knowledge of history reinforce your prejudice.
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 06:50
and the fact that essentially all of them have extensive ties to the capitalist class, even when they aren't capitalists themselves (which they frequently are), is barely worth mentioning? and the routinely having industry come up with drafts of laws to pass is just common courtesy, yes? and the revolving door between industry, government, and lobbying is just natural, right?

as kevin carson once put it (http://www.mutualist.org/id5.html),

"The main purpose of every state activity, directly or indirectly, is to benefit the ruling class. The central or structural functions of the state are the subsidies and privileges by which the concentration of wealth and the power to exploit are maintained. The so-called 'progressive' functions of the state (despite Arthur Schlesinger's fantasies to the contrary) are created by the ruling class, acting through the government as their executive committee, to stabilize capitalism and clean up their own mess."
Then perhaps you would like to explain Prohibition, Women's Voting Rights, the various laws recognizing the rights of workers to organize, the laws against racial segregation, and many others?
Zagat
09-02-2006, 06:51
Perhaps your age and lack of knowledge of history reinforce your prejudice.
Perhaps your prejudice reinforces your prejudice, actually I've reconsidered, scrub the 'perhaps'.
Lacadaemon
09-02-2006, 06:55
and the fact that essentially all of them have extensive ties to the capitalist class, even when they aren't capitalists themselves (which they frequently are), is barely worth mentioning? and the routinely having industry come up with drafts of laws to pass is just common courtesy, yes? and the revolving door between industry, government, and lobbying is just natural, right?

as kevin carson once put it (http://www.mutualist.org/id5.html),

"The main purpose of every state activity, directly or indirectly, is to benefit the ruling class. The central or structural functions of the state are the subsidies and privileges by which the concentration of wealth and the power to exploit are maintained. The so-called 'progressive' functions of the state (despite Arthur Schlesinger's fantasies to the contrary) are created by the ruling class, acting through the government as their executive committee, to stabilize capitalism and clean up their own mess."

I am not buying it. Yes, there are entrenched interests that represent capital. (Though the notion of 'capitalist seems a little.... well..... 19th century). But there are clearly other entrenched interests that are not related to capital, and serve other interests.

I am not saying they work for the 'greater good' of course. (Whatever the hell that is). But laying it all at the door of capitalists seems rather simplistic. Christ, just look at the education lobby in this country. And don't even get me started on the colleges.
Demented Hamsters
09-02-2006, 07:01
or like putting the Sudan on the Human rights committy.....

oh wait, that wasn't the Republicans, it must be ok then.
Well it wasn't the Democrats either, so what's your point?

I mean, other than contrive a desperate excuse to keep yourself in a state of denial?
Demented Hamsters
09-02-2006, 07:05
Then perhaps you would like to explain Prohibition, Women's Voting Rights, the various laws recognizing the rights of workers to organize, the laws against racial segregation, and many others?
Well you could argue that many of these laws you mention would benefit the ruling class. Many of them were only brought in when social unrest became so great that it was having a negative impact on the ruling classes and their ability to rule.
The Serene Death
09-02-2006, 07:07
Do the Democrats in congress have no shame, are there no crooked, corrupt, greedy, intolerant, partisan Democrats in congress?
Obama
Santa Barbara
09-02-2006, 07:10
I am not buying it. Yes, there are entrenched interests that represent capital. (Though the notion of 'capitalist seems a little.... well..... 19th century). But there are clearly other entrenched interests that are not related to capital, and serve other interests.

I am not saying they work for the 'greater good' of course. (Whatever the hell that is). But laying it all at the door of capitalists seems rather simplistic. Christ, just look at the education lobby in this country. And don't even get me started on the colleges.

You're right, it IS rather simplistic. Narrow-minded, even. Naive. Capitalist Class, Worker Class. Even though the Worker Class is far more reminiscent of what Marx would call the Bourgeoise. It's all so foolish, ramrodding everyone into a "class" and THEN complaining that the "class" exists and oppresses other "classes."

