Re: [cerebus] Re: OT again: Rain Likes Cerebus (was The "M" Word and Dave's Petition)
> And my animosity toward Limbaugh has nothing to do with==== Has anyone ever proven evidence of his bullying, at least to the extent that Honduras has to overrule its Constitution and reinstate its properly-deposed President, because Obama's America is all about not flexings its muscles on weaker nations? If Rush has that sort of power, then I should be able to report you to the police just for complaining about him. The current American President does have a website available to report citizens who have "fishy" statements...
> whatever false statements are attributed to him as part of
> this particular debate. I don't even care about
> whether he's really racist. I care that he's a bully
> who glorifies bullying all the way to the bank.
> I'm not even going so far as to say that they have to be==== Once the chain-of-command is more than two layers, there's no way to distinguish any difference between profit and service. It makes room for people who are better at making themselves look good to their superiors than they are at doing their job. In a for-profit enterprise, the people in charge have a legitimate reason to keep those people out of positions of power, and recognize that such people will still wind up in positions of power and look for ways to minimize their effect, because it would cut into profits.
> NON-Profit. I'm just saying that they have to be run
> ultimately to maximize service, rather than to MAXIMIZE
> profit. A fire department whose success is JUDGED
> primarily by its bottom line is a disfunctional one. I
> think that's exactly where the health insurance industry is,
> and why the system requires fixing.
==== I'm fine with the police department being a not-for-profit organization, but it's funny how the people who attack the police as fascist racists never consider that (including our current President, who blamed the police for a situation in which he knew nothing of the facts on the ground). You don't find too many people defending the police and the thankless job they do, and who insist they need to remain not-for-profit. I'm grateful for the police and the job they do, what's *your team's* excuse?
> > ===== Leaving aside political differences, wouldn't===== You can always learn something, if you're not careful.
> you be
> > happier under Governor Palin than Governor
> In case it wasn't obvious, I was NOT happy under
> Blago. Oh, I was happy that the Illinois GOP fell
> apart, but Blagojevitch was a good example of what you
> assert about needing a functioning opposition party.
> When a Republican can't win a race for dogcatcher, we get a
> Democrat like Blago. I didn't know pendulums could
> swing that quickly.
> > ===== He's proven======= She left office because it interfered with her life. She took a poll of her immediate family and got three "no" votes and one "hell no" vote about staying in office. The legal fees alone are bankrupting her, even though she's won every single charge in court. This is like Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird being sued because they had the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles say "Cowabunga" (by whoever it was on "Howdy Doody", he sued "The Simpsons" for the exact same thing), a leech looking for a payoff. Or a self-destructive leech looking to kill its host first and foremost. You'd honestly rather not have someone who leaves office because unfounded legal challenges are driving her poor family to bankruptcy, instead of someone who stays in office because he has the money to fend off legal challenges until the sun grows dark? Not to mention the validity of Blago's legal challenges versus Palin's? If Palin was caught on tape swearing like a sailor, her
> > that he'll betray you at a moment's notice to save
> himself and
> > she, well, hasn't.
> She's also proven that she'll leave office voluntarily, and
> he, well, hasn't. So I guess that's a preference for
> Palin. Although it's a piss-poor recommendation to say
> I'd rather have A than B because A is easier to get rid of.
donations would probably triple. That's hot. Oh, and giving a Senate seat to the highest bidder would probably interest people too.
> It's remotely possible that I'd be happier with a governor====== Enjoy the taxes that the President you voted for promised you wouldn't pay. Enjoy the government transparency that the President you voted for promised everybody would have for every law he signed. Enjoy the respect you aren't getting from the rest of the world that you were supposed to have now that the unilateralist isn't in the Oval Office. Enjoy the freedom from nuclear war now that Iran and North Korea are launching missles with no condemnation from the administration. Enjoy the freedom from rendition and overheard phone conversations that the current President campaigned against, and then carried on with, are you calling him a liar, shut up, no, just shut up. Enjoy Guantanamo Bay's closing in 81 days as the President promised, although he has yet to explain how he'll do it or where the prisoners will go.
> like Sarah Palin than Blagojevitch IF she could get beyond
> that whole anti-urban "Real Americans" thing, but that's a
> big "if". Until then, it would be too "siding with my
> murderer" for my taste.
> - Larry Hart
Oh, and enjoy the increase of Muslim attacks in Afghanistan (where the President has been dithering for six months about the plan he adopted seven months ago), in Iraq (where he's been largely silent because it's the most successful part of his administration), and in America, where multiple arrests in multiple areas have happened in the last week, Muslims planning terrorist attacks, but they don't media play because that's, like, anti-Muslim or something.
If a 9/11-style terrorist attack happens under Obama's watch, who do you think will be blamed? George W. Bush, or the successor who promised he'd repeal every one of GWB's schemes? I notice that you haven't complained about Obama's attack on American values since January 20, even when he's done just what his predecessor has done. Which is it? Do you care about the attack on American values, or is it just that George W. Bush did it, and you don't give a shit about anything else?
