NFL may pull the plug on AZ Super Bowl if anti-gay bill passes

[NowhereInTime]

there is this pesky line in Article I,Section 9 of the US constitution:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

not that being unconstitutional has stopped any congress or state from passing laws anyways. usually boils down to someone bringing it to federal court to get the law tossed out. until then the govt collects or enforces the unconstitutional law

Good research but I think the sales tax would pass the smell test if applied uniformly.  But you've definitely found a legal challenge that might pass circuit court muster.

[Ben Shockley]

...BS and pudding are fond of accusing people of being racist, homophobes, etc. People whom they know nothing about. That's the tactic of a coward...

I continue to wonder exactly what FTF a/k/a/ FP (Futility Personified) considers "cowardly" about commentary on certain negative ideologies.  Does merely "calling it as one sees it" somehow constitute "cowardice?"  If so, then FP deserves the Badge Of Cowardice, First Class, for how he never hesitates to personally call other posters whatever (hopefully-)belittling name he apparently sees fit.

Or is this labeling reserved specifically for commentary that FP finds threatening, but has no factual or credible way of rebutting?  Setting aside the specific label of "coward" (his choice of which, for pure definitional reasons, I still cannot understand), I accept that FP is simply throwing any denigrative term against the proverbial wall and hoping it sticks.  But with specific regard to his visceral reaction against commentary on "race / racism," I have to wonder whether:
     -- he is actually claiming that the concept of race (or other minority-group identification) plays no part in American society; specifically, no part that rises to the level of being acceptable fodder even for otherwise-unrestrained Internet fora.
     -- he is actually claiming that there is no such thing as "racism" (or other discrimination against minorities) in American society; specifically, that there is no trace of it in the ideologies espoused by anyone posting in Internet fora.
Because his knee-jerk apparent zero-tolerance policy toward any mention of these concepts / phenomena --or at least, any mention of them by certain posters-- sure makes it seem like these are his contentions.

The moment you call anyone a racist, any constructive conversation is immediately truncated --

Whether that is true or not, "conversation" is definitely "truncated" by forbidding certain topics or statements of opinion.  Persons deeply offended, for whatever reason, by others' statements of opinion, or of perceived fact --particularly in regard to certain topics-- might do well to avoid situations where those topics are likely, or even certain, to be addressed.

Of particular note is his apparent need to make personally-directed response to the mention of these concepts, even when no personal mention of him has been made in connection to them; i.e.; his responses are certainly disproportionate, if not inappropriate.  This suggests that he feels a personal emotional investment in/with these concepts beyond, or contrary to, anything he might admit in these pages.
In that light, I note again that many American right-wingers are aware enough of cultural trends that 1) they recognize that their ideologies are viewed unfavorably by many Americans, and thus 2) they are reticent about admitting, and take some pains to publicly distance themselves from, their true ideologies.  I suggest that this second point is what we see being acted out --inartfully, flailingly-- in the case of FTF / FP.*

...I must have struck a nerve with ol' benji. Now, run along and smear your feces on the wall. The nice men in white jackets will be along shortly to give you your yummy medication.

Take your fucking Ritalin, already.

So, detailed point-by-point responses to FP's posts evoke from him stereotyped images of "mental illness."  This fits with my suggestion, above, of his throwing up anything he can in the absence of anything factual or lucid to use in rebuttal.  And in this specific choice of asserting "mental illness" on the part of the opponent, he uses what I am sure he would classify as "tired cliche" (http://bellgab.com/index.php?topic=5424.msg233092#msg233092) were it used toward him by one of his opponents.

Lastly-- of course, this having been a meticulous post, look for FP to again imply (in hackneyed imagery and terms) that I am "mentally ill" for even presuming to mount a response to his totally healthy, well-reasoned, fully-deserved personal denigrations.


*  While I do stand by that bi-fold observation of right-wingers' reticence regarding public identification with their ideologies, I also note that their approach can be contradictory, and even include "hyper-identification."  Regardless of FTF / FP's personal motivations in his reactions to race-themed commentary, he is an example of a larger trend observable in this forum:
right-wingers who voluntarily self-identify with things that they presumably understand are being defined/discussed in a negative way.
I have witnessed several right-wing posters emerge from (to me) obscurity to challenge what they assert is the negative mis-characterization of some belief or trait of theirs personally or that they strongly identify with in others.  They are certainly free to factually challenge what they would assert are mis-characterizations.  They are not free to then imply "victimization" of some vague sort --most certainly not of a personal sort, and most certainly not to then affect "offended indignation" --when it is only their choice to take on the mantle of Public Defender that has identified them with the ostensible vehicle of "victimization" or "negative labeling" or "discrimination."
Nor are they free to demand higher rhetorical standards of the poster/commentator with whom they take issue than they display themselves.  That is: if, in reaction to statements of opinion, they can factually rebut a person's opinion, then they are free to do so, and they may ask the initial commentator to factually support his opinion.  However, they cannot meet statements of opinion with nothing more than unsupported opinion and then claim any form of superiority.  "I like, just because" has no greater rhetorical weight or legitimacy than "I don't like, just because."  With specific regard to FTF / FP, without the ability to factually rebut what he takes to be unfavorable opinion-commentary, he has no grounds for his apparent moral outrage.  He attempts to counter opinion with even less than "well-formed opinion," offering no clear statement of his own position, but only personal denigration; that is, he does not even offer "I like" as counter to "I don't like," but offers only "I'm angry because you don't like."  He is free to voice counter-opinion, but it is inappropriate and unsustainable for him to invest personal rancor (and only rancor) in what --though he portrays it as an obvious matter of morals and character-- he has failed to elevate above a pure matter of clashing opinions.  In fact, he has hardly brought his side of the "argument" up to even that level. 

[Ben Shockley]

"Ghettos".  More code... Its not 1977 anymore. The Bronx is no longer Burning.

Yeah, but P*B's play books are all a lot older than that.  He's practically "mod" for not saying "the quarters."

...Anyway, I don't really like studies and statistics...

Of course you don't, Mr. Anti-Empirical.

...Too many of them don't even pass the smell test.  It's too easy to include this and exclude that and shape the desired result.

It sure is, especially by "researchers" who don't even pretend to be scientific or objective (like right-wing "think" tanks), and when the results are voiced by people as anti-empirical as you, P*B-- like Faux "News" and other rightie talkers.

...an article on a Brookings Institute study which found that the places with the widest income disparity between the rich and poor are in Democrat strongholds.  In other words the same people who've wrecked our inner cities also govern areas with the highest incomes.

It doesn't mean that at all, "in other words."  "Widest disparity" could be created by having very-low incomes, stacked next to fairly-middling incomes.  It is highly unlikely that people with the "absolute highest" incomes live anywhere near the people with the "absolute lowest" incomes.
In any case, your imposition of your usual weird back-asswards logic doesn't work here either.  Are you suggesting that "voting Democratic" caused people to be poor-- or what?  Take your time and make an argument for us where the logic indicts Democrats for causing "absolute poverty," but for only some people who happen to live very near very rich people.

...The poverty problem for whites is desperate and widespread, yet due to centuries of race hatred all a Republican has to do is decry "welfare queens" (more code) and they win elections with the votes of white people on welfare. Stunning.

Goddamn right.  Or, in local/state elections, they point at the scary, scary (half-)Black man in the WHITE House and "tar" (no pun intended) their local Democratic opponents with his name and face, and also win.  I've seen it happen.

...borrowing and spending and making promises in exchange for votes the way we have been, don't you.

In YOUR GOD'S NAME, will you please tell me when I can expect some of the bribe money that you assert is the reason why people vote Democratic?  Where do I apply?

...We'll never be able to pay for everything the Libs can dream up,...

You mean like cutting taxes during time of voluntary wars?

pay for everything the Libs can dream up, all the people they need to vote for them.

Again: when do I get my cut??

I would choose reorganizing and reducing government and laying off unneeded bureaucrats

As determined by P*B, no doubt.  I'm sure you would start with the staff of those offices where people go to register for their Democratic-Voting check.  Right?

...cutting off the people who could and should be working

As determined by P*B, right?

...and those who come from elsewhere and are getting handouts.

That old bit, huh?  Not just "welfare queens," but foreign welfare queens!  Who could be against kicking their sorry asses a little bit?
Sure; force immigrants to live in squalor which is still better than what they left in Mexico or wherever, and I doubt if you'd curb immigration much, but you'd damn sure create a bunch of sick, more-desperate people for you or your kids to have to mingle with whenever you upstanding, good Christian Americans leave your bunkers.

Then we'd have money to focus on the Americans that really need it.

You mean, there are some?  I wonder what P*B considers "really needing it."  Somehow, I doubt if conditions that "actual poor people" face would qualify under his system; I imagine that you'd have to already be sort of rich, in some way, for him to think you "qualify."  After all, Mr. Calvin, aren't the poor, by their very condition and definition, already scorned by "God" and thus "UNworthy" of human consideration?

[PB the Deplorable]

... The other side of that coin, though, is the continued ignoring of the plight of the poor whites in the hinterlands.  We deny that white people can be poor because it isn't their "culture" yet, watch an episode of "Cops".  Whisky Tango Heaven.  Ever been to Kentucky? West Virginia? Tennessee?  Mississippi? Alabama? The poverty problem for whites is desperate and widespread...

