Politicking

[Stung]

I agree with the spirit of that Baker, just not with using U.S. Troops for such forever or for all that long really. A weening period is rational, and I assume that's what you mean.

[Baker]

I agree with the spirit of that Baker, just not with using U.S. Troops for such forever or for all that long really. A weening period is rational, and I assume that's what you mean.

I figure a Democrat winning the election next year who runs on a campaign with withdraw of troops as part of their platform will be a strong motivator for some of those factional leaders in Iraq to realize they need to get serious about governing themselves. :d :d

Democracies are cool. We can elect different leaders and then blame that event for "changing our minds/policies/commitments".

"Hey we can't control this. Someone new was elected."

[Solecord]

^^ The scary thing is, it could be Hilary...

[Stung]

Scarier than hawkish conservatives? Only if you're scared of peace.

[Grim]

^^ The scary thing is, it could be Hilary...

Yep, put a woman in office is not a wise choice. Look at Louisiana.

[Baker]

Scarier than hawkish conservatives? Only if you're scared of peace.

I've not seen any conservatives in at least a few years.

^^ The scary thing is, it could be Hilary...

Heheh, I think that would be interesting. Fortunately, the national debt has been ballooned so I don't she can do "department of motor vehicles"-quality national health care. :d

To me at least, I haven't seen either party have a legitimately good and new idea for a long time. It will be interesting to see what different candidates are thinking next year. I know I think this country needs "universal broadband" (i.e. require telephone companies to offer DSL even to rural areas).

[Stung]

NICE Baker. Good Call.

[spooker]

can we stop agreeing with each other? it's sickening. i think we all prefer vitriolic partisan grandstanding

[Dilligaf]

No offense intended but the people of certain middle eastern countries have been killing each other for over a thousand years and nothing we (the US) or anyone else does is going to change that. We could secure Iraq and Afganistan completely and the day we leave they would go back to the only thing they know. (sad as it is) Countries like that don't want the responsibility of having a democracy. They would actually have to "produce" something...like a viable economy for their people. Too few people have ALL the money and they're not about to give it up. They're leaders hide under the umbrella of religion and brainwash entire countries into believing that GOD wants them to do this or that. That's just emotional blackmail for poor ignorant people. Not that it's their fault that they're poor and ignorant, they're just victoms of circumstance. Separation of church and state works, we're living proof. I'm not saying we're perfect by any means, but we've done pretty well in our 200+ yr. existence. A long way in a very short period of time. We've elected some fairly intelligent folks to run the show, so far, and when they've screwed up, we bounced them out on their can. (for the most part) I'm not real confident about the upcoming election... Hillary...eh dunno... obama hussain... no... and noone on the conservative side is doing much for me either... I KNOW... none of the above! (reference to the Richard Pryor movie Brewster's Millions). heh heh I guess I have 15 months to decide, I'll come up with something.

[Canadian*Sniper]

Iraq sure I can see that (only read first bit of your post). The situation seems very unstable there. I think differently about Afghanistan. The only thing NATO is doing there is protecting the citizens from the Fascist warlords. The Afghanis don't want them there because they were given no rights in the past. NATO isn't leaving until the situation has been taken care of.

[Baker]

I'm not real confident about the upcoming election... Hillary...eh dunno... obama hussain... no... and noone on the conservative side is doing much for me either... I KNOW... none of the above! (reference to the Richard Pryor movie Brewster's Millions). heh heh I guess I have 15 months to decide, I'll come up with something.

2008 will be the year of the "Least worst" candidate!

None of them will be any good, but someone has to win.

I read something about how a traveler who is somewhere unknown that hates Burger King will eat there instead of going to the drive-thru of an unknown food chain.

The analogy I guess means that people will choose what they are familiar with over the unknown.

Guiliani is a show-boater with a really suspect past. Obama is someone barely qualified to be on a city council, let alone president.

John Edward's claim to fame is that he used to chase ambulances and won class-action lawsuits in trumped up medical malpractice lawsuits and then in 2004 he realized he'd lose his Senate seat (North Carolina is a "red state") so he tried to run for President.

McCain is too old and too weird. Fred Thompson is some 70 year old man with a 40 year old wife (ack!). Mitt Romney seems like a nice guy, but it is hard to say if people in Iowa and the South will be enthusiastic about voting for a Mormon.

I think we'll be lucky if any of the candidates has any non-terrible ideas :d :d

[Stung]

Every year is the least worst year. Perhaps a change in political model to appropriate/diffuse power more evenly with a 3rd elected part of congress would be more efficient. Executive office with the strength that it has today works in direct perpetuity of conflict, since it's meant to assert power of the state single-handedly in times of emergency/war. What happens when you declare a war on a tactic? Perpetuation.

Then again, that's just me being rational, what was I thinking.

[Baker]

Just my opinion, but when that McCain-Feingold bill got passed back a few years ago, it sealed the fate of politics for the foreseeable future.

Companies have far larger and deeper pockets than any individual; smart companies will give roughly 50% to each party (no matter who wins, the company will).

This guarantees "stale and safe" politics that favor the "economy".

Is this right or wrong? I'm not judging that. But it was about 1998 to 2000 that politics became very --- errr -- tainted with words like the "interest rate levels", "growth" and other buzzwords that imply that the economy is the country.

With the above, the trend is going to be ...

1) Don't "rock the boat"
2) Money over freedom (i.e. corporate interests over individuals aka employer rights)
3) More and more centralization of power in the federal government (new federal laws to standardize interstate commerce at the expense of past state efforts to protect consumers).

Maybe this is where things should be going. One example was the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, clearly in the interests of the banking industry.

What bothers me about this is that if the above is true, candidates running for office will be less and less likely to identify things that can be improved/reformed and run on those, and more likely that they will offer ideas that are corporate handouts in disguise that sound popular.

[Stung]

I take issue with any society that favors inventions such as money over the value of tangible, natural facts/things (such as quality of life, health, etc.)

And I totally agree with the "growth" thing.

[Baker]

I take issue with any society that favors inventions such as money over the value of tangible, natural facts/things (such as quality of life, health, etc.)

And I totally agree with the "growth" thing.

Under the "growth" theory of economics, it doesn't matter what type of economy we have as long as it is growing.

That kind of thinking led to the Subprime lending crisis where mortgage companies over-saturated a market because investors wanted "growth".

The problem I think the USA has:

1. Free market economic theories require a market economy of infinite size and perfect information.
2. No market has an infinite size, nor do we live in a world of perfect information.
3. This means government regulation and intervention is required to avoid market failure.
4. With high corporate influence in politics, that intervention is less likely except after a problem becomes high profile. In otherwords, we will have a hindsight government, not a foresight government.

An example, although I think most people think that bankruptcy reform was a great thing, what about the fact that many credit card companies have "bait and switch" as a marketing tactic and also target college students with offers that are often effectively predatory lending (consumer protection)? Those practices need regulating as well.

Also, on another issue:

Universal Health Care

I personally believe "universal health care" is just a scheme to force healthy people to directly subsidize obese people's health problems :d

Diabetes, wheel chairs, foot problems, joint damage ... as far as I can tell, these are some incredibly expensive and very preventable health care expenses ... where is personal responsibility in all of this?

I don't want to help pay for all that.