Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Noam Chomsky: Palin Was Right About Obama

cordeg Wrote: Apr 07, 2014 7:28 PM
Uh...yeah, I see. You're probably one of those people who think GWB and Cheney were "neo-cons" -- a clear demonstration of a failure to understand the plain meaning of words. Like "genocide", say. The killing fields were clearly the mark of "genocide" -- about one-quarter of the total population of Kampuchea (nee Cambodia) ALL killed by KR to consolidate the power of the Communist regime over the country. The war in Iraq was, well, a war, and not for nothing is it said that "war is hell". But, you can't exactly have two sides fighting and call all the deaths caused by one side the result of "genocide" by the other side. That's inane. It is also a bit foolish to shout "genocide" over any of the deaths inflicted on that side which spent the previous several years shooting at us and violating the treaty by which it obtained the end of the last war it brought upon itself by invading Kuwait. Furthermore, if there is one thing several years of half-way measures in Iraq proved, it was that neither GWB nor Cheney had any designs on imposing US rule in Iraq -- or even an Iraqi-led "puppet" regime. Quite the opposite: we put up with leaders and legislators who openly poked their fingers in our eyes. It may well be hard for you and your pals to accept that US policy consisted of virtually nothing more than overthrowing a thuggish regime that even the Clinton administration said it was US policy to oust (he just never did anything about it, since he had enough military involvement in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, where, one presumes, he didn't engage in "genocide" either), and enabling 25 million Iraqis to enjoy the kind of Liberty that allows citizens to criticize their government even when those criticisms are based on vacuous notions -- you know, the kind of liberty you think you deserve, but think "even one life" is too dear a cost for others to obtain. Well, despite years of braying by the likes of Chomsky and your illustrious self, ALL the empirical evidence supports the plain fact that the US administration you clearly love to hate had nothing more up its sleeve with regard to Iraq. They didn't take its oil (no "blood for oil") and they didn't impose their own government (no "American hegemony"). You must be so disappointed. I salute the independent thinking behind your anti-administration thoughts, but just objecting to those (once) in power, doesn't qualify as "speaking truth to power" -- that requires truth, not just a loud mouth.
Raising the federal "minimum wage" is a method of income redistribution -- from one group of low-income workers (the ones the raise puts out of work) to another group of low-income workers (the ones who remain employed at these entry level jobs). This is typical Democratic Party policy: throw a bone to one group of Americans while ignoring the damage being done to those who pay for the meager benefits the party's policies promise. They are always the first to say that -- for example -- deploying a missile in Poland is "stealing food from the mouths of children" by comparing the cost of one program to the other, but no one ever puts their feet to the fire to explain why they are themselves willing to "steal food from the mouths of children" to, say, support public broadcasting or any of the other Liberal favorites that divert priorities from the poor and the hungry. The reality is that the REAL minimum wage is $0.00, not $7.25, and what Democrats want to do now is give 900,000 Americans a marginal raise of a few thousand dollars at the expense of 500,000 other Americans who will lose their ENTIRE annual incomes. WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THEM? NOT "Liberals" and NOT "Progressives" -- who consider those Americans their policies will devastate to be simply "collateral damage"..
So, we have perhaps 2M people who "gained" heath insurance by signing up for Medicaid under rules that would have allowed them to sign up for it before ObamaCare. Hey, I guess "Happy Days are Here Again". But, there is yet another number I want to know: what is the number of kids who are being counted as having "gained" health insurance under ObamaCare, but are actually just under 26 and covered on their parent's plan, and who prior to the dismal Obama "recovery" might well have had their own employer-provided coverage because the unemployment rate among those in this age group would have been significantly lower? And what does that number become once you add to it the number of unemployed adults who may have "gained" insurance under ObamaCare but who actually ended up in the exchanges only because they lost their employer-provided coverage after they remained unemployed for an historically-long period in the Obama "recovery" and their Cobra coverage ran out? In other words, how many Americans have had to rely on ObamaCare simply because they were victims of Obama's other policies? With each passing day, I get the feeling that the current administration's strategy is to first create a crisis and then create a "progressive" program to mitigate the effects of that crisis -- and then claim that working-class Americans would be in trouble if it weren't for their "solution".
Solar panels on homes -- like electric cars -- are CURRENTLY the toys of the affluent. While the Ed Begley, Jrs and Tim Robbinses of America are constantly admonishing the rest of us to "go alternative energy", the fact is that the cost/benefit ratio dictates that most Americans simply can't afford these alternatives. BUT, if wealthy people want to dabble in personal energy plants and electric vehicles, more power to them -- just don't try to tell the rest of us we don't care about the environment because we can't afford the same. after all, if money was really no object, then they should be able to not only counteract their entire environmental footprint, but also those of 300 Million other Americans by simply paying to sequester all the CO2 the country produces, etc. Should we be allowed to assume that they do NOT do this because they "don't care", or are we the only one's expected to be adult enough to recognize that they simply couldn't afford to do that much? Yeah, I thought so.
actually, not even close. i was doing this in 1979 on the roof of our lab, and the loss to drive the motor to move the panels was more than made up for by the additional energy generated -- and this was when panels were far less efficient as well as heavier than today (i.e., now the additional output would be higher and the loss from panel movement less). used a sensor to detect the optimal incidence angle and moved the panel to maintain proper orientation. moved just a nudge at a time every so often, so it wasn't like it was consuming power continuously.
In response to:

