Democratic Congresswoman almost killed in Arizona

[bush_cheney2004]

....Please forgive his complete ignorance. It's probably the first time he's paid attention to them. So the other similarly celebrated anniversaries for other President's probably went totally unnoticed. It's the typical anti-American, leftwinger Canadian.

Then it's a good thing he wasn't paying attention when President Reagan died in 2004, cause we pulled out all the stops for his state funeral. It was effing spectacular, right down to the setting sun in California.

Edited February 9, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

I don't know how closely you tie in with this conservative originalism that permeates rightwing talk in the U.S. these days, but I'm curious if you're aware of how strict the limits were for granting corporate charters in the newly created U.S. of A.? A proposed corporation had to provide a statement of intent to demonstrate how it would benefit the local community, and that charter was re-evaluated at regular intervals to determine if the corporation was meeting the obligations it had laid out. Corporations that had violated their terms of incorporation were dissolved. And corporations had a limited shelf life; they were not allowed to be created to exist forever, or until death through financial collapse as now. Over the decades, a succession of corporate-backed judges have knocked down one restriction after another, so that today, they have all of the rights of real persons, including free speech rights (through money apparently). Reclaim Democracy.org. Corporate Personhood

So, as a conservative, is this all okay by you? Are you fine with the continued growth of rights and power of artificial citizens, while the real ones are having their rights chipped away?

Corporations being granted "personhood" occurred in the late 1800's so didn't apply prior to that.

Rockefeller had a hand in establishing that so I suspect it has it's failings.

Corporations do tend to support Democrats more than Republicans as they know that Democrats will make legislation that regulates them, protecting them from competition and granting them a privileged place in the market. Republicans are more likely to allow more competition and less regulation.

I was reading the link you supplied and they are anti-corporate. I could support some of their position but their singular view of corporations as entirely concerned with profit and nothing else is something I can't take as serious. They do have to look at the effect of all policies on profit. Cuurrently, corporate image is important to profit. So they are concentrating on image - going green, giving back to the community, being socially and environmentally responsible, blah,blah,blah....all of that is a cost calculated to balance out in customer support and loyalty. All it does is increase the cost of doing business. The costs are paid out of increased prices to consumers. These types of things limit competition by making the cost of doing business too expensive for emergent and thus marginally profitable enterprises. All the regulation and licensing and requirements help the big corporations by limiting the competitive field. If you want fairness and equality in this area you have to stop protecting those that wish to limit their competition through the hoops and red tape of regulation.

It is in the interests of profit that they have lawyers and lobbyists to interpret and present legislative suggestions to politicians. Expensive lawyers and lobbyists and accountants that also add to costs passed on to consumers besides the less competitive field.

I think that poeple can see what corporations are doing if they support a political party. Actually, Unions are likely to support the corporate view politically as it benefits them. Of course, corporations don't always argue for more regulations. An established cartel may want less regulatory intrusion once their positions are well established in the market.

It's not growing much now, and if capitalism depends on year-over-year annual growth, then capitalism has to fall! I've raised this issue of limits to growth on environment threads, but the same problem exists here: our Earth isn't expanding to accommodate the wishes of a growing population with growing demand for resources. Both wishes are going to be denied in our near future, one way or another! The smart thing to do would be to start preparing now, instead of keeping this creaking old system going until it crashes.

Capitalism doesn't have to grow annually. It should be flexible enough to downsize if necessary. However, it isn't looked upon as a societal benefit as there is less emplyoment and less in tax revenues, hurting social entitlement liabilities that governments have promised to fund.

Maybe you don't consider it something to be concerned about, but the fact that 20% of the world's population uses 80% of its resources, while 80% of the world's people use 20% is neither fair nor something that can continue on indefinitely without some blowback.

It isn't a question of fairness but utilization of resources. And you are right it can't and won't continue on indefinitely.

A government that was willing to take a stand against globalization could have done it from the outset. Today, any government that threatens to pull out of GATT and other special free trade side deals is threatened with monetary collapse to keep playing ball. We have a world that the corporations built - where they exercise the real power over commerce and any governments that deny them are dealt with by the armies of their supporting governments.

And governments of course never made the deals in their interests for predictable and stable revenues for themselves to meet their own financial obligations. They must have corporations producing in order for them to realize their needs. Corporations know that and they play their cards to their benefit as anyone would expect a rational person to do. corporationsare also about doing business. This little side distraction of having to guess what governments are going to do to extract the level of revenues they need to operate is very inefficient.

You didn't know this? Most third world countries' natural resources are owned by large multinational corporations.

