j_b

Per usual JayB develops amnesia at the most opportune moment. Could it be that cutting state and federal corporate taxes, waving royalties for resource extraction, shipping good jobs overseas then replacing them with pizza delivering/burger flipping jobs, etc ... then raise sale taxes on consumers has been implemented by market fundamentalists and has resulted in budget shortfalls? Could it be that it was the acknowledged goal of market fundamentalists to bankrupt government? Of course, it is was, on all counts and more.

I have been refilling my cartridges (on several brands of printers) with non-brand ink for years. It's trivially easy, gives excellent printing results and costs a very small fraction of what you'd pay for a brand cartridge.

Sure does and it's bound to get a lot worse, courtesy of the people who see their "interest as being the same as the national interest". Real unemployment is above 13% although less in Washington state. My wife was laid off and hasn't seen a single opening that fits in a week In her mid-50's, it means almost surely the end of her professional career. No need to elaborate how she feels about it.

Here JayB would like us to believe that the rightwing doesn't always do the same. For him the largest transfer of wealth in history toward the upper 1% of the income bracket, the destruction of the middle class, military adventurism to control the flow of oil, the bankrupting of the nation and the systematic destruction of the state weren't the expected end result of deliberate rightwing policies that solely benefited economic elites although they were presented as the national interest When did the "left" do that? are you tripping on us? which conspiracy theories? the GOP didn't disenfranchize millions of minority voters? Bush wasn't told al quaeda was going to strike american soil? this adminstration didn't torture and throw the constituion in the garbage? and on, and on ... Of course, framing the critics of this adminstration as conspiracy theorists is so much easier than ever acknowledging the fiasco YOU voted for despite people telling you so for years. Your lack of honesty and your partisanship and your advocacy of extremism is a disgrace but I am confident you'll keep pretending you are a "moderate"

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html Note: the poll was conducted before the financial collapse and the economy crashed.

I can't wait to see him/her pound the pulpit in front of a Palin crowd

Good, and thanks for the reply. Psychiatry has always been used to repress challenges to power at all societal scales, from the family unit to the state. 'Divergence' is a little disturbing in this context because it reminds one of 'deviance' (probably meant that way), which has been used quite a bit to criminalize some form of dissidence. On the other hand, I have always thought that being paranoid was a necessary trait for critical thinking in the political arena. I have often semi-jokingly said that a little paranoia was necessary to grasp reality. The crux being not to let oneself stray too far away from rational thought.

Man, that crap is pretty cryptic and I certainly don't work for Hollywood. You could at least explain what you mean. Are you asking me if I am divergent or telling me that I am divergent? I am certainly divergent from dominant media culture but so do many people and a very large number of them agree with Nader on many things including the worhtlessness of both parties in congress that has an approval rating in the teens.

Not only you haven't shown how making the case for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting NAFTA makes the NYT "liberal" but you came back to spread rumors and falsehoods about one of the few pols who hasn't sold out to corporatism. Nader may on occasion hold a demagogic position but he certainly is not a demagogue and he didn't become rich because of his politics. A true democrat (with a small d) would first point out the undemocratic nature of the electoral college and that DLCers let republicans steal the election Gore won, then discuss how conservative Democrats gave to Bush nearly everything he wanted instead of being a genuine opposition. A genuine opposition party could have prevented 90% of what Bush did if anything by promissing to hold them accountable in front of the law. Nader's candidacy did split the non-republican vote but it isn't the ultimate reason for Bush's power grab; the complicity of establishment democrats with neocons for the last 8 years is the proof that progressives are right not to trust politicians who are more concerned with the interest of economic elites than representing americans. DLCers own this mess nearly to the same extent that GOPers do, so don't blame the people like Nader who knew it all along.

hmmm ... isn't 'the steady decline of spray' an oxymoron?

Your post is a mess and you could at least try to quote me correctly. No. I was very active in the anti war effort at the time and the NYT covered the protests very thoroughly (after all, some of the largest protests were taking place in NYC). They also disagreed with unilateral military action. I'll have to assume that you do not disagree that the NYT strengthened the case for war since you do not address the important points I made in that respect. I don't need to explain how arguing along with Bush that Iraq was a threat and should be forced to disarm in spite of the opinion of UN weapon inspectors does not constitute a liberal position. the self styled 'progressives' in this country also voted for Nader in numbers, just one of many examples of the wisdom of their agenda and decision making. Fortunately, they are relatively few in number. Unfortunately, not few enough to fuck the rest of us in 2000. Most proggressives I've dealt with (quite a few, actually) are all complaints and no action, only a select few would ever dream of soiling their hands by running for a real political office or getting out there and doing some actual work that might change things, so they're pretty easy to ignore. The primary goal of the progressive movement seems to be to feel good about one's self. Are you saying that favoring a military solution in afghanistan is a liberal position? As to your opinion of progressives, they are mostly wrong. Nader has probably done more for the common man in america than most of the democratic establishment put together. Progressives are often organizers at the grassroot level. Their lack of involvment at the political level is more a reflexion on the seeming hopelessness of accomplishing much within the 2-party system. One man's 'lip service' is another man's opposition in print. Your sleight of hand doesn't address whether supporting NAFTA is a liberal position.

