Not too well, I guess; she doesn't want anyone but the choir she preaches to hearing her, apparently. Nothing to do with the cheat-sheet thing on her pa..."/>
Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
How's that pressy-attentiony thing workin' out for 'ya, Sarah?
Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:15 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:26 PM
GINOBIFFARONI
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Damn Gino, steal *all* my thunder, why don't ya ? You've left me with really not much to say, but I do have to take issue with the idea of Texas or Utah being the first to secede... See, Utah, and moreso Texas, they *TALK* a good game, but historically, when the rubber meets the road they take a dive so fast it's appalling. (Ok, maybe imma a little hard on TX, but I got my reasons, not the least of which was living there...) If they'd REALLY wanted to be independent, they woulda pulled out at the end of the Civil War when the Union had almost nothin left to throw at them and all they woulda had to to was bait those fools out into the badlands and cut off their supplies with mounted irregulars, then watch em bake to death out there. But instead they knuckled under despite having every possible advantage they *could* have, and given previous and subsequent behavior from a historical viewpoint fully convinces me they'll only *actually* secede if a secessionist victory is a foregone conclusion, and they'll hold off a while spouting platitudes and condemning the "traitors" right up to the quick "we were always on your side, really.." change of heart near the very end - and should things go badly, they'll also be the FIRST to jump ship on you, too. Seriously, look at the history, they might talk a good game, but the texan primary battle tactic is to run for the hills as soon as things get nasty. That said, you back em into a corner, they'll hand you your ass on a plate. Still, I wouldn't be sanguine about counting on them for any backup. Vermont and New Hampshire are your better options, especially as they've actually put the time, effort and money into a secondary level of infrastructure as a check against disaster (like that massive blackout that wiped out power damn near everywhere) but also in the eventuality it should come to such a thing, and while they're very conservative folk who take half of forever to make up their minds - once they do, they're also some of the most stubborn folk in the country. They go, Maine will prolly go with em, and Rhode Island never really gave a damn what the Union thought in the first place, being so small it goes mostly unnoticed, although Massachusetts is kind of a toss-up, and New York wouldn't budge for quite a while. So if you're lookin for how that'd go, look north, not south - and I note for the record that Michigan happens to be probably THE most defensible state up here from - barring the UP, we only really got one border to defend, and decayed that it is, the industrial capacity to field the heavy stuff, along with a population and mindset that doesn't have a lotta problems about usin it on somebody (or anybody, we *are* admittedly a little trigger happy), plus we get on with the Canadians quite well, thankee muchly. Not that I think it'd ever come to that, cause state authority would likely fall before federal, and the resulting social collapse would make such a scenario unviable, as the scattered communities thrown back on their own resources would prolly see federal intervention as a blessing once the ugly realties of such an event come clear to them in an unignorable way, and those who don't will be in community-sized chunks, easy prey for the imperial war machine. Most of the folk talking about secession really have no idea just how fast things can and will go to hell in a handbasket if you start taking an axe to the mutual support systems which enable us to go on about our daily lives, because they take these things for granted to the point where they're invisible save when the bill gets paid at the end of the month. Trust me, you do NOT wanna see what happens to a medium-largish city when you cut off food, water and power to it - remember we've done casualty estimates for this, and that's why I don't support it. -Frem
Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:27 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Terrorist.
Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:29 PM
Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:32 PM
Quote:Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Terrorist. Nice, simple but accurate Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers. What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:37 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Terrorist. Nice, simple but accurate Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers. What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow" Why, thank you, Gino! I found that pic somewhere, then lost it, then searched and searched and searched until I found it again, then found the "thoseposters" site and made that, and then saved it so I wouldn't lose it again! I *wish* I could find the morphed image that someone (I *think* it was Citizen, but it might have been you) put up of Sarah Palin morphed with a Pit Bull. I've searched for that and just can't find it again... Mike Work is the curse of the Drinking Class. - Oscar Wilde
Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:49 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Sunday, February 21, 2010 8:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Texas: Not likely to happen. Rick Perry is a god-damned idiot who should probably consider himself lucky to not be in prison this evening, on a host of charges and for myriad reasons. His saying that Texas could secede is an ignorant reading of how we came into the union after the Civil War. What it SAYS is that we can be split into five different states, NOT that we can secede and go our own way. And the charter doesn't even say WHO has the authority to decide whether, or when, or how it's supposed to happen. I take issue with Frem's analysis of the "typical Texas fighting strategy". Having grown up in West Texas, I can tell you for a fact that the "typical" fight starts with some shrimp going up to the biggest buy in the room and starting shit with him, just so everybody else knows he's a badass and leaves him alone. Problem with that is, I'm 6'8". Mike Work is the curse of the Drinking Class. - Oscar Wilde
Monday, February 22, 2010 2:48 AM
Monday, February 22, 2010 7:42 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:both of you are
Quote:I think our differences in the definition is you are stuck with the idea that other people use terror as an end and the US uses terror as a means. I think I established the ends the people we are talking about are looking for, and the means they are using are what they are
Monday, February 22, 2010 9:09 AM
Quote:After all, we gave the country Reagan, remember?