I don't think so. Large multinational coroporations have contractual rights to exploration and extraction of resources but ownership for the most part is with the government. The US is probably one of the only countries in the world where private ownership of resources is allowed.

The nationalized companies, like some national oil companies, still have to play ball with the internationals to get their product to market. And, as we are finding out in all of the revelations on Egypt, regarding Mubarak and U.S. and European attempts to hand-pick his successor (this war criminal - Suleiman), most of the world's poor nations have some despot who is supported by the U.S. Regardless of all of the bleating about Saddam being a dictator, and restoring democracy to Iraq, in truth neither the U.S., nor other major Western powers and their multinational corporate interests, have any intentions of allowing democratic uprisings to overtake their chosen autocrat. Wikileaks revelations tell us that the U.S. State Dept. engineered the military coup in Honduras, against the democratically elected government for going against the agribusiness interests who own most of the nation's land. There's no mystery about who is working for whom in international intrigue!

Economics trumps virtue in most cases and governments subject to supplying entitlements to their citizens must meet their obligations so will help corporations to be able to operate and make a profit.

Where else will government be able to extract it's royalties, duties, taxes and tariffs from only from the profits of enterprise.

Don't know much about Cuba, but you need to explain to me why free trade, reduced taxation and deregulation hasn't resulted in prosperity for all -- the dramatic increase in income gaps here and in the U.S., looks the wealth gap in most third world countries; and the failure of these policies to bring the results they promised 30 years ago is one of the big reasons why I fell off the rightwing bandwagon.

Because governments can't kill the golden goose and must make up for shortfalls with increased fees, fines and levies against those who can least afford them. They have to offload some of their costs to the private sector such as in policing, health care and education. Parents are asked to supply more of the costs of education to their kids, there is a more critical look at what will be paid for under helaht care, and private security guards and other quasi-police forces are thriving.

The system is designed now to entrench wealth and even keep it in the same wealthy families, not to provide equal opportunities for all. One of the big reasons why this upward mobility as you present it should be in the fiction section, is that the real numbers are showing that upward mobility in the U.S. has declined dramatically over the last 20 years...just as all of these wonderful market and tax reforms have taken place. In a report put out last year that found upward mobility higher in Germany than in the U.S., one of the big reasons cited as a likely cause was the decline in public education in the U.S. All across America, local governments are cutting public school funding in low income neighbourhoods, as well as jacking up university tuition that even put state universities out of reach for all but the children from wealth and privilege. It's both sad and ironic that conservatives in the U.S. were working themselves into a frenzy about the 100 anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth....this same Reagan, as Governor of California, ended the policy of free university tuition at the Cal. State Universities. It's hard to believe now, that California, and some other states as well, were actually offering free post-secondary education, but that is a snapshot of why America went from a nation of declining income gaps after WWII to one now that is essentially at third world standards.

All public services will wind up being too costly and a downturn in the economy will only exacerbate those social problems with due to ecnomic shortfalls. The question is should the government have even committed itself to these liabilities in teh first place? Do they not see that they will be driving up costs because of it's monopolistic nature in delivering these services?

I live among them, do some volunteer work with them, and even have in-laws on the system, so yes I do know, and I know that most of them that can't or don't want to go back to work have a lot of things wrong with them that make them essentially unemployable anyway. The next question is: do we continue to offer a minimal support (which isn't much btw) or do we do like the social darwinists advise and cut them off to fend for themselves? It takes more than complaining about people on welfare, I want to hear what you would do about them.

of course they are unemployable. Victimhood is a self-prophesizing state.

What would I do? I am not an expert but they must in some manner have their self respect restored to them and thus enabled. They must reject the sympathy that holds them in and fosters their position as victims. They are probably not up to being responsible in any way for their state of affairs but they must not be told they have absolutley no responsiblity or they will never be able to say they are responsible for their state of affairs.

Do you have any idea how overloaded with cases the average social worker is? You think they're starving for business or something? They have lots of cases to deal with, so they are not going to try to stop someone from going back to work; that is totally absurd and beyond ridiculous.

It is not absurd or ridiculous. It is a great reason to demand more resources and higher pay and benefits.

This homily doesn't have anything to do with my question about what to do with the wealthiest members of society. Is it wrong to apply higher taxation rates, or apply an estate tax so that not all of the loot goes to their idiot children after they die? This is how aristocracies are maintained.

It does have something to do with the wealthiest members of society. Aristocracies cannot be maintained in the face of oppression and exclusion from opportunity. If you cannot protect the property of the rich and feel obligated to relieve them of their property then you will not be able to protect the property of the poor either for if ever they should be able to rise above their position they will be beaten back because they are now rich. What has to be left open to all equally is opportunity. If you feel money is what creates opportunity, and you obviously do, then your soultion will be to attempt to redistribute money equally. Opportunity, is in someone's ability to recognize it and create it. They won't recognize it or create it if someone is going to hand them a living or mollycoddle them all their lives complaining of the unfairness of life and society and the selfishness of others. It becomes the only thing they recognize.

