OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side?

[Anonymous]

Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents

eavesdropper, I can’t believe you think the media treats O’Donnell, Palin, or Bachmann with “kid gloves.” They are regularly mocked and ridiculed for saying stupid things. Ask anyone who has only a passing familiarity with politics, and thus is relying solely on political news as spoon fed them by the media, and they will tell you that Palin is stupid.

The people who support Palin or O’Donnell (and Bachmann is falling more and more in to this category) are largely doing so because they see these women as being unfairly bullied. Palin is an ‘underdog’ who many people personally connect with, so an attack on Palin makes these people even more aggressive defenders. Going after Palin with even more gusto is not going to sway her remaining followers.

Someone else who is stupid is Joe Biden. But the jokes about him are usually good natured ribbing, and acknowledge that Joe Biden honestly wants to do what is best for the country. Even if it is an insanely dumb idea like ‘high speed rail.’

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The idea that the French are all “intellectualizing” in their spare time isn’t very accurate, unfortunately. Like most of Europe, they’re busy consuming American monoculture with the rest of the planet (those that can afford it, that is).

[/quote]

Yeah, that’s the sad part. Globalization at work.

The French have great ideals, but those ideals conflict with tribal instincts and the self desire for money and consumption.

That’s why I ask what the balance is. You can’t have intellect without the money and resources to implement your ideals (all talk no actions). Intellect without money, or with the desire for money, often leads to hypocrisy, as is often the case in France.

But I do enjoy talking to French people. I still think there’s more political awareness in France.

The world is full of contradictions. There are no easy answers.

Edit: I should add that Arraya is the Frenchman among us. He complains constantly about the system but he’s unwilling to look at the best solutions that will work for the realities we face.

To answer your question, I have not been to France for about 5 years because the Euro is too expensive and I can spend my money elsewhere. Europe and America will always be there. For travel, I’d rather go to developing countries that will not be the same in 10 years.

But I do keep in touch with French culture through friends and relatives. I watch France 24 online and it’s like a replica of American MSM. I’m amazed at the anglicisms that have sneaked into the French language. It’s chic to use American business and media words in France. Another example of globalization at work.

This is for eavesdropper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJnXah0TRDY

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The idea that the French are all “intellectualizing” in their spare time isn’t very accurate, unfortunately. Like most of Europe, they’re busy consuming American monoculture with the rest of the planet (those that can afford it, that is).

[/quote]

Yeah, that’s the sad part. Globalization at work.

The French have great ideals, but those ideals conflict with tribal instincts and the self desire for money and consumption.

That’s why I ask what the balance is. You can’t have intellect without the money and resources to implement your ideals (all talk no actions). Intellect without money, or with the desire for money, often leads to hypocrisy, as is often the case in France.

But I do enjoy talking to French people. I still think there’s more political awareness in France.

The world is full of contradictions. There are no easy answers.

Edit: I should add that Arraya is the Frenchman among us. He complains constantly about the system but he’s unwilling to look at the best solutions that will work for the realities we face.

To answer your question, I have not been to France for about 5 years because the Euro is too expensive and I can spend my money elsewhere. Europe and America will always be there. For travel, I’d rather go to developing countries that will not be the same in 10 years.

But I do keep in touch with French culture through friends and relatives. I watch France 24 online and it’s like a replica of American MSM. I’m amazed at the anglicisms that have sneaked into the French language. It’s chic to use American business and media words in France. Another example of globalization at work.

This is for eavesdropper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJnXah0TRDY

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The idea that the French are all “intellectualizing” in their spare time isn’t very accurate, unfortunately. Like most of Europe, they’re busy consuming American monoculture with the rest of the planet (those that can afford it, that is).

[/quote]

Yeah, that’s the sad part. Globalization at work.

The French have great ideals, but those ideals conflict with tribal instincts and the self desire for money and consumption.

That’s why I ask what the balance is. You can’t have intellect without the money and resources to implement your ideals (all talk no actions). Intellect without money, or with the desire for money, often leads to hypocrisy, as is often the case in France.

But I do enjoy talking to French people. I still think there’s more political awareness in France.

The world is full of contradictions. There are no easy answers.

Edit: I should add that Arraya is the Frenchman among us. He complains constantly about the system but he’s unwilling to look at the best solutions that will work for the realities we face.