I think I've answered this before.  No, I haven't been to those places.  I have no first hand knowledge of their plight.  I would imagine exporting jobs and importing poor illegal aliens to take low level jobs have not helped them.  So I leave it to others to discuss.

I have however watched Liberal policies destroy black neighborhoods (or whatever preferred description you think I should use) locally.  Before LBJs 'War on Poverty' the people in those neighborhoods were god-fearing religious people who valued education, built small businesses, had intact families, crime was nearly nonexistent, there were nearby factories and other businesses that provided jobs.  Society was vibrant, things were finally looking up. 

50 years later none of that is true.  It's all been ruined. 

[PB the Deplorable]

there is this pesky line in Article I,Section 9 of the US constitution:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

not that being unconstitutional has stopped any congress or state from passing laws anyways. usually boils down to someone bringing it to federal court to get the law tossed out. until then the govt collects or enforces the unconstitutional law

By Export did they mean outside the US, or just into another state?  I don't know the answer, but Section 8 is the one that keeps coming up when this is discussed.

Article I, Section 8 (clause 3) says 'Congress shall have power... to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..."

[PB the Deplorable]

... Of course you don't, Mr. Anti-Empirical...

Oh, I do pay attention to the various studies and surveys that make the news.  I see the various statistics that are thrown around.  Some are even legit.

I'm just saying that too often they don't 'seem' right based on everything else we know or have heard about the subject, and digging deeper into the study it's not uncommon to find the 'flaws'.

The Federal government is the worst.  The way they calculate inflation, the increase in the cost of living, how they define 'poverty', how they determine the unemployment rate, even the amount of currency in circulation.  How they estimate the amount of fraud in their programs.  Their estimates of the cost of a project.  The vey rosy assumptions they make to project future return on investment for their pension funds.

On and on, it's somewhere between pure fantasy and intentional lying.  The state and local governments are generally no better,

The Media is just as bad when they report on it without comment.  They either know better or ought to know better.  Then there are the 'polls' they conveniently provide during election cycles.  They commission a poll, with results biased to show 'their' candidates doing better than they actually are.  They then make their biased poll a story of it's own.

I don't think I have to say much about various non-government organizations commissioning their own studies and shaping those to get the desired results.

[wr250]

By Export did they mean outside the US, or just into another state?  I don't know the answer, but Section 8 is the one that keeps coming up when this is discussed.

Article I, Section 8 (clause 3) says 'Congress shall have power... to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..."

i dont know beyond what it says, i supposed its meant for no taxes or duties for items traveling  between states,but not out of the united states. after reading 2 federal court cases on this, it seems that way. also according to cornell's school of law it falls into "powers denied to congress category" . states may impose inspection fees for incoming products, but any excess of such fees over the cost of the state to run the inspection station, belongs to the US treasury as described in Article 1 section 10.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

[NowhereInTime]

I think I've answered this before.  No, I haven't been to those places.  I have no first hand knowledge of their plight.  I would imagine exporting jobs and importing poor illegal aliens to take low level jobs have not helped them.  So I leave it to others to discuss.

I have however watched Liberal policies destroy black neighborhoods (or whatever preferred description you think I should use) locally.  Before LBJs 'War on Poverty' the people in those neighborhoods were god-fearing religious people who valued education, built small businesses, had intact families, crime was nearly nonexistent, there were nearby factories and other businesses that provided jobs.  Society was vibrant, things were finally looking up. 

50 years later none of that is true.  It's all been ruined.

I'm not trying to be smug with you. I have been throughout the south and midwest and have seen rural devastation that makes your heart break.  Not only do we have white kids destroying themselves with crystal meth because all the jobs were outsourced and there's no money to "open businesses" but native kids who can't even scrape together pennies for meth drinking "Cheyenne Champagne".  Google it and I think even your heart will tremble a little.  I cried.
Your memories of black neighborhoods 50 years ago don't jibe with anything I ever seen or heard.  Jim Crow, Rosa Parks, Selma, the Civil Rights movement, the Watts Riots, the March on Washington.  Does that really sound like "things were looking up"? I don't see any way LBJ made that "worse".
The fact that the War on Poverty hasn't achieved complete success yet is due more to Reagan and conservative resistance than LBJ.  Nixon was lukewarm to it, though he did care for HeadStart and promoted the formation of Housing and Urban Development after LBJ signed it into law late in his final term.
Reagan?  Ever the pivotal moment when "me-ness" and "meanness" became political philosophy. "Ketchup as a vegetable"? He successfully scared a generation of working class whites into believing it was first blacks then latino immigrants who were stealing the American Dream and not the wild, woolly deregulation he pushed through to let "Greed...is good" be our new economic policy.
It is Supply side that's failed. It failed the black neighborhoods as well as the white ones because no one ever required anything in return for all of the breaks the "wealth creators" were given.