Monday, February 22, 2010 9:20 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Gino, not taking offense, but beginning to wonder "why me?"Quote:both of you are. How about "both of them"? You agreed with the photo Mike put up; so do I. I posted three definitions of terrorism; one of them mentioned "The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”."; I hold to that. I don't understand what you mean byQuote:I think our differences in the definition is you are stuck with the idea that other people use terror as an end and the US uses terror as a means. I think I established the ends the people we are talking about are looking for, and the means they are using are what they areI'm not "stuck" with any definition; it's my opinion. I posted elsewhere a bit about British "terrorism", do you think BRITAIN (or probably more practically "England") is a terrorist state? Why single the US out, and why with such vehemence? As to the cite, I don't always read cites; I try to post only the relevant argument to make my points, then the link if others want to explore further. I felt you posted te relevant points, and found no need to refer to the cite for more. I'm not sure what response you expected? I've agreed with you on several points, even that the US is in some ways a terrorist state. I've also said that we might agree to disagree, as neither will change the other's mind, so we're at an impasse. Why are you continuing to harp on this? I find it confusing. It's beginning to "feel" as if you need there to be a "winner" or something...? Oh, Mike; don't feel too bad. After all, we gave the country Reagan, remember?
Monday, February 22, 2010 9:37 AM
Quote:why it is more about you allowing your government to go crazy, than religion or differences in wealth, or the other Faux news explanations ?
Monday, February 22, 2010 10:01 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Oh, this is getting ridiculous. You've heard my outrage many times. I didn't "point" at anyone else's attrocities except to respond that other contries are guilty of many of the same things the US is.Quote:why it is more about you allowing your government to go crazy, than religion or differences in wealth, or the other Faux news explanations ?I don't understand that one, and if you think we "allow" our government to do anything, then you have no grasp of how the PEOPLE in a country have often little or no impact on what their GOVERNMENT does. We dow what we can; we protested Vietnam until we went hoarse...it didn't do any good. We TRY to vote in better politicians...that hasn't done much good either. We do what we can to fight the military-industrial complex, what else do you suggest? We're not all Frem, and I don't think even HE can have much influence on our military's actions. My problem is your hard-on for the US, and your blaming those of us here with "you" so much. We have problems, but we're not THE worst nation in the world, believe it or not. I've agreed with most of your points, in two separate threads; at this point it's pretty obvious you're not hearing me and just want to attack. "I" am not my government, nor is anyone else here, but if you want to characterize us that way, there's nothing I can do about it, except cease engaging you. So I'm off to walk the dogs; hopefully more constructive conversations will ensue. Yeah, Mike, I forgot Nixon, dammit! I'm not sure LBJ is a fair comparison to EITHER Reagan or Nixon, so I'll have to give California -2 and Texas -1-1/2, I'm afraid!
Monday, February 22, 2010 1:40 PM
Monday, February 22, 2010 2:28 PM
Monday, February 22, 2010 2:40 PM
Monday, February 22, 2010 3:04 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: But what's our outside force? And what's our tipping point? Is Al Qaeda the outside force, and Iraq the tipping point? Mike Work is the curse of the Drinking Class. - Oscar Wilde
Monday, February 22, 2010 3:11 PM
Monday, February 22, 2010 4:04 PM
Quote: They say it isn't significant... but does China do things that are insignificant ? Crashing both the US and Japan at the same time ? They really learned their economic warfare well...
Monday, February 22, 2010 4:24 PM
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:35 AM
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 1:46 PM
Quote:LMAO No you keep your trash
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:10 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:LMAO No you keep your trash HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Makes you almost feel sorry for the idiots who were stupid enough to buy those crap cars. Almost. I feel bad for the workers losing their jobs, though. Mike Work is the curse of the Drinking Class. - Oscar Wilde
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:25 PM
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:29 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Oh, Mike; don't feel too bad. After all, we gave the country Reagan, remember?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:34 PM
RUE
I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:53 PM
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:06 PM
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:10 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: "40 an hour or better, full on free ride benefits." Actually ... no. That's a myth. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/11/ap/congress/main4664833.shtml "(AP) Hourly wages for United Auto Workers laborers at General Motors Corp. factories actually are almost equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour. The difference is in benefits, with the unionized factories having far higher costs. GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69 including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers." Here in California, a Kaiser (HMO) family plan costs nearly $1,000 / month (or with simple arithemtic, $12,000 / yr). If the US had a decent health care systm, that would be a big chunk of change for labor cost alone. On top of that retirees who gave up wages in order to have a pension and health care benefits are getting paid as well. And I'm guessing that their insurance premiums are pretty high. I'd say that a large part of the labor cost difference is in insurance premiums. *************************************************************** Silence is consent.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:36 PM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Did someone hear something? I thought I might have, but it was too ridiculous to be real... oh, well...