You only posted that link after I mentionned who's D'Souza's source of funding. You posted writings by 2 rigthwing pundits in this thread (D'Souza and Kudlow) and you'd like people to think that is substantiation for your point of view? This is simply laughable. on Kudlow: "Kudlow opposes estate taxes, as well as taxes on dividends and capital gains. He also advocates that employees be compelled to make greater contributions to their pension and medical costs, suggesting that these expenses are an undue burden on corporations and defends high executive compensation as a manifestation of market forces and opposes most forms of government regulation."

They were against going to war without the support of the international community but they strongly endorsed/strengthened the logic for going to war. They agreed with Bush that Iraq was a threat and should be forced into disarming (in spite of the objection of UN inspectors), while some of their reporters (judith Miller and a couple others) were critical in fabricating the narrative about the existence of WMDs. The NYT essentially ignored the massive opposition to war among americans before it started. No. The supposedly liberal establshment supported attacking Afghanistan because it got caught up in the post 9-11 jingoism (which is anything but "liberal") but the progressive position was to advocate police actions to catch the culprits and policy reforms to avoid nasty blowback. Right, they paid lip service to the environment and labor yet they endorsed NAFTA as is and bashed anyone who opposed it. In summary, how do these positions amount to a liberal point of view? right, the 'non-ideological pragmatist' thingy that is so popular nowadays.

PP's drivel is golden and doesn't need substantiation. What a troll.

what is the editorial position on so-called free trade? NAFTA? assymetric globalization? attacking Iraq, Afghanistan? and on , and on. I challenge you to tell us which editorial positions on economics and foreign policy can be qualified as liberal.

I should add that you are deluded if you really think that I need to substantiate my statement according to which conservatives have been in control of all key institutions including the media for the last 30 years. Anybody who doesn't think so is either clueless or in bad faith and there is little I can do about either of these conditions.

Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction by Naomi Klein It's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/09-0

"scholars"? certainly not. A bunch of propagandists and ideologues for corporatism is what they are. Did you ask PP about substantiating his claims and for a link at the top of this thread? nope, you didn't. Did you ask D'Souza to substnatiate his claims? nope, you didn't. It seems to me that your need for substantiation is very selective. What a surprise (not).

Why would I be afraid of posting a wikipedia link? But, why don't you answer the substance of the post? Is it surprising to have a hack claim his employers aren't responsible? Btw, that was only the 3rd time in as many weeks that you played the "librul media" card while stomping away and never responding to any arguments I put forward. How many more times are you going to do this?

It's about to change again as congress approves of Israel's bloody assault on palestinians.

I wish it were amnesia but unfortunately it is a willfull attempt at drawing attention away from the unprecedented crisis (economic and environmental) that market fundamentalists have engineered, as well as an attempt at having the taxpayer pay for the misdeeds of the banksters while they get away with the loot. The only role of "big government" in this mess is what the fake small government types (advocates of corporate welfare in disguise) have forced on americans (bloated military budget that benefits the militari-industrial complex, military adventurism and intrusion into the private lives of americans).

Is "big government" the cause of the largest ever transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper 1% of the income bracket over the last 30 years? Of course not, on the contrary, that is the handy work of the market fundamentalists who continually blame "big government" for the problem they caused. Is "big government" responsible for the financial fiasco and the collapse of the world economy? of course not, that is the handy work of the market fundamentalists who continually blame "big government" for the problem they caused. Maddoff, the emblematic figure of the casino economy, certainly didn't steal 50 billions over 20 years because of too much government. Is "big government" responsible for the environmental crisis and resource depletion that threaten our very civilisation. Of course not, the market fundamentalists who continually blame "big government" fight off environmental protections and sustainable policies on every front. Is "big government" responsible for invading Iraq and destroying trillions of dollars we don't have (and over a million lives)? Yes, market fundamentalists who happen to have no problem with corporate welfare even though they claim to be against "big government"(what a surprise) shoved a war down the throat of americans thanks to the propaganda in the media, including the NYT.

Recent source of funding of the Hoover institution: Archer Daniels Midland Foundation ARCO Foundation Boeing-McDonnell Foundation Chrysler Corporation Fund Dean Witter Foundation [13] Exxon Educational Foundation [14] Ford Motor Company Fund General Motors Foundation J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation Procter & Gamble Fund Rockwell International Corporation Trust Transamerica Foundation why should anyone be surprised that some hack who writes for a fake academic institute that is funded by corporations thinks there is no problem with corporate control of government and keeps bleating the same 30-year old drivel about "big government" to prevent investment in our economic infrastructure, after sending jobs abroad for decades? Do you think your readers are fools?

As if you citing a conservative blowhard who pulls arguments out of his ass and whose positions aren't consistant with his rhetoric gave any substance to your posts. Futhermore, have you actually addressed any of the points I made? Haven't so-called small government types been in power for 30 years? Aren't they responsible for "big government" policies and the economic fiasco that followed as well as our diminished ability to answer to it? How are these points not on topic?

Ha,ha,ha….curiosity. Don’t you have it? Besides do you understand the meaning of the word, cosmos? I think I am a curious person. But I also think the object of curiosity shouldn't be random. If it was it'd be mostly a waste of time, no? I know about the universe but 'cosmos' sounds a little subject to interpretation. I don't know about Vernadsky (I am not much into life sciences). I'll check out your link.