[Ben Shockley]

I have however watched Liberal policies destroy black neighborhoods...  Before LBJs 'War on Poverty' the people in those neighborhoods were god-fearing religious people who valued education, built small businesses, had intact families, crime was nearly nonexistent, there were nearby factories and other businesses that provided jobs.  Society was vibrant, things were finally looking up. 
50 years later none of that is true.  It's all been ruined.

Sure.  And some people swear that shaving makes a beard grow stiffer.  Roosters think their crowing makes the Sun come up.  And so forth.
Apply logical time-ordering, and a little bit of Occam's Public-Policy Razor.  Why would policies under a "war on poverty" even be applied in such thriving communities as P*B confabulates?  Maybe P*B could get an Air Force job, claiming that the Roswell incident of 1947 was explained by stuff that started in 1957..?*

Oh, I do pay attention to the various studies and surveys that make the news...
I'm just saying that too often they don't 'seem' right based on everything else we know or have heard about the subject, and digging deeper into the study it's not uncommon to find the 'flaws'.

Translation: most studies done by scientific methods and reported by reputable sources don't jibe with P*B's preferred, 100%-right-wing propagandists; "flaws" must thus exist in the non-righty-partisan research, and right-wing pseudo-scholar shills are happy to come forth and toss out a few words of ostensibly-scientific jargon to mystify and reassure the faithful that everything is as they have always been told and have believed.

The Federal government is the worst.  The way they calculate inflation, the increase in the cost of living, how they define 'poverty', how they determine the unemployment rate... How they estimate the amount of fraud in their programs.  Their estimates of the cost of a project.  The vey rosy assumptions they make to project future return on investment for their pension funds.

Obviously, any or all must be bullshit whenever they don't agree with what people like P*B 1) have always been told, and/or 2) want to believe about the future in order to make Obama or any other hated political figure go down in history as a failure.

The Media is just as bad when they report on it without comment.  They either know better or ought to know better.

Translation: for P*B, all news and commentary should always bracket the name of any Democratic politician or any Liberal-leaning public figure between the phrases "notable America-hater" and "who deserves summary lynching."

Then there are the 'polls' they conveniently provide during election cycles.  They commission a poll, with results biased to show 'their' candidates doing better than they actually are.  They then make their biased poll a story of it's own.

You mean like ol' "Never Say Die" Karl Rove, who, on election night 2012, just KNEW that Ohio was in the bag for Romney and kept holding out for the numbers to change --like they were supposed to!-- right?  You mean like various posters in here, who back before November 2012 were COCKSURE that we Democratic-voting types were just (to quote my old pal, Sardondi) "whistling past the graveyard?"  Those stalwart Republican True Believers had access to the real data, ya see, in the form of "non-biased polls;" but them dirty, biased Democratic pollsters, ya see, had it all wrong, and Romney was going to win in the Mother of All Landslides.
Except he didn't.  Turns out that them biased, dumb-ass pollsters who refused to kowtow to Republican Myopic Zeal had it right.  Yeah, Sardondi, old buddy: someone was whistling past the electoral graveyard in late 2012, but it wasn't my side.

I don't think I have to say much about various non-government organizations commissioning their own studies and shaping those to get the desired results.

Right; see above.


* By the way, just accepting P*B's vision for a moment: how did the "war on poverty" make factories and businesses disappear?  Why would it?  (Aside from just--you know: the pure meanness of goddamn Liberals..?)
P*B, if, for an explanation, you want to invoke "Democratic conspiracy" designed to foster dependency on the nanny state: explain for us why you are savvy to this now, yet no stalwart Republican was either savvy to it in the 1960s and/or never came forth to blow the whistle on such immoral, politically-game-changing shenanigans.

[PB the Deplorable]

... how did the "war on poverty" make factories and businesses disappear?  Why would it?...

Jobs and businesses disappeared because of the high crime that came with fatherless boys and soft-on-crime/pro-criminal policies, ever more business taxes that Libs imposed when they came to power in the big cities, ever more red tape and nuisance regulations.  I think everyone knows the Libs are hostile to business.  Why would a business choose to locate in that environment, or stay?  Why continue to repair their store front every time Occupy or their predecessors decide to trash and loot them? So we end up with blocks of empty store fronts and office buildings, and boarded up store fronts in the neighborhoods where small businesses used to be.

I don't know what the rest of he country is like, but the good people of Berkeley have agitated to run factories out of town over the years and keep new businesses out.  Whenever a new store - especially the 'big box' stores or restaurant chains - want to open in SF, Oakland, or Berkeley they are vehemently opposed.  I'm not really a fan of those places being everywhere either, but they do create local jobs.