[bloodyminded]

Then it's a good thing he wasn't paying attention when President Reagan died in 2004, cause we pulled out all the stops for his state funeral. It was effing spectacular, right down to the setting sun in California.

Yep. And while I too think we should have sympathy for people with severe dementia, it's odd to watch dementia actively celebrated as a moral virtue.

Edited February 10, 2011 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

Then it's a good thing he wasn't paying attention when President Reagan died in 2004, cause we pulled out all the stops for his state funeral. It was effing spectacular, right down to the setting sun in California.

He played the 'role' of President pretty good. But .. in the end, that is all it was.

[Pliny]

He played the 'role' of President pretty good. But .. in the end, that is all it was.

...and the walls of socialism crumbled under his guard. What a role!!

Is there something different about any of us? I suppose some think life just happens and it isn't a role at all... it's serious, gut-wrenching, tragic, and ends in death. I suppose one could say the victim of life is the easiest role to play.

[Pliny]

Yep. And while I too think we should have sympathy for people with severe dementia, it's odd to watch dementia actively celebrated as a moral virtue.

Ahh...it must be hard for you to see a celebration of this man's life. I understand. Hate can make you feel so sour about the celebration of goodness so many others see in Reagan's life.

The celebration was spectacular.

[bloodyminded]

Ahh...it must be hard for you to see a celebration of this man's life. I understand. Hate can make you feel so sour about the celebration of goodness so many others see in Reagan's life.

The celebration was spectacular.

Hate has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I don't hate anybody. Not a single person.

You and I see Reagan differently.

I recognize that he was a terrorist. And no, I'm not exaggerating for rhetorical effect. (For example, I cringed every time I heard people refer to Bush jr. as a "fascist," because it is simply incorrect.) No, I'm perfectly serious.

Sure, I could be self-indulgent, and pretend that the pretty myths about the Great Man were what matters.

But I remain sedulously convinced that terrorism, mass murder...that these things matter also.

[Yukon Jack]

Then it's a good thing he wasn't paying attention when President Reagan died in 2004, cause we pulled out all the stops for his state funeral. It was effing spectacular, right down to the setting sun in California.

I know you did, bush_cheney2004. I was there, I traveled 900 miles from my home to Washington, D.C. to pay my homage to Ronald Reagan, who along with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II helped to break down that wall and liberated my nephews and nieces in my former East Block Old Country.

A few years later (2007) I visited his Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

If there ever was an American to be admired, in my mind, it is Ronald Reagan.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Yukon Jack

[Yukon Jack]

Hate has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I don't hate anybody. Not a single person.

You and I see Reagan differently.

I recognize that he was a terrorist. And no, I'm not exaggerating for rhetorical effect. (For example, I cringed every time I heard people refer to Bush jr. as a "fascist," because it is simply incorrect.) No, I'm perfectly serious.

Sure, I could be self-indulgent, and pretend that the pretty myths about the Great Man were what matters.

But I remain sedulously convinced that terrorism, mass murder...that these things matter also.

bloodyminded, here is something you value, cherish and repeat: the anagram for Ronald Wilson Reagan is Insane Anglo Warlord.

Don't ever say I contributed nothing to your insane attacks on one of the greatest Presidents.

Enjoy!

[Black Dog]

I know you did, bush_cheney2004. I was there, I traveled 900 miles from my home to Washington, D.C. to pay my homage to Ronald Reagan, who along with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II helped to break down that wall and liberated my nephews and nieces in my former East Block Old Country.

A few years later (2007) I visited his Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

If there ever was an American to be admired, in my mind, it is Ronald Reagan.

Just out of curiosity; where do the corpses of the uncountable thousands murdered by Reagan-backed and trained thugs in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and elsewhere fit into your hagiographic picture of the Great Dementiator?

[bush_cheney2004]

Just out of curiosity; where do the corpses of the uncountable thousands murdered by Reagan-backed and trained thugs in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and elsewhere fit into your hagiographic picture of the Great Dementiator?

They fit in the same place where you put Trudeau's.

[Black Dog]

They fit in the same place where you put Trudeau's.

Spambot has no context filter.

[bloodyminded]

bloodyminded, here is something you value, cherish and repeat: the anagram for Ronald Wilson Reagan is Insane Anglo Warlord.

Don't ever say I contributed nothing to your insane attacks on one of the greatest Presidents.

