Politics: Onward from New Hampshire - Page 205

pretermitted_child · 03-09-2004, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Really, do you need your little toes and little fingers? Insects are edible. Grass is edible. Hell, dirt is probably quite filling.

And don't forget those tasty kittens!

Hank Chinaski · 03-09-2004, 08:19 AM

As democracy spreads through the Islamic world, the peoples will have more disposable income, and the opportunity to travel. Travel to foreign countries is, of course, broadening as one is exposed to how life is lived in those lands. Seeing how others live, lets one know of options and opportunities to take one's life in a different direction:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/06_03_04/art4.asp

Quote:

Iranian tourists stone Israeli positions
By Mohammed Zaatari
Daily Star staff

Iranian tourists pelted Israeli positions with stones at the Fatima Gate border point during a visit to the Southern region Friday, having arrived in Lebanon on a trip from Syria by way of Western Bekaa.
On the opposite side of the border, scores of Israelis and foreign tourists were sighted moving around in a park at Metullah settlement, while soldiers manned their fortified positions.
The Iranians numbered about 90, among them lawyers and university professors, and included men, women and children.

I was pleased to see they included woman.

spookyfish · 03-09-2004, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb

If you are going to insist on some kind of "nutritional value" you are on the slippery slope to socialized medicine!!!!

I fixed the spelling thing for you when I quoted you.

Maybe he's British.

Secret_Agent_Man · 03-09-2004, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hooey. Pat Buchanon lost. So did Gephart. Edwards got smoked. This far left enclave that you and Atticus live in is just that, and not representative of where 95% of America is today.

I'm not so sure about your last sentence. You may be right that most Americans feel that way, but I doubt it's anywhere near 95%. Reagan, et al. did load of unilateral protectionism in the 1980s, and the U.S. government will do it again if the political pressure is strong enough.

How else do you explain the steel tariffs or farm bill? (For example.) What about the sanctions that the EU just placed on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of U.S. goods (with the WTO's permission) because of the disparate tax treatment the U.S. gives to income earned by U.S. companies overseas -- which the Congress just can't seem to fix despite the WTO decision and plenty of lead time?

Moreover, what will the public opinion numbers look like in six months or a year if the jobs markets don't turn upwards and outsourcing continues to grow?

You can say all you want about how the employment numbers are pretty good from a historical perspective. My first response is that this is probably a little deceptive, because I think some things are happening that are tough to measure.

The second, and most important response is: "So What?" People have higher expectations now, and that's what matters politically. "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" etc. Lots of people feel like they aren't.

S_A_M

[edited -- typos]

Secret_Agent_Man · 03-09-2004, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Service providers do not own their jobs nor any right to continue to provide the services they provide, other than as dictated by the market.

Please god, let Bush work this point into his stump speech! Or, maybe, just insert it in the GOP platform.

How fast did he retreat from his advisor's public statement last month that, heck, outsourcing was GOOD?

Look, I am not completely convinced by Sitc's trade arguments either.

It does seem, however, that the shift in jobs from manufacturing to services in the U.S. and the fact that the cheaper developing countries now have the education and workforce to take many of the service jobs may change the classical equation somewhat. Even if it doesn't change the economic theory, it surely changes the political equation -- especially since the increased productivity in most U.S. industries means that they can do more with fewer workers.

Talking of the long run is all well and good -- and may be correct -but in the long run we're all dead. It is much easier to stick to doctrine when it doesn't hurt you or your family. In any event, if most Americans could be made to consider the long run -- we'd have fixed Social Security, etc. back in the early 1990s.

S_A_M

[edited -- typos]

bilmore · 03-09-2004, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Moreover, what will the public opinion numbers look like in six months or a year if the jobs markets don't turn upwards and outsourcing continues to grow?

Is it time to start throwing rocks at BMWs again?

(A good old-fashioned "Buy American" campaign could be very advantageous for us right now. If outsourcing is that much of a perceived danger, maybe it would catch on.)

sgtclub · 03-09-2004, 10:41 AM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

[CA legislature to consider bill to allow 16 and 14 year olds a fractional vote]

spookyfish · 03-09-2004, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

[CA legislature to consider bill to allow 16 and 14 year olds a fractional vote]

Are you fucking kidding me? You can't get most adults to be interested enough to become informed voters.

Hank Chinaski · 03-09-2004, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spookyfish
Are you fucking kidding me? You can't get most adults to be interested enough to become informed voters.

They may be on to something; perhaps teens would treat the right to vote more seriously than adults. Shape Shifter is just 16, but he's always voicing political opinions here. They're really fucking stupid opinions, but still he does take time out of his day.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-09-2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
They may be on to something; perhaps teens would treat the right to vote more seriously than adults.

Why not just give anyone, 14, 16, 18, or any age, a test of basic political knowledge?

Oh, wait . . .

Hank Chinaski · 03-09-2004, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why not just give anyone, 14, 16, 18, or any age, a test of basic political knowledge?

Oh, wait . . .

bush is going to propose this next SOTU as a part of tweaks to "No Child Left Behind."

spookyfish · 03-09-2004, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
bush is going to propose this next SOTU as a part of tweaks to "No Child Left Behind."

So much for "accountability measures", then.

Shape Shifter · 03-09-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
They may be on to something; perhaps teens would treat the right to vote more seriously than adults. Shape Shifter is just 16, but he's always voicing political opinions here. They're really fucking stupid opinions, but still he does take time out of his day.

Not too much time. I'm happy to contribute.

NotFromHere · 03-09-2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

[CA legislature to consider bill to allow 16 and 14 year olds a fractional vote]

And then, marijuana will be legalized, the driving age will drop to 14, and the drinking age becomes 16. Because that's what's really important to kids that age. Foreign policy? Wha? Taxes? who pays taxes? Mom and dad? Who cares?

Not Me · 03-09-2004, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spookyfish
Are you fucking kidding me? You can't get most adults to be interested enough to become informed voters.

People are stoopid.