Thank These Republicans for Obamacare

cordeg Wrote: Oct 31, 2013 10:17 PM
Yeah, those rascally Republicans are forever trying to overturn "settled law" that was settled fair and square by Democrats -- like, for example, when Democrats passed all those laws ensuring the perpetual enslavement of people of African ancestry in America and then got a favorable ruling from SCOTUS in "Dred Scott v Sanford" in 1857 to make it "settled law", and the Republicans continued to fight against it even several years later, finally ratifying a Constitutional amendment after 8 years of opposition that barred any such law from ever becoming "settled" again. Gosh, those Republicans are hard heads, no?
Hey, you can't argue with logic like that! He's right: raising the debt ceiling does not increase the debt, in exactly the same way that raising the level of the budget doesn't raise spending. They both simply ENABLE those results to happen. Someone should ask the president if his statement means that he has NO INTENTION of spending any more money than we take in this year, since that's the only way that the increased debt limit will not result in increased debt. If he and the senate Democrats are willing to GO ON RECORD with this promise, then I say Republicans should go ahead and raise the debt limit and then campaign against Democrats in 2014 as bald-faced liars. Meanwhile, the president continues to provide citizens with images of what gargantuan "chutzpah" looks like -- see his face above -- as he claims House Republicans are holding the government "hostage" when it is demonstrably Senate Democrats who won't pass any budget bills unless ObamaCare is not delayed for individuals and the president who promises to veto such budgets. Here's a thought experiment for you: Imagine if the ONE program being argued about was some defensive missile deployment somewhere in Europe, or a surge in forces in Afghanistan due to increased violence there -- WHO do you think would be blamed for the resulting "shutdown"? The side blocking all other funding until that program was funded, or the side voting to allow all other funding while blocking that one program? Why, that's a no-brainer: it would be the program's supporters, and every Republican AND EVERY DEMOCRAT knows it. But, when the program is on the other foot, suddenly it is the side blocking the ONE and allowing the MANY that is portrayed as the bad buy! Seriously, any president or party that tells you the kind of nonsense that this president and these Democrats do with a straight face clearly takes the American people for idiots, and if they are willing to tell us lies this blatant, imagine what else they are ready to try putting over on you.
In response to:

Allen West Demands Hand Recount

cordeg Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 5:46 PM
The lesson was clearly that Americans like to complain about "divisive politics", but when push comes to shove are not at all averse to re-electing precisely the mix of political divisions that keep the federal government from doing anything. Anyone who claims that the election proves any other point is merely engaging in wishful thinking. This election should remind us all of one of the peculiar aspects of the American character: how to pretend to want one thing while really wanting another. We want Congress thrown out because they're crooks -- EXCEPT for "our guy". We want government spending to stop -- EXCEPT for "our program". We want government to force conservation -- EXCEPT we want "our car" and "our lifestyle" left untouched.
In response to:

Allen West Demands Hand Recount

cordeg Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 5:29 PM
Maybe you should learn what a "neocon" is before using it. The word was coined to describe a specific characteristic of some Conservatives, and based on your (mis)use of it, you clearly don't know that. Not that I blame you -- the "news" media let various political hacks call various Republicans "neocons" for years without correcting them, the result being it's now slang for "a Conservative I hate especially". Nevertheless, whenever you misuse the term in front of people who know what the term actually means, you make yourself appear to be uneducated or at the very least someone who doesn't think twice about repeating something they heard/read somewhere without actually knowing what it means. A clue: West definitely isn't one.
In response to:

Got Racism?

cordeg Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 5:23 PM
(continuing from below) so here's the better question: between your postings of deep-sounding questions on blogs that don't appear much connected to those questions, do you actually DO anything yourself to help, or do you just pose accusatory questions to others? and furthermore, do you realize that the people of Haiti actually recognize MANY "Haitian relief organizations" as the MAJOR PROBLEM of their country, as far too many of them simplistically think they "do good" while systematically destroying the Haitian culture and economy, but feel good about themselves in the process? and do you know what parable that evokes?
In response to:

Got Racism?

cordeg Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 5:19 PM
(continuing) on a deeper level, of course, the old woman has given more OF HERSELF in sharing the loaf of bread, simply because she has chosen to forgo/renounce a greater value to herself than Gates -- that is, she do without the portion of bread shared far less than Gates can do without a million dollars. her family might suffer for her gift; his will not. as it happens, i don't need to "imagine" this old woman because i actually spend significant amounts of my time and money helping the Haitian people of Les Palmes, Morne a Chandelle, and Durissy. i know REAL versions of such women. my family financially supports 3 Haitian teachers, helped build several schools, and annually help supply over 4500 Haitian children with school stuff.
Previous 11 - 20 Next