To answer your question, I have not been to France for about 5 years because the Euro is too expensive and I can spend my money elsewhere. Europe and America will always be there. For travel, I’d rather go to developing countries that will not be the same in 10 years.

But I do keep in touch with French culture through friends and relatives. I watch France 24 online and it’s like a replica of American MSM. I’m amazed at the anglicisms that have sneaked into the French language. It’s chic to use American business and media words in France. Another example of globalization at work.

This is for eavesdropper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJnXah0TRDY

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The idea that the French are all “intellectualizing” in their spare time isn’t very accurate, unfortunately. Like most of Europe, they’re busy consuming American monoculture with the rest of the planet (those that can afford it, that is).

[/quote]

Yeah, that’s the sad part. Globalization at work.

The French have great ideals, but those ideals conflict with tribal instincts and the self desire for money and consumption.

That’s why I ask what the balance is. You can’t have intellect without the money and resources to implement your ideals (all talk no actions). Intellect without money, or with the desire for money, often leads to hypocrisy, as is often the case in France.

But I do enjoy talking to French people. I still think there’s more political awareness in France.

The world is full of contradictions. There are no easy answers.

Edit: I should add that Arraya is the Frenchman among us. He complains constantly about the system but he’s unwilling to look at the best solutions that will work for the realities we face.

To answer your question, I have not been to France for about 5 years because the Euro is too expensive and I can spend my money elsewhere. Europe and America will always be there. For travel, I’d rather go to developing countries that will not be the same in 10 years.

But I do keep in touch with French culture through friends and relatives. I watch France 24 online and it’s like a replica of American MSM. I’m amazed at the anglicisms that have sneaked into the French language. It’s chic to use American business and media words in France. Another example of globalization at work.

This is for eavesdropper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJnXah0TRDY

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The idea that the French are all “intellectualizing” in their spare time isn’t very accurate, unfortunately. Like most of Europe, they’re busy consuming American monoculture with the rest of the planet (those that can afford it, that is).

[/quote]

Yeah, that’s the sad part. Globalization at work.

The French have great ideals, but those ideals conflict with tribal instincts and the self desire for money and consumption.

That’s why I ask what the balance is. You can’t have intellect without the money and resources to implement your ideals (all talk no actions). Intellect without money, or with the desire for money, often leads to hypocrisy, as is often the case in France.

But I do enjoy talking to French people. I still think there’s more political awareness in France.

The world is full of contradictions. There are no easy answers.

Edit: I should add that Arraya is the Frenchman among us. He complains constantly about the system but he’s unwilling to look at the best solutions that will work for the realities we face.

To answer your question, I have not been to France for about 5 years because the Euro is too expensive and I can spend my money elsewhere. Europe and America will always be there. For travel, I’d rather go to developing countries that will not be the same in 10 years.

But I do keep in touch with French culture through friends and relatives. I watch France 24 online and it’s like a replica of American MSM. I’m amazed at the anglicisms that have sneaked into the French language. It’s chic to use American business and media words in France. Another example of globalization at work.

This is for eavesdropper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJnXah0TRDY

[Arraya]

[quote=wooga]Hedges adds the the only difference between a liberal and conservative in todays America is a conservative has values worth fighting for.

If you compare the “big centralized government” wings of the two parties this is correct. You have the progressives/Obama on the left and neocon/Bush (aka ‘compassionate conservative’) on the right. Both favor the merger of corporations and state – with the difference being the neocons want corporations in the driver seat and the state acting as an arm of the corporations (corporatism), and the progressives want the state in the driver seat and the corporations acting as an arm of the state (fascism). And yes, those are the historically accurate terms.[/quote]

Well, this is a common secular libertarian narrative which overlaps with an anarchist narrative. One interesting thing that I have watched emerge over the past 5 or 6 years is the different narratives. The far left and libertarian right have a common narrative on the complete corruption that is taking place(which I agree with) – which led to our economic situation – with some minor variations. Whereas, the mainstream right completely explains it away in a different way(a way that I think is ideologically pleasing rather than based on reality) and the mainstream left kind of acknowledges it, but not with their party(though it is dramatically changing). The tend to turn a blind eye with their party.