There is a little town - Emeryville - bordered by Oakland on one side and Berkeley on the other.  The big box stores, chain restaurants, and other businesses have located there.  They are rolling in sales tax revenue, while their neighboring cities are constantly whining about a lack of funds and jobs.  That's how it works around here.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Translation: most studies done by scientific methods and reported by reputable sources don't jibe with P*B's preferred, 100%-right-wing propagandists; "flaws" must thus exist in the non-righty-partisan research, and right-wing pseudo-scholar shills are happy to come forth and toss out a few words of ostensibly-scientific jargon to mystify and reassure the faithful that everything is as they have always been told and have believed.Obviously, any or all must be bullshit whenever they don't agree with what people like P*B 1) have always been told, and/or 2) want to believe about the future in order to make Obama or any other hated political figure go down in history as a failure...

You ought to consider taking a Statistics class.  It might open your eyes a little and make you a bit skeptical too.  You would at least know what questions to ask and recognize clear intention to deceive.  There are certainly studies put out that are honest, maybe even most of them.  But not all of them, not by a long shot.  I gave you the short list of who is mostly lying, and what they are lying about.  I probably should have added the people insisting any climate change is man made.

If you want to expand what I said to actual reputable sources using true scientific method be my guest, but you said that, not me.

A few objective Economics courses wouldn't hurt you either.

... "You mean like ol' "Never Say Die" Karl Rove, who, on election night 2012, just KNEW that Ohio was in the bag for Romney and kept holding out for the numbers to change --like they were supposed to!-- right?  You mean like various posters in here, who back before November 2012 were COCKSURE that we Democratic-voting types were just (to quote my old pal, Sardondi) "whistling past the graveyard?"  Those stalwart Republican True Believers had access to the real data, ya see, in the form of "non-biased polls;" but them dirty, biased Democratic pollsters, ya see, had it all wrong, and Romney was going to win in the Mother of All Landslides...

You use one election as an example when the Media pollsters got one right?  I could give you dozens where thy were clearly manipulating the numbers during the campaign. 

One recurring strategy is to show the Dem waay ahead months and weeks before the election, then as election day gets closer so do their polls.  A day or a few days before the election, when most voters have made up their minds, suddenly the polls tighten - it's because their polling ability is judged on their final poll (the earlier polls are all forgotten) and that is what is compared to the final result.  They get to manipulate public opinion for months, yet still come in fairly accurately at the end.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Your memories of black neighborhoods 50 years ago don't jibe with anything I ever seen or heard.  Jim Crow, Rosa Parks, Selma, the Civil Rights movement, the Watts Riots, the March on Washington...

I've never been to the South.  I don't disagree things were worse there - a lot worse.  And I realize racism wasn't limited to the South either.

All I'm saying is things were on an upward trend - how else do you explain the various bi-partisan Civil Rights Laws passed in the late 50s and early 60s.  Even the D's realized segregation wasn't a winning issue for them anymore.  Positive change wasn't good enough or fast enough - it never is.  It all came to a head and erupted across the nation. 

But regardless of any of that, before the 'War on Poverty', black America had intact families, education was valued, crime was low, small businesses ownership was common, there was a thriving vibrant culture.

That still exists in the run down, low income, parts of town (whatever you want to call those neighborhoods).  It's just that the violence, dependency, unemployment, addiction, blight, despair and the rest that is common now were nearly non-existent before.

... The fact that the War on Poverty hasn't achieved complete success yet is due more to Reagan and conservative resistance than LBJ...

Reagan?  Ever the pivotal moment when "me-ness" and "meanness" became political philosophy. "Ketchup as a vegetable"? He successfully scared a generation of working class whites into believing it was first blacks then latino immigrants who were stealing the American Dream and not the wild, woolly deregulation he pushed through to let "Greed...is good" be our new economic policy.

It is Supply side that's failed. It failed the black neighborhoods as well as the white ones because no one ever required anything in return for all of the breaks the "wealth creators" were given.

This is all BS. 

Carter was such a failure, and Reagan came along and put the country back on track after the Vietnam War, Watergate, Stagflation, the energy crisis, hideous foreign policy - the D's said couldn't be done.  And they never forgave him for it.

Now we're looking at the Carterization of Obama, and the same people who hate Reagan for his success are supporting Obama and his Carteresque policies every step of the way.   

[NowhereInTime]

I've never been to the South.  I don't disagree things were worse there - a lot worse.  And I realize racism wasn't limited to the South either.

All I'm saying is things were on an upward trend - how else do you explain the various bi-partisan Civil Rights Laws passed in the late 50s and early 60s.  Even the D's realized segregation wasn't a winning issue for them anymore.  Positive change wasn't good enough or fast enough - it never is.  It all came to a head and erupted across the nation. 