===== Oh, you said something about "Real Americans". Tell that to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and all of the rest who label people as anti-American for disagreeing with the President. For all of the (false) claims *your team* makes about the post-9/11 era, it's a lot easier to find major political leaders on *your team* condemning opponents as traitors since the last election, and with no minority party to stop them, they're writing all the laws and having them signed by the executive. And they blame Trotsky, or Republicans, for their failures. At what point does the majority party stop blaming the minority party (given that it's been over two years since the minorty party took over the purse stings and have had only increased suceess afterwards) for their failures?
- --- In email@example.com, Chris W <show_me68508@...> wrote:
> > > ==== I'm a third of the way through my annual
> > re-reading of
> > > "Atlas Shrugged", and the last 60 hours have given me
> > ample
> > > examples of why *I'm right and you're wrong*.
> > Politically, the
> > > first book of "Atlas Shrugged" is looking to me like
> > the daily
> > > news.
> > It was starting to look like the daily news in 1998 when I
> > first read the novel. But I don't think that proves
> > what you think it proves. Because the real-life
> > Kellogs and Wyatts--the productive people who are giving
> > up--aren't doing so because they're overwhelmed by
> > government control. Oh, there might be an element of
> > that too, but I'd say that the biggest frustration in the
> > lives of people who actually know how to do stuff is
> > CORPORATIST control. Being told you can't do things
> > the best way because it doesn't facillitate the shareholders
> > bleeding the company dry--that sort of thing. The
> > productive minds are being stifled from the right, not the
> > left. Or at least much moreso than from the left.
> ===== The closer they are to Corporatist control is their desire to be involved with the government. Why is Ford the only car company to not be bought out by the government and the only car company to show a profit after the government buys out its main competitors? And why are the minor competitors doing so much better than those who have "government money"? The left wants to tell companies what to do with their property, and has more success with companies that are extremely succcessful than with small businesses. Marvel will cave in for the government's desires long before Dave Sim ever will. And you're only hurting Dave Sim by insisting on the government's control.
If they want a bailout, they lose some control. Now, personally, I say, if no one wants to buy your crappy cars, then no one wants to buy your crappy cars and you should kindly fuck off, thank you very much. But, if you ask for a bailout, if you get said bailout, here are all the strings that come attached to that money. Personally, I don't support bailout money (except in certain national emergency-level situations), but, if we DO bailout a company, the least I expect is that we take a look at the business practices that led them to needing a bailout and then taking action - whether that means firing all of the CEOs, or whatever. If we're going to allow companies to become too big to fail, then we're going to have to accept whatever damage to the economy comes when they fail. Me? I say we treat companies on the verge of becoming too big to fail the same way we treat companies with a monopoly. Break them the fuck up.
> > > ===== On a day-to-day basis, I will single out peopleRainmandu says:
> > that I can't
> > > stand and hated working for as deserving of respect
> > because of how
> > > they perform under pressure, and did the work I needed
> > them to do,
> > > even if they outrank me and there's no threat I can
> > hold over
> > > their head, and pay for their lunch if they want
> > it. I can
> > > *trust* the system to be there for me when I need
> > it. Do you
> > > have the same faith in *your team's* ability to
> > provide what you
> > > want or need?
> > >
> > Again, when talking about you personally, I believe
> > you. But again, I claim you are mistaken about the
> > system you trust to be there when you need it being
> > emblematic of your TEAM. An obvious betrayal of that
> > system is one I've mentioned recently--Ronald Reagan's
> > explanation of his slashing government benefits for students
> > on the grounds that he's not inclined to aid those who are
> > likely to protest his policies. In other words, the
> > complete politicization of government functions that are
> > supposed to be for the mutual protection and benefit of ALL
> > Americans, not just those the current functionaries find
> > politically convenient. In other other words, the
> > exact OPPOSITE of the values you describe above.
> ==== Obama won't support Fox which his administration doesn't consider a real "news network". And then his campaign manager will happily do interviews on Fox to sell his book.
Obama never shut down relations with Fox. They never closed the door on them, locked them out, or anything of the kind. They pointed out that Fox is not a news network (and they're not - even compared to the left-leaning MSNBC, Fox is the worst and most egregious example of WAY biased "news"). The Obama administration said, right from the start, that they would still do interviews with Fox, and all the rest of it. Just that they would do so with their eyes open about who they were dealing with. While conservative mouthpieces work themselves up to high froth over this, Obama hasn't done anything even close to the Bush administration refusing to talk to MSNBC, planting questions in press conferences, etc. Or the Republican Party threatening to boycott a debate if Keith Olbermann were allowed to be one of the hosts of the coverage of the debate.
"Red Light" - U2