snl shouldn't be a deciding factor when you're in the booth but I'm sure it is
Printable View
snl shouldn't be a deciding factor when you're in the booth but I'm sure it is
It is serious. I agree. I mean, politicians have power. They're extremely powerful. They shape policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
But the point being: acting, theatrics have a lot to do with politics. (The former Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, described politics as like, well, wrestling. Ya know, in front of the cameras we're at each other's throats. But behind the scenes we're all friends. Again, acting.
I mean, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan. Both actors. Um, Al Franken. Fred Thompson. It's entertainment.)
The "entertainment" aspect to politics is clearly evident.
YouTube - ‪Jesse Ventura speaks about Politics‬‏
There are principled politicians. But few and far between. OK. I'm cynical -- ha! ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Policies are imperative. And if we lived in a meaningful democratic society public policy would reflect public opinion. That's democracy.
We have a profound democratic deficit. Whereby public policies do not reflect public opinion.
So, if you look at public opinion, well, Americans are -- now this is the majority -- social democratic. So, policy decisions should ultimately reflect that.
Now one could either be for it or against it. That's one's personal choice. But, again, I don't see how anyone would be against this unless they're high up in the corporate or political structure. I mean, meaningful democracy doesn't benefit, say, the CEO of Microsoft.
I think another crucial point is: it isn't fair for the many to control the few. That's very unfair.
And likewise it isn't fair for the few to control the many. That, too, is highly unfair.
So, what's the solution? Well, Adam Smith had a solution.
Markets.
His argument for markets was quite clear. He supported markets under the conditions that, well, under conditions of perfect liberty you get perfect equality. That was the argument he gave in support of markets. Again, under conditions of perfect liberty (capitalism &/or free markets) you get perfect equality.
Lastly, in order for markets to work, well, you need informed consumers making RATIONAL choices. Well, corporations work to undercut markets. Look at any TV commercial. What they want is: UNINFORMED consumers making IRRATIONAL choices. Therefore markets can't and don't work in their proper and appropriate fashion.
And I haven't even mentioned externalities -- ha! ha!
Did someone in this thread claim Michele Bachmann was smart? Smarter than Palin doesn't mean smarter than a doornail.
In just the last couple of weeks, Bachmann revealed her reading of the First Amendment by signing a pledge to eradicate pornography in all forms. She showed which side of the Emancipation Proclamation she stands on claiming slavery was better for black families than living free in the second decade of the 21st century. And today we learn that before she joined Congress, she wasn't really an attorney as she claimed to be, but a tax collector for the IRS. Irony or hypocrisy?
Lastly, in order for markets to work, well, you need informed consumers making RATIONAL choices. Well, corporations work to undercut markets
Ben, the modern corporation that we know today emerged in the last quarter of the 19th century, almost a hundred years after Smith, who was describing an industrial capitalism in its infancy -one of the reasons for his reputation is the relative objectivity with which he wrote. Smith's free market capitalism in his day was revolutionary -industry was both increasing yields and power to agriculture, but eroding the 'landed gentry' most of whom sat on their easy profits without investing in machinery, and for whom, socially -and esp in the UK- connections in high places were more important than practical evidence of achievement: Smith was in favour of a social and political economy unfettered by the privilege of birth, that succeeds from hard work, imagination, enterprise. Smith himself believed that markets and trade were the natural condition of humankind, and that a government was pledged to defend the state from attack/invasion by its enemies, but also believed that if the market could not provide then in some cases the state should -his free market capitalism was never 'pure', Smith was a genius, and a practical Scotsman, not an idiot. Historically, there is no one explanation for economic development, the same rapacious corporations you probably sneer at, opened up virgin territory to industry, they built the roads people used to drive down; they built towns, places for people to live, to work in: Marx, whose description of capitalism in the 19thc is loaded with moral indignation, goes to great pains to show how the circuits of capital -production, distribution and so on -resemble a fish eating its own tail: producers consume, consumers produce: this is capitalism: if you want to overthrow it, fair enough, but what replaces it? If you want to be more practical, its not such a big deal: corporations create jobs and products, contribute taxes and so on: regulation in a democratic society to maintain healthy competition and restrain arrogant corporations really isn't that difficult: I have accepted that capitalism is here to stay for a hundred years or more, the best we can do is ensure that the Murdoch's of the 21st century do not act like the robber barons of the 19th -I think thats fair for all. No need for cynicism or despair, just use the democratic instruments you have to create a level playing field, and give a red card to the ones who get out of line!