But regardless of any of that, before the 'War on Poverty', black America had intact families, education was valued, crime was low, small businesses ownership was common, there was a thriving vibrant culture.

That still exists in the run down, low income, parts of town (whatever you want to call those neighborhoods).  It's just that the violence, dependency, unemployment, addiction, blight, despair and the rest that is common now were nearly non-existent before.






This is all BS. 

Carter was such a failure, and Reagan came along and put the country back on track after the Vietnam War, Watergate, Stagflation, the energy crisis, hideous foreign policy - the D's said couldn't be done.  And they never forgave him for it.

Now we're looking at the Carterization of Obama, and the same people who hate Reagan for his success are supporting Obama and his Carteresque policies every step of the way.   

BS.  Ok.
Except I don't see how the country got put back on track.  Oh, I see how rampant mergers and acquisitions helped profits soar by offshoring jobs, junk bond thievery and insider trading made billionaires, the savings and loan debacle (looking at you, John McCain) , and explosive deficit spending on a massive military buildup boosted the overall wealth of Reagan's political co-hort, but where was the "trickle down?" 
I lived the 80's, they were, essentially, my formative decade.  I saw relatives in upstate New York lose valuable plant jobs and the affiliated jobs that supported the community in Syracuse, NY.  I saw my father make money for his corporate masters (to be fair, some for himself) by "re-marketing" expired lease and repossession goods, but not really any new products or services to the economy.
You know the issues by now; the stagnation of wages,  the massive separation of wealth between the owners and the rest of us, the degradation of earning power through the artificial spiking of commodity prices (and conservatives dismissing it to "what the market will bear").
No, Reagan is the reason we are the nation we are now, with so few "haves" and so many "have nots".  Some, like yourself, did well under his darwinistic economics while most of us kept faith he was doing things for the greater good and were left behind.

[onan]

Call me marxist all day long, but leverage of wealth and power from the worker to those that make it easy to profit from non-work are the truest form of criminal.

[Yorkshire pud]

Call me marxist all day long, but leverage of wealth and power from the worker to those that make it easy to profit from non-work are the truest form of criminal.

Reagan followed what Thatcher did in the UK. I've said what she did several times in the past. Some places in the UK are still dead as a direct result. We're stil paying through the nose with the contracts and sell offs her government implemented; The precious tax payer who is a hallowed creature was strangely the milche cow when it came to stumping up the readies to finance the fall out. It was all forewarned and the prophets of doom who were proved right were (and still are) the unions, the 'leftist' concerns who predicted what would happen. Yet the media at the time in Thatchers back pocket denounced those same voices, yet haven't apologised as they run stories that support those past prophecies. There's no such thing as 'trickle down' economics. Instead the very rich get very very rich and make sure their wealth stays offshore, and the not so poor before are now poor, and the poor are just the garbage. An embarrassing but tolerable blight who had no voice, still haven't and probably never will.
I guess that makes them Marxists too.

[FightTheFuture]

Maggie Thatcher SAVED Britain from disaster.  Britain was on her knees gasping for air when Thatcher came along to render CPR to a dying economy suffocating under 80% tax rate and an unholy government monopoly of most industries and utilities. Anybody over 50 years old fully appreciates the greatness of Thatcher, OR they might be an old public sector union hack, reliving the "commie-light" glory days of, ostensibly, unlimited access to other people`s money.

[Yorkshire pud]

Maggie Thatcher SAVED Britain from disaster.  Britain was on her knees gasping for air when Thatcher came along to render CPR to a dying economy suffocating under 80% tax rate and an unholy government monopoly of most industries and utilities. Anybody over 50 years old fully appreciates the greatness of Thatcher, OR they might be an old public sector union hack, reliving the "commie-light" glory days of, ostensibly, unlimited access to other people`s money.

I'm over 50, I lived through it. If you sincerely believe that the taxpayer should buy back in a cheap flotation what already belongs to them; i.e. Privatisation of Railways, Electricity generators and suppliers, gas suppliers, water companies, steel production, and many others, then you have a strange outlook...The upshot is that twenty five or so years later NONE of the above is in British hands. With the sole exception of one railway company that had to be taken back into public hands because the private companies that had ripped it out went bust; Twice. The funny part of course is the 'private' companies take more in taxpayer subsidies than the network ever did since it was nationalised post war. If they didn't, they would literally close tomorrow. The rolling stock is leased from German or French companies (because the rail operators are too--France and Germany have nationalised railways, both very efficient and both far cheaper than ours) and the profits go back to the respective head offices in France and Germany. The contracts (drawn up by Thatcher's government) have to be honoured because the franchises are twenty years long, the companies wouldn't have bothered otherwise; But they were smart enough to have get out clauses for them, if it went pear shaped.

