| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Goosehead |
|||
|
shit. lost my post. don't care.
|
|||
finishthemoff |
|||
Gregoire wrote: That is not a very nice thing to say about her last born. Her age probably had to do with it. |
|||
AllMenAreIslands |
|||
|
Okay. Quick answers here. No more long drawn out replies to you people.
blockhose wrote: As for those who do get the most assistance from welfare and other gov't programs - they get it because the system has not worked well for them.Because they need it, right? Really, people... just how nonsensical is it to walk around with plenty of cash, investments, retirement, and your kids educations covered, and complain because you gotta fork out some dough so the poor sap on the other side of town can eat for the week? Sounds kinda selfish and assholish, don't it? You know why is sounds that way? Because it IS.You sound REALLY assholish here. And don't fucking even start with me about the poor being lazy leeches. The vast majority who rely on gov't assistance would gladly move up the freaking income ladder on their own if they had the means.They're mostly lazy leeches. The means are there and they can't be bothered to do the work. If it helps you any, consider the extra taxes the rich pay as maintaining the system that allowed them to be rich in the first place. |
|||
CanIBreathe |
|||
|
lookit piper
|
|||
CanIBreathe |
|||
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2TC1ztefVzOiXeCNcmY7lIelBNwD93JRMQ81 Palin says Obama 'palling around' with terroristsPalin whose undergoing an ethics violation herself....hmmmmm. glass house murch???
Last Edited By: CanIBreathe
10/04/08 4:02 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
CanIBreathe |
|||
|
NYT: Connection between Ayers and Obama is weak
Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths By SCOTT SHANE Published: October 3, 2008 CHICAGO - At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol. Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama's first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors. Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama, the Democratic senator, in his bid for the presidency. Video clips on YouTube, including a new advertisement that was broadcast on Friday, juxtapose Mr. Obama's face with the young Mr. Ayers or grainy shots of the bombings. In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, asked, "How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?" More recently, conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers, whom the candidate has dismissed as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and "somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know." A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know
both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr.
Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago,
when I was 8."
Obama campaign aides said the Ayers relationship had been greatly exaggerated by opponents to smear the candidate. "The suggestion that Ayers was a political adviser to Obama or someone who shaped his political views is patently false," said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman. Mr. LaBolt said the men first met in 1995 through the education project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and have encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood. He said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park. In the stark presentation of a 30-second advertisement or a television clip, Mr. Obama's connections with a man who once bombed buildings and who is unapologetic about it may seem puzzling. But in Chicago, Mr. Ayers has largely been rehabilitated. Federal riot and bombing conspiracy charges against him were dropped in 1974 because of illegal wiretaps and other prosecutorial misconduct, and he was welcomed back after years in hiding by his large and prominent family. His father, Thomas G. Ayers, had served as chief executive of Commonwealth Edison, the local power company. Since earning a doctorate in education at Columbia in 1987, Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform. "He's done a lot of good in this city and nationally," Mayor Richard M. Daley said in an interview this week, explaining that he has long consulted Mr. Ayers on school issues. Mr. Daley, whose father was Chicago's mayor during the street violence accompanying the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the so-called Days of Rage the following year, said he saw the bombings of that time in the context of a polarized and turbulent era. "This is 2008," Mr. Daley said. "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life." That attitude is widely shared in Chicago, but it is not universal. Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, defended Mr. Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his longtime pastor, whose black liberation theology and "God damn America" sermon became notorious last spring. But he denounced Mr. Obama for associating with Mr. Ayers, whom he said the University of Illinois should never have hired. "I don't think there's a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings," Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications. "If you're in public life, you ought to say, 'I don't want to be associated with this guy,' " Mr. Chapman said. "If John McCain had a long association with a guy who'd bombed abortion clinics, I don't think people would say, 'That's ancient history.' " Mr. Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, a clinical associate professor at Northwestern University Law School who was also a Weather Underground founder, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Schools Project The Ayers-Obama connection first came to public attention last spring, when both Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama's Democratic primary rival, and Mr. McCain brought it up. It became the subject of a television advertisement in August by the anti-Obama American Issues Project and drew new attention recently on The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page and elsewhere as the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge at the University of Illinois were opened to researchers. That project was part of a national school reform effort financed with $500 million from Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher and philanthropist and President Richard M. Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom. Many cities applied for the Annenberg money, and Mr. Ayers joined two other local education activists to lead a broad, citywide effort that won nearly $50 million for Chicago. In March 1995, Mr. Obama became chairman of the six-member board that oversaw the distribution of grants in Chicago. Some bloggers have recently speculated that Mr. Ayers had engineered that post for him. In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama's appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said. Ms. Graham said she invited Mr. Obama to dinner at an Italian restaurant in Chicago and was impressed. "At the end of the dinner I said, 'I really want you to be chairman.' He said, 'I'll do it if you'll be vice chairman,' " Ms. Graham recalled, and she agreed. Archives of the Chicago Annenberg project, which funneled the money to networks of schools from 1995 to 2000, show both men attended six board meetings early in the project - Mr. Obama as chairman, Mr. Ayers to brief members on school issues. It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama's home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama's current house. "If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack," Rabbi Wolf said. He said he had known Mr. Ayers for decades but added, "Bill's mad at me because I told a reporter he's a toothless ex-radical." "It was kind of a nasty shot," Mr. Wolf said. "But it's true. For God's sake, he's a professor." Other Connections In 1997, after Mr. Obama took office, the new state senator was asked what he was reading by The Chicago Tribune. He praised a book by Mr. Ayers, "A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court," which Mr. Obama called "a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system." In 2001, Mr. Ayers donated $200 to Mr. Obama's re-election campaign. In addition, from 2000 to 2002, the two men also overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charity that had supported Mr. Obama's first work as a community organizer in the 1980s. Officials there said the board met about a dozen times during those three years but declined to make public the minutes, saying they wanted members to be candid in assessing people and organizations applying for grants. A board member at the time, R. Eden Martin, a corporate lawyer and president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, described both men as conscientious in examining proposed community projects but could recall nothing remarkable about their dealings with each other. "You had people who were liberal and some who were pretty conservative, but we usually reached a consensus," Mr. Martin said of the panel. Since 2002, there is little public evidence of their relationship. If by then the ambitious politician was trying to keep his distance, it would not be a surprise. In an article that by chance was published on Sept. 11, 2001, The New York Times wrote about Mr. Ayers and his just-published memoir, "Fugitive Days," opening with a quotation from the author: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Three days after the Qaeda attacks, Mr. Ayers wrote a reply posted on his Web site to clarify his quoted remarks, saying the meaning had been distorted. "My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy," he wrote. But he added that the Weathermen had "showed remarkable restraint" given the nature of the American bombing campaign in Vietnam that they were trying to stop. Most of the bombs the Weathermen were blamed for had been placed to do only property damage, a fact Mr. Ayers emphasizes in his memoir. But a 1970 pipe bomb in San Francisco attributed to the group killed one police officer and severely hurt another. An accidental 1970 explosion in a Greenwich Village town house basement killed three radicals; survivors later said they had been making nail bombs to detonate at a military dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey. And in 1981, in an armed robbery of a Brinks armored truck in Nanuet, N.Y., that involved Weather Underground members including Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, two police officers and a Brinks guard were killed. In his memoir, Mr. Ayers was evasive as to which bombings he had a hand in, writing that "some details cannot be told." By the time of the Brinks robbery, he and Ms. Dohrn had emerged from underground to raise their two children, then Chesa Boudin, whose parents were imprisoned for their role in the heist. Little Influence Seen Mr. Obama's friends said that history was utterly irrelevant to judging the candidate, because Mr. Ayers was never a significant influence on him. Even some conservatives who know Mr. Obama said that if he was drawn to Ayers-style radicalism, he hid it well. "I saw no evidence of a radical streak, either overt or covert, when we were together at Harvard Law School," said Bradford A. Berenson, who worked on the Harvard Law Review with Mr. Obama and who served as associate White House counsel under President Bush. Mr. Berenson, who is backing Mr. McCain, described his fellow student as "a pragmatic liberal" whose moderation frustrated others at the law review whose views were much farther to the left. Some 15 years later, left-leaning backers of Mr. Obama have the same complaint. "We're fully for Obama, but we disagree with some of his stands," said Tom Hayden, the 1960s activist and former California legislator, who helped organize Progressives for Obama. His group opposes the candidate's call for sending more troops to Afghanistan, for instance, "because we think it's a quagmire just like Iraq," he said. "A lot of our work is trying to win over progressives who think Obama is too conservative." Mr. Hayden, 68, said he has known Mr. Ayers for 45 years and was on the other side of the split in the radical antiwar movement that led Mr. Ayers and others to form the Weathermen. But Mr. Hayden said he saw attempts to link Mr. Obama with bombings and radicalism as "typical campaign shenanigans." "If Barack Obama says he's willing to talk to foreign leaders without preconditions," Mr. Hayden said, "I can imagine he'd be willing to talk to Bill Ayers about schools. But I think that's about as far as their relationship goes." http://www.nytimes.com/20...s/polit...p;th&emc=th |
|||
Vicconius |
|||
|
Well... that's more association with terrorists then I have... or most of the posters here.