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:49 PM
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 6:06 PM
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:11 PM
Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:32 AM
Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:03 AM
HKCAVALIER
Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:22 AM
Quote:Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni: FFF.net when Reagan died http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=5601#74770
Quote: AURAPTOR Three-point, four-hour, should do it. Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:44 Virtually none of those things listed have anyhting to do w/ Reagan or his Administration. Reagan was perhaps the best President in the last 50 yrs, I say the last century. " They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:01 PM
Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:12 PM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote: AURAPTOR Three-point, four-hour, should do it. Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:44 Virtually none of those things listed have anyhting to do w/ Reagan or his Administration. Reagan was perhaps the best President in the last 50 yrs, I say the last century. " They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. " Wow, before I came here AU was JUST as deluded & JUST as bad at spelling! HA!
Friday, February 26, 2010 8:45 AM
Quote:In 1980, when campaigning to become U.S. President, Reagan wrote to a North Carolina tobacco farmer reassuring him of his strong support for the tobacco industry. "I also want to assure you that my Administration will end what has become an increasingly antagonistic relationship between the Federal government and the tobacco industry. The Carter Administration has all too often singled out the tobacco industry for selective criticism and damaging restrictions. … I can guarantee that my own Cabinet members will be far too busy with substantive matters to waste their time proselytizing against the dangers of cigarette smoking," Reagan wrote. Ronald Reagan (died June 5, 2004) was the first professional actor to become an American president. A conservative Republican, he was elected to office in part because of dissatisfaction over a weak economy. Reagan's legacy includes unprecedented federal budget deficits fueled by tax cuts made at the same time the federal budget grew, due to massive increases in military spending (which the Soviet Union could not match). Conservatives credit him with winning the Cold War against the Soviet Union. However, critics fault his involvement in the Iran-Contra arms scandal and his support for the anti-Soviet Mujahideen in Afghanistan (part of which went on to become the basis for Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda).
Quote:As governor of California and president of the United States, he enacted policies that, in the main, greatly expanded the role and size of government. As governor, he oversaw the largest tax increase in Californian history. Democratic Governor Jerry Brown cut back the tax rate when he came to office. As president, Reagan expanded the federal government by about 90%. Ah, but this was for defense, one might protest. And defense spending, according to the conventional wisdom, doesn’t count for some reason. In fact, defense spending is good for a "capitalist" economy, even though it was supposedly defense spending that brought down the Soviet economy. (I wonder if Reagan’s increases in California’s spending when he was governor can be attributed to a good-faith effort on his part to beat Oregon and Nevada in an arms race.) All in all, Reagan allowed the welfare state to enlarge and the military budget to explode, causing monstrous budget deficits and government growth that dwarfs government growth under Clinton, even when Clinton had a Democratic Congress. Reagan’s tax cuts notwithstanding (some of which he reversed), the state grew fat and its growth will inevitably be financed through inflation or tax increases (unless the state defaults). Reagan also bombed Libya, put the "war" in War on Drugs, allowed the continuation of Selective Service registration (despite his campaign promise to end it), helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua, funded the murderous brutal Contras, sold missiles to Iran, gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and lied to the American people. That he did all these things in the name of "freedom," "capitalism," "small government," and "liberty" renders his legacy, in my opinion, all the more insidious. If bad Reaganesque policies continue to have a pass because of their superficial rhetorical selling points, American liberty will have suffered, not strengthened, because of him. Many Americans say Reagan was a man of principle, regardless of what else we might think of him. And yet I’ve heard few examples of how he acted on his principles. More often, I hear excuses that he had a principled ideology but failed to follow through. Still, his rhetoric probably did bring a fair number of people around to adopting some good values. And even some of his policies – such as pulling out of Lebanon after terrorists bombed the Marine base in Beirut, lifting oil price controls, continuing Carter’s deregulation – were quite admirable, especially by today’s standards. By and large, however, Reagan’s words are used to advance the power of the state. Many in today’s War Party, previously critical of Reagan’s relative restraint, claim that Reagan would have approved of their pet war in Iraq, when we do not know one way or the other if that is true. They say Reagan made them revere liberty, and that their reverence towards liberty leads them to revere war. They say that his words about the Soviet Union are applicable today, and that what we face now is Cold War II. They say that Clinton and even Bush the Second haven’t sufficiently followed Reagan’s policy of bloated military spending and foreign bellicosity. They have in the past compared him to Thomas Jefferson, when all the two presidents had in common was that their words were better than their presidencies. (Even this is a weak comparison, seeing as how President Jefferson actually shrank the government.) Today’s champions of neo-Reaganism invoke the legacy of a man who practiced libertarian rhetoric and carried out a predominately statist agenda, and they do it to advance an agenda even more statist than Reagan’s. As much as I think certain misanthropes distort and twist Reaganism to their devious purposes, it is no surprise that the Gipper would have such a vile following. No symbol is more useful in the advocacy of empire than a respected leader who glorified freedom even as he trampled it.
Friday, February 26, 2010 9:08 AM
Friday, February 26, 2010 4:10 PM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL