|
Post by Rachael on Oct 10, 2008 9:38:39 GMT -5
I actually think the gas prices are a real reflection of the sinking economy and reduced demand, this time around. And, yeah, we're down to $3.77. Which, whoever thought that would feel cheap? Train's still cheaper, though. We got to 8500 yesterday. I don't think they're estimating the floor accurately. I'm wondering about 7,000, myself. I agree about the gas prices, but the sinking economy..I believe..has also been engineered. The reason I don't believe that is because, almost without exception, a crashing economy favors Democrats, and those who have been in a position to do any engineering for the last seven years wouldn't want that. If it goes back further than that - well, it'd be bipartisan, and I just don't seem them being that cooperative (or smart, if the hypothesis is that they're just fooling us into thinking the two parties are at war).
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 10, 2008 9:44:24 GMT -5
I agree about the gas prices, but the sinking economy..I believe..has also been engineered. The reason I don't believe that is because, almost without exception, a crashing economy favors Democrats, and those who have been in a position to do any engineering for the last seven years wouldn't want that. If it goes back further than that - well, it'd be bipartisan, and I just don't seem them being that cooperative (or smart, if the hypothesis is that they're just fooling us into thinking the two parties are at war). I've heard that theory being bandied about - that it's the Democrats fault when the economy crashes. That's what I believe that the engineer's architect of this particular 'crisis' is neither Democrat or Republican, but some powerful separate entity pulling strings. Yeah, and I know that sounds whacked.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 10, 2008 10:00:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 10, 2008 10:06:38 GMT -5
My 2 favorites: Sarah Palin uses Jedi mind tricks, Hillary Clinton makes a deal with the Borg. If you ask Sarah Palin a question she doesn't like, she'll wave her hand and say, "Those aren't the answers you're looking for." Meanwhile, when Hillary gets in a tight spot, she's not above calling up the Borg and trying to work out a little arrangement. She's been on the Borg, I mean board, of a bunch of big companies, so she knows how to work with anyone. Sarah Palin is Yoda, Hillary Clinton is Deanna Troi Sarah is full of wise sayings, even if they often don't make sense and lack a certain amount of grammar. She seems like harmless and a bit goofy, until she's under attack — and then she'll start hopping around like a maniac. Hillary, meanwhile, acts kind of cold and uptight — but she really, really, no really feels your pain. And Hillary stands by her guy, even though he's overweight and always running off to Risa to hook up with some Trill skank.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 10, 2008 10:06:56 GMT -5
I agree about the gas prices, but the sinking economy..I believe..has also been engineered. The reason I don't believe that is because, almost without exception, a crashing economy favors Democrats, and those who have been in a position to do any engineering for the last seven years wouldn't want that. If it goes back further than that - well, it'd be bipartisan, and I just don't seem them being that cooperative (or smart, if the hypothesis is that they're just fooling us into thinking the two parties are at war). I'm with Karen, but it's worth noting that some of the wealthiest and most influential people in the world are Democrats: Warren Buffet and Mr. Souros, along with Bill Gates, to name three. Let's not forget the Kennedy family, Ted Turner, John Kerry and family and the Rockefellers. It came as a surprise to me, but the wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats. Still, I believe that the economic situation crosses party lines, if you will, in a joint effort to screw things up so government can get bigger.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 10, 2008 10:09:16 GMT -5
I agree about the gas prices, but the sinking economy..I believe..has also been engineered. The reason I don't believe that is because, almost without exception, a crashing economy favors Democrats, and those who have been in a position to do any engineering for the last seven years wouldn't want that. If it goes back further than that - well, it'd be bipartisan, and I just don't seem them being that cooperative (or smart, if the hypothesis is that they're just fooling us into thinking the two parties are at war). Plus the fact that the meltdown of every major and many minor economies on the entire planet started with us. Not saying it's our fault that other countries weren't keeping their own houses in order but I'm guessing we have dropped even lower on their s**tlists because of this.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Oct 10, 2008 10:17:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 10, 2008 10:24:57 GMT -5
Bottom line from my perspective is that the people of this country are not being served by having two political parties in complete control of the legislative and executive branches of the country. (Don't even get me started on the judiciary or one-issue voters.) Unless and until we can get some real political "competition" we will continue getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop while the politicians engage is activities designed to promote their own job security. Do I sound happy with our government? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Oct 10, 2008 11:03:47 GMT -5
Bottom line from my perspective is that the people of this country are not being served by having two political parties in complete control of the legislative and executive branches of the country. (Don't even get me started on the judiciary or one-issue voters.) Unless and until we can get some real political "competition" we will continue getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop while the politicians engage is activities designed to promote their own job security. Do I sound happy with our government? ;D I'd certainly like to see Congress grow a backbone again.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 10, 2008 11:24:22 GMT -5
Bottom line from my perspective is that the people of this country are not being served by having two political parties in complete control of the legislative and executive branches of the country. (Don't even get me started on the judiciary or one-issue voters.) Unless and until we can get some real political "competition" we will continue getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop while the politicians engage is activities designed to promote their own job security. Do I sound happy with our government? ;D I'd certainly like to see Congress grow a backbone again. Or at the very least reads and is tested (and passes with a score higher than 90%) on their understanding of the United States Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Oct 10, 2008 11:57:43 GMT -5
I cheered aloud last night when Anderson Cooper had on a group of 3 of the usual pundits and they were all "yeah, dirty campaigns, both sides getting personal, yada yada" They showed clips of Palin and McCain doing the Ayers bit and then showed Obama's commercial about McCain being "erratic" and (of all words) "lurching." And Paul Begala finally said to Cooper and the other 2, "Now just hold up here a minute. Sure, Obama isn't pristine when you do the Fact Check thing, and yes, calling someone "erratic and unfit to led" is a personal attack rather than issues-based, but come on now, what's coming out of the Obama camp is no where near as offensive, ugly, and low-down as the fear-mongering and rabble-rousing and crowd-baiting as what McCain and Palin are doing." Glenn Greenwald covered the Washington Post article on that same topic yesterday. www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/One of the commenters mentioned the coining of a new term - "equivalation" - to describe the press' attempts to appear "balanced" by describing fear-mongering and borderline race-bating and then saying, "Oh, and Obama said McCain is erratic." Dude, "erratic" is an accurate description of the man's actions over the last few weeks. Also? "Erratic and unfit to serve" is actually relevant. "Hung out with a guy who was never convicted of anything that he could possibly have done when Obama was 8" is not. OK, I read the article and I'm now officially scared. And sad. But I'm hoping there's a tiny amount of hope in there somewhere. Maybe ugliness like this has to be made manifest so that we as a society can openly confront it and truly heal. Just no violence, please. 'Kay?
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 10, 2008 12:47:50 GMT -5
I cheered aloud last night when Anderson Cooper had on a group of 3 of the usual pundits and they were all "yeah, dirty campaigns, both sides getting personal, yada yada" They showed clips of Palin and McCain doing the Ayers bit and then showed Obama's commercial about McCain being "erratic" and (of all words) "lurching." And Paul Begala finally said to Cooper and the other 2, "Now just hold up here a minute. Sure, Obama isn't pristine when you do the Fact Check thing, and yes, calling someone "erratic and unfit to led" is a personal attack rather than issues-based, but come on now, what's coming out of the Obama camp is no where near as offensive, ugly, and low-down as the fear-mongering and rabble-rousing and crowd-baiting as what McCain and Palin are doing." Glenn Greenwald covered the Washington Post article on that same topic yesterday. www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/One of the commenters mentioned the coining of a new term - "equivalation" - to describe the press' attempts to appear "balanced" by describing fear-mongering and borderline race-bating and then saying, "Oh, and Obama said McCain is erratic." Dude, "erratic" is an accurate description of the man's actions over the last few weeks. Also? "Erratic and unfit to serve" is actually relevant. "Hung out with a guy who was never convicted of anything that he could possibly have done when Obama was 8" is not. Not to mention that most of the "hanging out" was on a charitable board with included Mrs. Annenberg, who also funded said board, and is a high-profile Reagan conservative. Julia, whose head hurts because Goldwater and Reagan look so damned sane compared with the current crop of "conservatives"
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 10, 2008 12:59:30 GMT -5
Gas prices: at our house, there's a "camel in the tent" effect on the budget; our income and gas* demand are both pretty damned inelastic, and as a result we've had to make some serious cuts as gas prices climb. When they fall at all, there's a sudden feeling of surplus, which shows up first in my partition of the budget, weirdly enough, since I'm the only one who doesn't drive. The reason for this is that I'm the one who buys groceries (and also takes care of medication expenses, which are running about $200 a month for the two of us now, taking OTC painkillers into account) when Franklin is tapped out, and when he's comfortable, I don't have to cover part of the food budget.
Julia, freaking out about heating prices at the moment
*His office just moved out of range for public transportation, so all of the give has gone out of that budget.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 10, 2008 13:21:27 GMT -5
Bottom line from my perspective is that the people of this country are not being served by having two political parties in complete control of the legislative and executive branches of the country. (Don't even get me started on the judiciary or one-issue voters.) Unless and until we can get some real political "competition" we will continue getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop while the politicians engage is activities designed to promote their own job security. Do I sound happy with our government? ;D Trouble is, it's practically very challenging to have more than two parties when the Constitution dictates that you have to win a majority of the Electoral College vote in order to win. (I know you know this; not sounding lecturey on purpose.) If, say, the Republicans did what it looks like they should do, and split into at least two different parties (I'm thinking George Will conservatives vs. Christian Conservatives), and the Democrats split into, say, Greens and Labor...no one would be able to get 270, so the House would always decide, and then coalitions would have to be formed anyway. I guess what we do is just preform the coalitions. Has there ever been a truly successful third party for any length of time in this country? I feel like they tend to get absorbed into one of the major parties very quickly, or else just have zero power, like the Greens and the Libertarians.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 10, 2008 13:46:38 GMT -5
Bottom line from my perspective is that the people of this country are not being served by having two political parties in complete control of the legislative and executive branches of the country. (Don't even get me started on the judiciary or one-issue voters.) Unless and until we can get some real political "competition" we will continue getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop while the politicians engage is activities designed to promote their own job security. Do I sound happy with our government? ;D Trouble is, it's practically very challenging to have more than two parties when the Constitution dictates that you have to win a majority of the Electoral College vote in order to win. (I know you know this; not sounding lecturey on purpose.) If, say, the Republicans did what it looks like they should do, and split into at least two different parties (I'm thinking George Will conservatives vs. Christian Conservatives), and the Democrats split into, say, Greens and Labor...no one would be able to get 270, so the House would always decide, and then coalitions would have to be formed anyway. I guess what we do is just preform the coalitions. Has there ever been a truly successful third party for any length of time in this country? I feel like they tend to get absorbed into one of the major parties very quickly, or else just have zero power, like the Greens and the Libertarians. Having the House decide is part of having a representative form of government. In a practical sense, you are right. Virtually all of the time the House would likely have to be called upon to choose and the choices would be from the three candidates with the most electoral votes. Would this invest more power in Congress than ought be invested? I would say it alters nothing, if the Constitution is, you know, actually followed. The branch of government that is supposed to be preeminent is Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, and I think the country has forgotten that in all the attention paid to the presidential election. I see your point, though, about having to form coalitions in order to get oneself elected. I'm torn about whether this would be a good or bad thing at this point. I just don't see what I would term positive change coming from either party at this point primarily because of the tendency of people to be innately self-centered, as embodied in the politicians' quest for job security. Sometimes I actually see the glass as half-full, but not today. No. I don't believe there has ever been a successful third party. As to the splitting of the parties, I think your analysis is dead-on. I sure know where I'd fall. ;D I'll give you a hint: It's not with the Christian Conservatives. Oh well. I can dream, can't I?
|
|