Well my bet would be she knows how many states are in the US, she probably knows that Hawaii is not in Asia, and if she stumbled upon a gasping asthmatic child odds are she wouldn't give them a breathalyzer.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
My god, she doesn't even know we don't have an embassy in Iran!!!!!! It wasn't just a slip of the tongue sort thing...she ACTUALLY DIDN'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!
57 states sweetie.. Do we have selective hearing? Or are we vacationing in "Asia"?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Bachmann is truly ignorant and everyone but you knows it. [] Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Gingrich and Mitt are all goofballs. Tell me, without lying, that you don't know that.
As with the Cain 'moment' on Libya, I think it exposes the weakness of the team not just the person -although Bachmann isn't going to get the nomination, when we look at these Presidential candidates, we should also be looking at the teams behind them, as they seem for the most part to become the White House staff and have an input on policy. If a news story grabs the headlines, surely someone on the team should have a response to any potential question -the attack on the British embassy in Iran, Hillary Clinton meeting the military leader of Burma/Myanmar and Daw Aung Sang suu Kyi; the fate of the Euro; why is there no snow in Switzerland? and so on. Or could it be that the Bachmann team knows what the future holds and can't be bothered?
Even FOX's host chris wallace couldn't resist in asking hereQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
if she was a " flake" . He knows she's a joke and in the way. and she really believes that she's the best the tea party has to offer. She joins Perry and Trump as a complete hilarious sideshow circus.
It's a total freakshow. Never seen anything like this before. I mean, maybe they should try and coax John McCain into running again. At least he has the war hero credentials. Does Bachmann, Newt, Santorum, Mitt? Absolutely not. Actually, why didn't Mitt serve in Vietnam? He's the right age. 64. What about Newt? Why didn't he serve in Vietnam???Quote:
Originally Posted by pantybulge69
At least John McCain and John Kerry did.
I mean, this should be a crucial issue: WHY DIDN'T NEWT AND MITT SERVE IN VIETNAM???????
TOO FUNNY:
SAM KINISON IN BACK TO SCHOOL - YouTube
Didn't you just have a pissy fit on another thread about presumption ? And here you are presuming you know what "everyone" else knows. Here's what I think....I think you're insane. Why you ask.....3 polls out last week show Mitt beating Obama by 2 points, and Gingrich trailing 2. So...if they're goofballs as you suggest....what does that make your guy? And that's not a rhetorical question.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Do you say these things because you believe them, or because you can't believe anyone else could ever have a different opinion than you?
Or is all this to creepy for you?
Where did I fucking suggest they're all goofballs??? Show me! I said they ARE all goofballs. Oh and I made no presumptions (of the personal sort referred to in http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=956 ). I asked Faldur to tell me he didn't know that they were all goofballs. He declined to respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
Come to think of it, it is a bit creepy of you to be responding to a remark I made to Faldur one week ago. It's as if you went looking for a post where I might have been presumptive, failed to find one but thought this one was close enough to remark upon, all because you're still upset with something I wrote this morning in the general forum. Yeah...that's creepy. It's something a real loser might find himself doing.
Don't be so subtle, Trish. It's confusing.
Huh? WTF did I miss? You ask a lot of things Trish, some are worth responding to others well there best just left to the wind.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
...and I draw no conclusion from your non-response. There must be hundreds of comments, invitations and questions that people post and others choose (often wisely) to pass over.
Nope! Sadly, this scary social conservative has left the race -- :( Anyway, Romney will win. It's all but decided.
So, you'll have Tweedledee, the Mitt-ster, and Tweedledum, the Barack-ster.
It'll be exciting. They'll have rip-roaring debates about... what?... I'm not exactly sure. I mean, are there any really differences between the two?
The same powerful financial sectors are heavily behind both of them. Again, the whole thing is a joke.
Ron Paul, even though I've stark disagreements with him, would inject some actual debate about actual policies. The foreign policy issue would be debated, it would ACTUALLY be debated. Whereas what's the f'n difference between the Rom-ster and the Obam-ster??? Can anyone elucidate on any real differences between the two Wall Street SLICKSTERS??????????????
She could've been the President....
Michele Bachmann: We Are Living in End Times (Also She'll Probably Be Indicted) - YouTube