But the problem is, how would you even tell the difference between “state” decisions and “corporate” decisions under this construct. These positions are all held by people that are either lawyers or businessmen – with a rotating cast of private industry folks in key appointment positions from the same multi-nationals. When hedges was speaking he was talking more from a “spiritual” angle than structural. People get hung up on definitions and “isms” in todays world – we have one guiding “ism” with all the dominant minority which both parties serve- it’s profitism. All we have in DC are prostitutes for money and they will DO whatever it takes to get campaign money(which is systemically perform) and SAY what ever it takes to get votes(which is do a little dance for their constituents and practice their righteous indignation). Within both parties this produces a different type insanity.

[Arraya]

[quote=wooga]Hedges adds the the only difference between a liberal and conservative in todays America is a conservative has values worth fighting for.

If you compare the “big centralized government” wings of the two parties this is correct. You have the progressives/Obama on the left and neocon/Bush (aka ‘compassionate conservative’) on the right. Both favor the merger of corporations and state – with the difference being the neocons want corporations in the driver seat and the state acting as an arm of the corporations (corporatism), and the progressives want the state in the driver seat and the corporations acting as an arm of the state (fascism). And yes, those are the historically accurate terms.[/quote]

Well, this is a common secular libertarian narrative which overlaps with an anarchist narrative. One interesting thing that I have watched emerge over the past 5 or 6 years is the different narratives. The far left and libertarian right have a common narrative on the complete corruption that is taking place(which I agree with) – which led to our economic situation – with some minor variations. Whereas, the mainstream right completely explains it away in a different way(a way that I think is ideologically pleasing rather than based on reality) and the mainstream left kind of acknowledges it, but not with their party(though it is dramatically changing). The tend to turn a blind eye with their party.

But the problem is, how would you even tell the difference between “state” decisions and “corporate” decisions under this construct. These positions are all held by people that are either lawyers or businessmen – with a rotating cast of private industry folks in key appointment positions from the same multi-nationals. When hedges was speaking he was talking more from a “spiritual” angle than structural. People get hung up on definitions and “isms” in todays world – we have one guiding “ism” with all the dominant minority which both parties serve- it’s profitism. All we have in DC are prostitutes for money and they will DO whatever it takes to get campaign money(which is systemically perform) and SAY what ever it takes to get votes(which is do a little dance for their constituents and practice their righteous indignation). Within both parties this produces a different type insanity.

[Arraya]

[quote=wooga]Hedges adds the the only difference between a liberal and conservative in todays America is a conservative has values worth fighting for.

If you compare the “big centralized government” wings of the two parties this is correct. You have the progressives/Obama on the left and neocon/Bush (aka ‘compassionate conservative’) on the right. Both favor the merger of corporations and state – with the difference being the neocons want corporations in the driver seat and the state acting as an arm of the corporations (corporatism), and the progressives want the state in the driver seat and the corporations acting as an arm of the state (fascism). And yes, those are the historically accurate terms.[/quote]

Well, this is a common secular libertarian narrative which overlaps with an anarchist narrative. One interesting thing that I have watched emerge over the past 5 or 6 years is the different narratives. The far left and libertarian right have a common narrative on the complete corruption that is taking place(which I agree with) – which led to our economic situation – with some minor variations. Whereas, the mainstream right completely explains it away in a different way(a way that I think is ideologically pleasing rather than based on reality) and the mainstream left kind of acknowledges it, but not with their party(though it is dramatically changing). The tend to turn a blind eye with their party.

But the problem is, how would you even tell the difference between “state” decisions and “corporate” decisions under this construct. These positions are all held by people that are either lawyers or businessmen – with a rotating cast of private industry folks in key appointment positions from the same multi-nationals. When hedges was speaking he was talking more from a “spiritual” angle than structural. People get hung up on definitions and “isms” in todays world – we have one guiding “ism” with all the dominant minority which both parties serve- it’s profitism. All we have in DC are prostitutes for money and they will DO whatever it takes to get campaign money(which is systemically perform) and SAY what ever it takes to get votes(which is do a little dance for their constituents and practice their righteous indignation). Within both parties this produces a different type insanity.

[Arraya]

[quote=wooga]Hedges adds the the only difference between a liberal and conservative in todays America is a conservative has values worth fighting for.

If you compare the “big centralized government” wings of the two parties this is correct. You have the progressives/Obama on the left and neocon/Bush (aka ‘compassionate conservative’) on the right. Both favor the merger of corporations and state – with the difference being the neocons want corporations in the driver seat and the state acting as an arm of the corporations (corporatism), and the progressives want the state in the driver seat and the corporations acting as an arm of the state (fascism). And yes, those are the historically accurate terms.[/quote]

Well, this is a common secular libertarian narrative which overlaps with an anarchist narrative. One interesting thing that I have watched emerge over the past 5 or 6 years is the different narratives. The far left and libertarian right have a common narrative on the complete corruption that is taking place(which I agree with) – which led to our economic situation – with some minor variations. Whereas, the mainstream right completely explains it away in a different way(a way that I think is ideologically pleasing rather than based on reality) and the mainstream left kind of acknowledges it, but not with their party(though it is dramatically changing). The tend to turn a blind eye with their party.

But the problem is, how would you even tell the difference between “state” decisions and “corporate” decisions under this construct. These positions are all held by people that are either lawyers or businessmen – with a rotating cast of private industry folks in key appointment positions from the same multi-nationals. When hedges was speaking he was talking more from a “spiritual” angle than structural. People get hung up on definitions and “isms” in todays world – we have one guiding “ism” with all the dominant minority which both parties serve- it’s profitism. All we have in DC are prostitutes for money and they will DO whatever it takes to get campaign money(which is systemically perform) and SAY what ever it takes to get votes(which is do a little dance for their constituents and practice their righteous indignation). Within both parties this produces a different type insanity.

[Arraya]

[quote=wooga]Hedges adds the the only difference between a liberal and conservative in todays America is a conservative has values worth fighting for.

If you compare the “big centralized government” wings of the two parties this is correct. You have the progressives/Obama on the left and neocon/Bush (aka ‘compassionate conservative’) on the right. Both favor the merger of corporations and state – with the difference being the neocons want corporations in the driver seat and the state acting as an arm of the corporations (corporatism), and the progressives want the state in the driver seat and the corporations acting as an arm of the state (fascism). And yes, those are the historically accurate terms.[/quote]

Well, this is a common secular libertarian narrative which overlaps with an anarchist narrative. One interesting thing that I have watched emerge over the past 5 or 6 years is the different narratives. The far left and libertarian right have a common narrative on the complete corruption that is taking place(which I agree with) – which led to our economic situation – with some minor variations. Whereas, the mainstream right completely explains it away in a different way(a way that I think is ideologically pleasing rather than based on reality) and the mainstream left kind of acknowledges it, but not with their party(though it is dramatically changing). The tend to turn a blind eye with their party.

But the problem is, how would you even tell the difference between “state” decisions and “corporate” decisions under this construct. These positions are all held by people that are either lawyers or businessmen – with a rotating cast of private industry folks in key appointment positions from the same multi-nationals. When hedges was speaking he was talking more from a “spiritual” angle than structural. People get hung up on definitions and “isms” in todays world – we have one guiding “ism” with all the dominant minority which both parties serve- it’s profitism. All we have in DC are prostitutes for money and they will DO whatever it takes to get campaign money(which is systemically perform) and SAY what ever it takes to get votes(which is do a little dance for their constituents and practice their righteous indignation). Within both parties this produces a different type insanity.

[Anonymous]

Allan, nobody is claiming that anybody should be banned from running from office. You know this, and your response was pure strawman.

Krugman’s point is well articulated and I’m sure you understand it, even if you refuse to accept it.

Eaves certainly gets it, and she is absolutely correct in her assesment of how serious the problem is.

[Anonymous]

Allan, nobody is claiming that anybody should be banned from running from office. You know this, and your response was pure strawman.

Krugman’s point is well articulated and I’m sure you understand it, even if you refuse to accept it.

Eaves certainly gets it, and she is absolutely correct in her assesment of how serious the problem is.

[Anonymous]

Allan, nobody is claiming that anybody should be banned from running from office. You know this, and your response was pure strawman.

Krugman’s point is well articulated and I’m sure you understand it, even if you refuse to accept it.

Eaves certainly gets it, and she is absolutely correct in her assesment of how serious the problem is.

[Anonymous]

Allan, nobody is claiming that anybody should be banned from running from office. You know this, and your response was pure strawman.

Krugman’s point is well articulated and I’m sure you understand it, even if you refuse to accept it.

Eaves certainly gets it, and she is absolutely correct in her assesment of how serious the problem is.

[Author]

Posts