Simple-minded anti-capitalist propaganda. Same old story.
Free Soviets
09-02-2006, 07:25
Then perhaps you would like to explain Prohibition, Women's Voting Rights, the various laws recognizing the rights of workers to organize, the laws against racial segregation, and many others?

women's voting rights are not necessarily opposed to the interests of the ruling class - they'd already figured out how to deal with letting non-property owners vote by that point, a change in chromosomes didn't mess with much. but it sure did wonders for social stability.

enshrining certain organizing rights (a bunch of severely restricted ones actually...) only made sense in the face of the growing non-state power of militant labor - it's better to give them something than to risk everything by keeping them militant. and hiring all those goons to kill people was just getting expensive.

only a minority of the ruling elite was in favor of segregation - it lasted as long as it did as part of a power-sharing agreement between a couple factions in that elite.
Free Soviets
09-02-2006, 07:26
Well you argue that many of these laws you mention would benefit the ruling class. Many of them were only brought in when social unrest became so great that it was having a negative impact on the ruling classes and their ability to rule.

precisely
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 07:27
women's voting rights are not necessarily opposed to the interests of the ruling class - they'd already figured out how to deal with letting non-property owners vote by that point, a change in chromosomes didn't mess with much. but it sure did wonders for social stability.

enshrining certain organizing rights (a bunch of severely restricted ones actually...) only made sense in the face of the growing non-state power of militant labor - it's better to give them something than to risk everything by keeping them militant. and hiring all those goons to kill people was just getting expensive.

only a minority of the ruling elite was in favor of segregation - it lasted as long as it did as part of a power-sharing agreement between a couple factions in that elite.
You remind me of fundamentalist Christians. They think they have all the answers too.
Free Soviets
09-02-2006, 07:28
It's all so foolish, ramrodding everyone into a "class" and THEN complaining that the "class" exists and oppresses other "classes."

wait. do you not believe in classes at all, or just the classes you think i believe exist?
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 07:31
precisely
Not at all. The labor laws were passed after sufficient numbers of voters became upset at things like low wages, poor working conditions, child labor and a multitude of other ills. If you peruse the history of democracy, particularly in America, you'll discover this pattern is very common. It takes time for the awareness of a problem to seep into the public consciousness. For example, it was the "muckrakers" who wrote about the terrible working conditions of many in the labor force, including children, who first roused the public to insist on changes in the law.
Bushanomics
09-02-2006, 07:33
I'm bush like. Republicans are morally correct, they have good moral and christian family values. They serve their country with ethics and principles. Tom Delay did nothing wrong he said that he didnt, why cant you laberals just take his word for it. Instead you have to be all laberal and have an investigation. The only time their should ever be an investigation on a government official is if they commit adultry thats a sin. And uh sin in bad. Tom Delay should be president right after bush, then jeb bush, then bush sr., then bill frist, then condie that way black people will stop saying bad things about us on tv.
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 07:33
You're right, it IS rather simplistic. Narrow-minded, even. Naive. Capitalist Class, Worker Class. Even though the Worker Class is far more reminiscent of what Marx would call the Bourgeoise. It's all so foolish, ramrodding everyone into a "class" and THEN complaining that the "class" exists and oppresses other "classes."

Simple-minded anti-capitalist propaganda. Same old story.
For once I agree with you! :eek:

This is why any thinking person should always be very, very wary of any ideology. Ideologies, almost by definition, attempt to force-fit the world into their own peculiar version of reality.
Lacadaemon
09-02-2006, 07:37
You're right, it IS rather simplistic. Narrow-minded, even. Naive. Capitalist Class, Worker Class. Even though the Worker Class is far more reminiscent of what Marx would call the Bourgeoise. It's all so foolish, ramrodding everyone into a "class" and THEN complaining that the "class" exists and oppresses other "classes."

Simple-minded anti-capitalist propaganda. Same old story.

Yes. It's just 19th century rhetoric polished with a few new words, and fails to recognize that society had changed considerably in the intervening one hundred and fifty years.

For example, how to they classify the plumber that dropped out of highschool and makes $200,000 a year in a small business, with the attorney director of an influential public interest law practice that makes less than $50,000. Who has the most influence in the political system. Who's 'class' interest is aligned where?

Not to mention, that 'capitalist' seems to totally disregard every evolution in corporate governance and the structure of modern publically traded corporations in the past 100yrs. I mean, when GE lobbies for international trade reform, is it doing so on behalf of Mr. Vanderbilt sitting in his fifth avenue mansion in his stovepipe hat, roasting young children, or is it doing so on behalf of the millions of public employees whose pension funds own GE stock?

And what about the non-capital interests that have powerful permanent representation in washington. The AARP, the trial lawyers, foriegn governments et al? While it may be true that those at the top of the pyramid do not always serve their constituency, they certianly do not represent 'capital'. If anything, they look at it as a cow to be milked.

Far be it from me to dispute that there is something very wrong with the structure and nature of government, but the idea of wicked old men in stovepipe hats and huge personal fortunes exploiting the working class is only convincing on college campuses. (And yet, ironically, colleges are probably more responsible for maintaining the status quo than any other institutions. No wonder Noam Chomsky owns Halliburton stock. :eek: )
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 07:40
Yes. It's just 19th century rhetoric polished with a few new words, and fails to recognize that society had changed considerably in the intervening one hundred and fifty years.

For example, how to they classify the plumber that dropped out of highschool and makes $200,000 a year in a small business, with the attorney director of an influential public interest law practice that makes less than $50,000. Who has the most influence in the political system. Who's 'class' interest is aligned where?

Not to mention, that 'capitalist' seems to totally disregard every evolution in corporate governance and the structure of modern publically traded corporations in the past 100yrs. I mean, when GE lobbies for international trade reform, is it doing so on behalf of Mr. Vanderbilt sitting in his fifth avenue mansion in his stovepipe hat, roasting young children, or is it doing so on behalf of the millions of public employees whose pension funds own GE stock?

And what about the non-capital interests that have powerful permanent representation in washington. The AARP, the trial lawyers, foriegn governments et al? While it may be true that those at the top of the pyramid do not always serve their constituency, they certianly do not represent 'capital'. If anything, they look at it as a cow to be milked.

Far be it from me to dispute that there is something very wrong with the structure and nature of government, but the idea of wicked old men in stovepipe hats and huge personal fortunes exploiting the working class is only convincing on college campuses. (And yet, ironically, colleges are probably more responsible for maintaining the status quo than any other institutions. No wonder Noam Chomsky owns Halliburton stock. :eek: )
Excellent exposition! Ah, life is so full of irony and semi-organized chaos. I love it! :D
Demented Hamsters
09-02-2006, 07:41
Not at all. The labor laws were passed after sufficient numbers of voters became upset at things like low wages, poor working conditions, child labor and a multitude of other ills. If you peruse the history of democracy, particularly in America, you'll discover this pattern is very common. It takes time for the awareness of a problem to seep into the public consciousness. For example, it was the "muckrakers" who wrote about the terrible working conditions of many in the labor force, including children, who first roused the public to insist on changes in the law.
Which proves my point. It was only when it became apparent that it was a problem - i.e. that it was causing social unrest to the point that it was going to affect the ruling classes - that there was a change to the laws.
Zagat
09-02-2006, 07:47
You remind me of fundamentalist Christians. They think they have all the answers too.
Courtesy translation for those unfamiliar with Eut speak: "I have nothing, if you are wrong I sure as heck cant demonstrate as much through reasoned debate, so instead of a reasoned and relevent contribution, here's a snide generic derogatory comment that has nothing to do with this particular conversation and has no particular relevence with regards to the person it was directed at".;)

Must be that prejudice reinforcing prejudice thing again...watch out for that Eut, next thing you know you'll be falling for every hoax spam-email endorsing your ideological views that happens through your email box....:eek: :D
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 07:50
Which proves my point. It was only when it became apparent that it was a problem - i.e. that it was causing social unrest to the point that it was going to affect the ruling classes - that there was a change to the laws.
Most people are too busy trying to build their income in order to buy a second car or a new home to spend much time on matters political or matters managerial. It wasn't "social unrest" which changed the laws, it was average voters becoming aware of the worst abuses who voted in representatives who changed the laws. There is incredible mobility within what you call "the classes." Who ever heard of Bill Gates prior to about 1977?
Free Soviets
09-02-2006, 07:52
Not at all. The labor laws were passed after sufficient numbers of voters became upset at things like low wages, poor working conditions, child labor and a multitude of other ills. If you peruse the history of democracy, particularly in America, you'll discover this pattern is very common. It takes time for the awareness of a problem to seep into the public consciousness. For example, it was the "muckrakers" who wrote about the terrible working conditions of many in the labor force, including children, who first roused the public to insist on changes in the law.