Enjoy!

I appreciate that; but find it odd you don't condemn terrorists.

Since when?

[bloodyminded]

Just out of curiosity; where do the corpses of the uncountable thousands murdered by Reagan-backed and trained thugs in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and elsewhere fit into your hagiographic picture of the Great Dementiator?

Ha!

They are unworthy victims, so are best overlooked.

[Shady]

I recognize that he was a terrorist.

I'm glad you're up front about it. Most people with far-left, fringe, extremist views aren't willing to admit to them. You're far, far, far, out of the mainstream. You're kinda like the Glenn Beck of this forum.

You must have a chalk board somewhere!

[bush_cheney2004]

Spambot has no context filter.

Spambot algorithm rubs puppy's nose in own shyte.

[Black Dog]

I'm glad you're up front about it. Most people with far-left, fringe, extremist views aren't willing to admit to them. You're far, far, far, out of the mainstream. You're kinda like the Glenn Beck of this forum.

You must have a chalk board somewhere!

Reagan wasn't a terrorist inasmuch as he did not (to my knowledge anyway) personally participate in any terrorist activities. But his support of terrorism is pretty much a matter of historical fact at this point.

[Black Dog]

Spambot algorithm rubs puppy's nose in own shyte.

Sophisticated spambot has emotions! Technology is a wonderful thing.

[Jack Weber]

Just out of curiosity; where do the corpses of the uncountable thousands murdered by Reagan-backed and trained thugs in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and elsewhere fit into your hagiographic picture of the Great Dementiator?

"Wayel...I consumed alot of jelly beans...

Nancy...Am I wearing any pants?"

[bush_cheney2004]

Reagan wasn't a terrorist inasmuch as he did not (to my knowledge anyway) personally participate in any terrorist activities. But his support of terrorism is pretty much a matter of historical fact at this point.

Yea...he was "pretty much" indicted and convicted, just like Canadian PMs. Pretty much....

[Yukon Jack]

Just out of curiosity; where do the corpses of the uncountable thousands murdered by Reagan-backed and trained thugs in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and elsewhere fit into your hagiographic picture of the Great Dementiator?

As soon as you produce the (not thousands, but) corpses of millions of innocents murdered by Vladimir Ilych Lenin, Yosif Vissarionovitch Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel and Roul Castro and Hugo Chavez, I might consider your challenge worthy of response.

As far as dementia is concerned, have you looked in the mirror lately?

[bloodyminded]

I'm glad you're up front about it. Most people with far-left, fringe, extremist views aren't willing to admit to them. You're far, far, far, out of the mainstream.

The "mainstream," sure.

You think the entire Earth is out of the "mainstream," which is inhabited by American conservatives, with a handful of Canadians and Brits thrown in for good measure.

So, I point out that Reagan was utterly supportive of (among many other horrors) a cruelly violent terrorist militia (objectively worse than, say, Hamas)...and this uncontroversial observation exposes my extremism.

Whereas you view--that the US, particularly under Jesu...er, Reagan, flits about the world trying to save it, in the face of an ungrateful global population--is the "mainstream" one.

Ok, sport, if that helps you, carry on.

Edited February 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

As soon as you produce the (not thousands, but) corpses of millions of innocents murdered by Vladimir Ilych Lenin, Yosif Vissarionovitch Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel and Roul Castro and Hugo Chavez, I might consider your challenge worthy of response.

As far as dementia is concerned, have you looked in the mirror lately?

Let's play cards...

http://friendlydictators.blogspot.com/

[Jack Weber]

The "mainstream," sure.

You think the entire Earth is out of the "mainstream," which is inhabited by American conservatives, with a handful of Canadians and Brits thrown in for good measure.

So, I point out that Reagan was utterly supportive of (among many other horrors) a cruelly violent terrorist militia (objectively worse than, say, Hamas)...and this uncontroversial observation exposes my extremism.

Whereas you view--that the US, particularly under Jesu...er, Reagan, flits about the world trying to save it, in the face of an ungrateful global population--is the "mainstream" one.

Ok, sport, if that helps you, carry on.

The Professor does'nt believe in Jesus,remember?

He only believes in the Wiliam F. Buckley version of Ronald Reagan...

[Black Dog]

As soon as you produce the (not thousands, but) corpses of millions of innocents murdered by Vladimir Ilych Lenin, Yosif Vissarionovitch Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel and Roul Castro and Hugo Chavez, I might consider your challenge worthy of response.

I must have missed the part where people were hailing any of those guys as great heroes. Oh wait: no one is.

Dummy.

As far as dementia is concerned, have you looked in the mirror lately?

Really?