Gas is foreign, as are all the electric companies, as are the water companies, because once on the stock exchange it's open to all. Meaning all the profits go abroad, thousands lose their jobs and assets are stripped. ..Yep..Thatcher was a real saviour! (If you happen to believe ripping the guts out is salvation)

[Foodlion]

All I've got to say is good riddence. NFL is runned by a bunch of loons in Congress anyways. Let's go back to the days of Dogpiles and leather helmets! That's when the sport was genuine.

[Foodlion]

Call me marxist all day long, but leverage of wealth and power from the worker to those that make it easy to profit from non-work are the truest form of criminal.

Reminds me of Internships, which I find as a view of slavery. Another thing wrong with this world.

[PB the Deplorable]

Reminds me of Internships, which I find as a view of slavery. Another thing wrong with this world.

They typically come with little applicable skills and leave with a few months of valuable experience which should lead to a good job, is that what slavery was all about?

[onan]

They typically come with little applicable skills and leave with a few months of valuable experience which should lead to a good job, is that what slavery was all about?

Doing work even in an OJT mode, there are certain skills that are brought to the table. If I am interning as a medical professional my day to day skills are probably not as important. But an intern at a radio station, verbal skills, office skills, and how to make coffee are part of the package and should be compensated. Is it slavery? obviously no. But it stinks and is abusive.

[PB the Deplorable]

Call me marxist all day long, but leverage of wealth and power from the worker to those that make it easy to profit from non-work are the truest form of criminal.

Of course those workers weren't around when the company started - they didn't risk their savings, go through the early years when the company struggled and lost money or barely broke even, didn't put in the 10-15 hours a day 7 days a week during that time.

No, they should just show up currently, get their salaries regardless of cash flow or profits, then claim their share of the profits.


Should they also kick in a few bucks if the company loses money?  Didn't think so.



It seems strange to me that the people who obsess over successful people never seem concerned about government excess.  They don't turn down bonuses or raises for themselves either, but that's another story. 

At least business provide the goods and services people want.  The government takes more, spends more, wastes more, provides worse service (if we can even call it that).  They pass or decree arbitrary rules for us to follow, and steal our Liberty piece by piece.  They are the greedy, the insatiable, always clamoring for more taxes and increases in the taxes we already have.  If we need something they provide, we must go through them regardless of cost or level of service - in the private sector we can just go to the competition (unless it's a monopoly like the water company).

But the same people who just rail about business never say a word about this much larger menace.  And the worse it gets, the more they support it (see:  Obama and ObamaCare)

[onan]

Of course those workers weren't around when the company started - they didn't risk their savings, go through the early years when the company struggled and lost money or barely broke even, didn't put in the 10-15 hours a day 7 days a week during that time.

No, they should just show up currently, get their salaries regardless of cash flow or profits, then claim their share of the profits.


Should they also kick in a few bucks if the company loses money?  Didn't think so.



It seems strange to me that the people who obsess over successful people never seem concerned about government excess.  They don't turn down bonuses or raises for themselves either, but that's another story. 

At least business provide the goods and services people want.  The government takes more, spends more, wastes more, provides worse service (if we can even call it that).  They pass or decree arbitrary rules for us to follow, and steal our Liberty piece by piece.  They are the greedy, the insatiable, always clamoring for more taxes and increases in the taxes we already have.  If we need something they provide, we must go through them regardless of cost or level of service - in the private sector we can just go to the competition (unless it's a monopoly like the water company).

But the same people who just rail about business never say a word about this much larger menace.  And the worse it gets, the more they support it (see:  Obama and ObamaCare)

First off, that has nothing to do with investments that bring monies that are not worked for, and take away the earnings that should go to the worker.

Second, I can't count the times people I have known have shown up for work and been locked out due to improprieties of management, so fuck your assertion that workers don't take risks. They do and often times aren't anywhere near fortunate enough to make an investment to start their own business.

But my post had much more to do with those that hedge markets to increase their wealth at the expense of those of much lesser means. and if you are one of those I want to castrate your sorry ass.

[PB the Deplorable]

... and should be compensated...

They ARE compensated.  They get work experience.  And a grade.  It's part of what we used to call 'paying their dues'.

A company typically loses money on just about any new hire at any level in an office environment for the first several months of employment - it takes time for everyone to get up to speed and be productive.  That certainly applies to interns.

I'm sure there are abuses - and people can leave, but for most it's very beneficial.  No one is forcing anyone to do anything, yet someone somewhere will probably be clamoring for the government to meddle.  And end up killing the internship experience because when it comes down to it, the interns aren't actually needed.