and if you'd care to look at the actual history of these thing, you'd find that that pattern essentially doesn't exist. for example, you'll find that support for a number of such laws actually came from the capitalists themselves; either because they needed the state to mandate something that would be better for them collectively but any individual firm would benefit from violating a voluntary agreement, or because the threat of mass social unrest was great enough that compromises had to be made in order to maintain their secure position at the top.

the two biggest expansions in the welfare state in america are directly tied to drastic increases in civil unrest and social disorder - and the system put in place is precisely designed to both take some of the edge off the factors that lead to radicalism and to rather strictly regulate the underclass.
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 07:53
Courtesy translation for those unfamiliar with Eut speak: "I have nothing, if you are wrong I sure as heck cant demonstrate as much through reasoned debate, so instead of a reasoned and relevent contribution, here's a snide generic derogatory comment that has nothing to do with this particular conversation and has no particular relevence with regards to the person it was directed at".;)

Must be that prejudice reinforcing prejudice thing again...watch out for that Eut, next thing you know you'll be falling for every hoax spam-email endorsing your ideological views that happens through your email box....:eek: :D
In a forlorn effort to encourage you to actually, you know, like ... read posts in the thread which don't conform to your preconcieved notions of what reality "should" be: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388888&postcount=42
Eutrusca
09-02-2006, 07:56
and if you'd care to look at the actual history of these thing, you'd find that that pattern essentially doesn't exist. for example, you'll find that support for a number of such laws actually came from the capitalists themselves; either because they needed the state to mandate something that would be better for them collectively but any individual firm would benefit from violating a voluntary agreement, or because the threat of mass social unrest was great enough that compromises had to be made in order to maintain their secure position at the top.

the two biggest expansions in the welfare state in america are directly tied to drastic increases in civil unrest and social disorder - and the system put in place is precisely designed to both take some of the edge off the factors that lead to radicalism and to rather strictly regulate the underclass.
LOL! Sigh. It's hopeless. You are unable to step outside the box you have built for yourself, I am afraid.

I have pointed out numerous instances of the pattern in question. We obviously see things through different lenses. Yours just happen to be semi-opague. My condolences.
Jerusalas
09-02-2006, 08:05
He retired as a NAVY Captain. A Captain in the Navy is the equivalent of a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. Perhaps you would be wise to check your facts before spouting off, yes? :headbang:

Additionally: McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.

Please note that the DFC (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navawards/bldflyingcross.htm) is the second highest award for valor while flying presented in the Navy, right behind the Medal of Honor.

Ah, yes... the glories of having a father in the Marine Corps with the rank of Captain... got a lot more respect from the squidies running things because they didn't know that he was a Captain in the Marines and not one in the Navy.... :D
Lacadaemon
09-02-2006, 08:13
and if you'd care to look at the actual history of these thing, you'd find that that pattern essentially doesn't exist. for example, you'll find that support for a number of such laws actually came from the capitalists themselves; either because they needed the state to mandate something that would be better for them collectively but any individual firm would benefit from violating a voluntary agreement, or because the threat of mass social unrest was great enough that compromises had to be made in order to maintain their secure position at the top.

the two biggest expansions in the welfare state in america are directly tied to drastic increases in civil unrest and social disorder - and the system put in place is precisely designed to both take some of the edge off the factors that lead to radicalism and to rather strictly regulate the underclass.

So you're saying that the capitalists intentionally burnt down the triangle factory?
Lacadaemon
09-02-2006, 08:15
Excellent exposition! Ah, life is so full of irony and semi-organized chaos. I love it! :D

:D
Zagat
09-02-2006, 08:25
In a forlorn effort to encourage you to actually, you know, like ... read posts in the thread which don't conform to your preconcieved notions of what reality "should" be: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10388888&postcount=42
Or for those who require translation: "In effort to not ever learn a new trick, I've dug up the same trick of passing off a generic derogatory remark for an actual response...for a further example of this ability to never tire of the same tired tactics see my 'response' to Free Soviets below".