And Piper is baddass. |
|||
Goosehead |
|||
|
You know things must be bad when young, white middle-class kids are pissed enough to start bombing things for political reasons.
|
|||
Gregoire |
|||
Well... that's more association with terrorists then I have... How do you know what all the people you associate with do? I'm sure Timothy McVeigh had lots of friends. |
|||
Goosehead |
|||
|
AMAI wrote:
The proof that taxation does not work is plentiful. The rich actually do not benefit most from the State welfare system. The rich pay privately for what they want in addition to being forced to contribute to the welfare state. The welfare state does not achieve its goals, because those directly affected have no control over how the money is spent. Someone else is spending someone else's money - how many more people need to fall thru the cracks for you to understand that? I disagree completely with this assertion: "modern capitalism by its own logic of the need for increased rates of profit requires a pool of desperate labourers, a large part of whom will be chronically underemployed or unemployed." That is not capitalism's own demand, but the demand of bureaucrats seeking to grab money via tax. Anyone who understands how economics really work knows that there are cycles where the economy expands and then contracts. I read an article that likened the process to breathing - inhaling and exhaling. What the government fears is the exhalation portion of the cycle, because that is when the errors in the market are recognized and corrected. Government tries to "save jobs" rather than letting the market find new work for those workers and new uses for those resources. Let's take a for instance. A product like typewriters, for example. For years and years, typewriters have been THE office staple. They reached their heyday and then suddenly, everyone was getting personal computers. Instead of 50 typewriters in an office with 50 typists, now you might have one typewriter for occasional use like filling in a pre-printed form, or quickly typing an envelope, or that one person who never learned to use a computer. So what happens to the manufacturers of typewriters? That company - IBM, or whoever - has to find a new use for the manufacturing equipment, new jobs for the employees previously employed making typewriters, new uses for the raw materials from which typewriters are made. If IBM doesn't do those things, i.e., correct its business to address the change in the market, then it will be out of business. The longer it puts off making those corrections, the worse off it will be. As we know, IBM acted fairly swiftly to change direction, and was for a long time a leader with the IBM PC. Government just looks at the "jobs lost" by the change in office procedures, and tries to save the typewriter industry with taxes on computers, and quotas of typewriters which by law everyone must purchase. So gov't gets in the way of progress and makes it that much more difficult for IBM to find a new line of products and for offices to use their resources in the most efficient way possible. I'm not saying the government did this in this industry - but that's what has happened time & again in many industries. Unions join in, trying to hang onto obsolete jobs. When coercion is permitted, everyone loses, including the workers in whose name the gov't and unions are struggling to keep things the same as before. When coercion is prohibited, the market is allowed to operate and businesses able to alter their operations to respond to the market. You see the government's role as protecting property, contracts and negative rights, a la Locke and Smith, I see government's role as providing positive rights like healthcare, housing, and education, and preventing the cyclical crises of capitalism that are endemic to capitalism. That being said, I'm quite a strict libertarian when it comes to individual decisions that are not crucial matters of the public good. And I HATE it when the state become paternalist/moralising in these situations. So I'm a socialist when it comes to absolute basic needs, I'm a libertarian when it comes to individual decisions that don't really affect others, and I am a bit of an anarchist when I hear about workers being exploited.I see the government protecting everyone's right to freedom from coercion. I do not agree that anyone has a right to health care, housing and/or education. These services/goods are not anyone's by right. Sorry but no. Having the right to trade with others is what you have (or should have.) If you have a right to housing, that means others by law must provide you with it. You have the right to build a house, or to buy a house offered for sale, or to rent a house, but no "right to housing" which involves someone else having the duty to provide you with it. Similarly, you have the right to educate yourself and your children, as well as to trade with others for those services, but no right to force others to provide you and your children with education (or health care.) Just because these are vital products/services does not (or rather, should not) remove the necessity of reaching agreement without coercion as to how they will be delivered. You cannot eradicate the cycles of capitalism. I discussed this in the previous section. It was a simplified example, to be sure, but just to give an idea. Calling the cycles "crises" is according them more power than they should have. In fact, it is government intervention that turns a situation INTO a crisis, when without the interference a company would make adjustments much faster and with as little disruption to the workplace as possible. Dealing with changes in one's job is something more people should be prepared for, rather than prepared to strike against and whine about. Workers being exploited? It's another "buyer beware" situation, you