Is there anything anywhere the government should not get involved with?

[onan]

They ARE compensated.  They get work experience.  And a grade.  It's part of what we used to call 'paying their dues'.

A company typically loses money on just about any new hire at any level in an office environment for the first several months of employment - it takes time for everyone to get up to speed and be productive.  That certainly applies to interns.

I'm sure there are abuses - and people can leave, but for most it's very beneficial.  No one is forcing anyone to do anything, yet someone somewhere will probably be clamoring for the government to meddle.  And end up killing the internship experience because when it comes down to it, the interns aren't actually needed.

Is there anything anywhere the government should not get involved with?

I didn't say a thing about government. I said it is abusive. You disagree.

I said compensated as in paid.

[PB the Deplorable]

... But my post had much more to do with those that hedge markets to increase their wealth at the expense of those of much lesser means. and if you are one of those I want to castrate your sorry ass.

'Leverage wealth and power' can apply to any business owner.

[Ben Shockley]

You ought to consider taking a Statistics class.  It might open your eyes a little and make you a bit skeptical too.  You would at least know what questions to ask...

How staggeringly presumptuous.   You really ought to pay more attention to the clues I've fed you over lo these months and years.
P*B, I've had more stats and research-methods classes (Master's and Doctoral) than most 100 random people you'd meet, combined.  I've taught research methods.  I've performed or been involved in most stages of design, analysis, and interpretive reporting of funded quantitative research.

You're showing a troubling tendency lately to assume that any and all "experience" inevitably produces a right-wing mindset.  Like your line a few days ago about those who would question your logic "not knowing how the world works;" now you turn up with the implication that any minimal training in stats ("a class") will inevitably lead to a person interpreting quantitative research in a way amenable to your political beliefs.

It just doesn't quite work that way, and certainly not in anything like an inevitable fashion.

A few objective Economics courses wouldn't hurt you either.

Maybe.  I have never claimed any particular expertise in Economics.  But most significant, in your recommendation, is that snide little adjective "objective."  I'd be fascinated, but probably not surprised, to know what about a class would make P*B consider it "objective."  Maybe it being taught at Liberty "University" or some other right-wing sewer..?

[Mind Flayer Monk]

If we need something they provide, we must go through them regardless of cost or level of service - in the private sector we can just go to the competition (unless it's a monopoly like the water company).

But the same people who just rail about business never say a word about this much larger menace.  And the worse it gets, the more they support it (see:  Obama and ObamaCare)

There is no more private sector. Every company is in the government business. I spend at least 25% of my time managing some aspect of dealing with the government.

[Ben Shockley]

Maggie Thatcher SAVED Britain from disaster. 

Yep..Thatcher was a real saviour! (If you happen to believe ripping the guts out is salvation)

Quite obviously, and not surprisingly, FTF has a very value-skewed image of "salvation" and the "disaster" he asserts was the alternative.
I'm reminded of the line supposedly uttered by the U.S. Army officer to a reporter, after forcibly evacuating and then razing a Vietnamese village, about having to "destroy the village in order to save it."  That bespoke a mindset that held that there are worse things than being de-housed and trundled off at gunpoint by foreign troops: namely, having a government that flies the wrong-colored flag.  Better dead than red!
In FTF's case, we see his belief that an

80% tax rate... and... government monopoly of most industries and utilities... [and the existence of] public sector unions

were worse than anything that has befallen Britain since then.  Never mind that the tax money was being used for the public commons, and industry and utilities were nationalized to similarly maximize the public benefit, and that the presence of unions improves the conditions for all labor.  The fact that there weren't enough individuals getting filthy rich off the process, and that FTF could discern enough of whatever it takes for him to characterize British government and society as "commie-light," are reason enough in FTF's mind to have burned the whole place down.
But remember: it was to "save it."  Better dead than red, baby!!
Or, since FTF allows that Britain was only "commie-light," better dead than pink!!

[Ben Shockley]

Now we're looking at the Carterization of Obama, and the same people who hate Reagan for his success are supporting Obama and his Carteresque policies every step of the way.   

I just recently had to educate FTF about this.  You can't successfully insult someone by associating them with someone or something they like.  And you can't tar Person A's image (no pun intended) among a given audience by associating him with Person B if the audience likes Person B.

In other words, P*B, the only people you're going to turn against Obama by associating him with Jimmy Carter are people who hate Carter; but I would gladly venture that people who hate Jimmy Carter probably already hate Obama.  Got that?
So keep on saying that Obama is like Carter.  Your side already hates them both, so you're adding no new converts there.  My side likes both --Carter more than Obama, for most folks-- so you're building Obama's cred on this side.
Preach on, P*B!