In order to demonstrate to yourself that you are not the fish calling the desert wet, feel free to answer this short survey about me for your own satisfaction (no need to post the results, I already have a preconcieved notion regarding the reality of the results;) ).

Zagat's age is
A)under 20
B)20-30
C)30-40
D)40-50
E)50-60
F)over 60
G)I have no real notion but am happy to comment on it based on my preconcieved notions of what reality should be

Zagat's history knowledge is
A)based on secondary or lower level education only
B)based on history specific tertiary level papers
C)I have no real notion but am happy to comment on it based on my preconcieved notions of what reality should be

Zagat has read
A)only posts that match some preconceived notion Zagat has
B)every post in the thread
C)I have no real notion but am happy to comment based on nothing more than my preconcieved notions of what reality should be

Zagat's preconcieved notion of reality is
A)...............................(fill in the blank with your answer)
B)I have no real notion but am happy to comment based on nothing more than my preconcieved notions of what reality should be

We could
A)go on like this forever
B)skip the back and forth in favour of actually addressing the content of the thread
C)either of the above but not both of the above simultaneously

As a matter of curiousity, are you under the impression that your contentless denigration of everyone that expresses a veiw contrary to your own actually impresses anyone anymore than the (usually erroneous) content of your email spam folder?:confused:
Liverbreath
09-02-2006, 08:37
He retired as a NAVY Captain. A Captain in the Navy is the equivalent of a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. Perhaps you would be wise to check your facts before spouting off, yes? :headbang:

Additionally: McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.

Please note that the DFC (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navawards/bldflyingcross.htm) is the second highest award for valor while flying presented in the Navy, right behind the Medal of Honor.

Thank you for explaining the navel rank structure as if it makes some sort of difference or in some way answers my question. Let me rephrase it for you. How does a so called war hero, with a father and grand father as O-10's manage to get rifted at O-6?
I'll spare you the idiotic headbanging icon as I realize you are a fan of his, and asking questions about the voluminous amount of skeleton's in his closet shines a bright light into your blinders. I am just glad no one has mentioned his hug fest with "The Bug" as he was abandoning the remainder of troops still listed as missing in action, before the senate sub committee. As superior and condesending as your response was to my first question, I'd bet further questions would send you straight into cardiac arrest.
Free Soviets
09-02-2006, 10:01
LOL! Sigh. It's hopeless. You are unable to step outside the box you have built for yourself, I am afraid.

I have pointed out numerous instances of the pattern in question. We obviously see things through different lenses. Yours just happen to be semi-opague. My condolences.

yeah, the fact that the major authors and backers of most of the 'progressive' legislation were the big capitalists should not in any way be taken as some sort of evidence that they had anything to do with the enactment of said legislation, or that it was written in their interests.

it wasn't the big railroad companies and oil interests that pushed for the creation of the interstate commerce commission - the original regulatory body - despite the fact they they were the ones who wrote the drafts for it.

and the national civic foundation certainly wasn't co-founded by big business which sought to end the looming possibility of strikes and riots and socialist revolution by pushing the 'progressive' agenda (including the modern public school system while we're on the topic).

i'm sure i should just look at the historical record of these events from outside my little box of 'accepting the things the big capitalists said and did as fact' and move over to the realm of mythology.
Straughn
10-02-2006, 00:57
Do the Democrats in congress have no shame, are there no crooked, corrupt, greedy, intolerant, partisan Democrats in congress?
At least the OP rhetoric had links. That's moxie ..
So far, you got ... echoes. *shakes head*
Unabashed Greed
10-02-2006, 01:20
I wish Conan O'Brien would drop by this thread and give certain posters (I'll give a hint, their names start with E, L, and S) the "Stephen Colbert" treatment they deserve.
Straughn
10-02-2006, 01:30
I wish Conan O'Brien would drop by this thread and give certain posters (I'll give a hint, their names start with E, L, and S) the "Stephen Colbert" treatment they deserve.
Seconded! *bows*
Afterthought though ... they could be dead to him.
I think there's been one exhumation, though .. so there's still hope! :)
Straughn
11-02-2006, 00:36
Well, figgered i'd *bump* given today's news (thanks, Unabashed Greed)