know. Employers offer jobs, and workers can decide whether the conditions of employment suit them. In a free society, you have the choice to seek elsewhere, as well as to set up your own shop. What our species needs is freedom from coercion. Let me ask you this, however, why are you so opposed to this North American Union idea? Is it not national borders that pose the greatest threat to free trade due to tariffs and subsidies? If this Union was similar to the EU, wouldn't it in principle mean a much greater number of people living in a situation in which labour and capital had more freedom of movement?In principle, yes. Unfortunately, it is government intervention itself that poses the greatest threat. A larger bureaucracy - that of the NAU itself - has to be paid for, does it not? So, more taxes of a different kind have to be levied. Given the current level of intervention and the natural tendency of a mixed economy to move more and more towards total government control, chances are that new barriers would be quietly erected even as others were being removed with much fanfare. On balance I don't trust the NAU to be in Canada's best interests. Dude, what the fuck are you going on about? Just a few things. We would need empirical data, but I image the rich use the services of the welfare state much more than you imagine. The idea that they pay for it, but never use it, seems ridiculously over-stated. In some contexts, the rich might actually use it more, because they understand what's available and how to access it better than the poor (just speculation on my part). But of course this all depends on what services we're talking about, and which countries. As for falling through the cracks, humans are not perfect and therefore their constructions are not perfect. You will never have a system without some poverty and social problems. Perfection only exists in utopias, whether libertarian or communist, and therefore by definition perfection doesn't exist. This leaves only a mixed economy. If we're talking about advanced, wealthy countries (i.e., not 'developing' ones), the question is what do you want socially from the welfare state? If the answer is a large middle class, low economic disparity, zero absolute poverty, and a relative lack of social insecurity, then it's clear that the Western European welfare state model is best. If you value economic freedom, negative rights, and individual liberty, then the American model is better, but you will always have a disproportionately high level of poverty and income disparity, i.e., more people at risk and sources of civil conflict between the rich and poor. As for rights, you say that humans don't have rights to positive goods like housing and healthcare, but they do have rights to personal liberty, etc. I'm sorry, but rights are human creations and so they can be whatever we collectively decide they are. Besides, without the positive rights that I imagine, many many people would have no access to the negative rights that you admire so. IMHO, your utopian libertarian vision is just as dangerous as Stalinist communism was. Luckily it will never exist, but the real present danger lies in pursuing it. |
|||
Fucking Sucks |
|||
|
One of the guys at my job is a recovering heroin addict.
Looks like my presidential ambition would be shot to shit because of my close association with junkies. |
|||
Goosehead |
|||
|
sorry about that wall of text, I don't understand how to selectively quote. Only AMAI will be interested in it anyway.
|
|||
SurvivorArctic |
|||
|
Then PM it to her so we don't have to suffer through her repeated ignorance. TIA
|
|||
Goosehead |
|||
|
I was considering that. Probably a good idea.
|
|||
AllMenAreIslands |
|||
Goosehead wrote:Indeed. Not middle class, but rich people, send their kids to private school, pay others to cook meals or eat out in restaurants, pay for their health care rather than wait in line. So do tell - what welfare are they taking advantage of? As for falling through the cracks, humans are not perfect and therefore their constructions are not perfect. You will never have a system without some poverty and social problems. Perfection only exists in utopias, whether libertarian or communist, and therefore by definition perfection doesn't exist. This leaves only a mixed economy. If we're talking about advanced, wealthy countries (i.e., not 'developing' ones), the question is what do you want socially from the welfare state?How about to get the fuck out of my face already? As for rights, you say that humans don't have rights to positive goods like housing and healthcare, but they do have rights to personal liberty, etc. I'm sorry, but rights are human creations and so they can be whatever we collectively decide they are.Sure they can. The difference with your idea of "rights" is you need a ready supply of suckers willing to overlook the fact that you ARE using coercion to get what you claim is your right. You don't want real liberty, you want to go on having the right to force others to take care of you. Good luck. |
|||
meatball77 |
|||
Quiddity wrote: Or is it that most that are rich are rich because they had parents and teachers that taught them the skills that are needed to be rich. They were provided with early education and good schools. Walk into a school in the suburbs and a school that's filled with kids at the poverty line and tell me that you really think that those kids have equal opportunity. |
|||
nomii |
|||
Vicconius wrote:hi |
|||
meatball77 |
|||
Quiddity wrote: Can I build the next nuclear plant next to your house. |
|||
AllMenAreIslands |
|||
SurvivorArctic wrote:Great. Instead we can listen to you? |
|||
finishthemoff |
|||
Gregoire wrote: It called "Appeasement" and "concession" Since when we ever had people like McVeigh attacked our homeland or even internationally? |
|||