prole

You mean the latte-sippin', volvo drivin', ivy-league educated, baby cart pushin' liberal elite? That's your schtick, dude.

I love you man, really I do.

Still waiting for that picture of Lenin's mummified corpse you like to drag off your desktop for these occasions. You can do it!

Ouch. You got me there. hilarious. people of your political persuasion don't execute retards, it's true. you execute intellectuals and the ruling class. then you take over. I'm glad to see you're working on your issues with the word "ilk". I know it's been hard but you seem to be making real progress. Keep up the good work and remember: one day at a time.

I don't know what that has to do with anything. I also do not mean to come off sounding like McCain is so damn much better. I think that the Keating 5 thing should be drug out and beat on with hammers in public by both sides of the isle....one more time! Loudly and publicly. Would that be Gilligan's Isle?

Ouch. You got me there.

Well, I'm sure you'll be gratified and thrilled that Obama will be reviving the George Bush "Faith Based Inititives' that Bush started pre first elections. LA times today I find it interesting that when most people evaluate Bush pre-presidential election - that is, as a Governor, he was a very good Governor by most accounts, a gov who listened to good advisors and mostly did the will of the people while maintaining a tight budget. VS Obama, who looks to have none of that as a pre-presidential candidate Senator. Bush stacks up as a much better Governor than Obama was or is as a senator. You though, believe that although Bush went to hell after he was elected, Obama will somehow magically improve. Like you, I had this hope as well until the dude played the semantic card we are discussion. You're so right. I mean we only have to look at how many retarded people Bush executed as governor compared to Obama to see that McCain would make a better president!

Were you locked a woodshed and beaten with an extension cord, as a child? I think I saw you on Springer. Yes, and I don't want you lib-tards and your big government telling people how to raise their kids either.

Seriously, I think that was Guiliani's line. Look where it got him.

HA! I get it..."change"! Ha, that's a good one! Amazing. Really. You really have been under a rock.

"Relax and take a deep breath, Senator. This will only take a second."

Your unconscious scatological analysis speaks volumes about your chosen candidate.

Pitts vs. Duggars

Trophy children? Jeezus, just do what any self-respecting celebrity would do: get some fucking chihuahuas, pugs, or bostons. This lady's trying to grow the world's 7th largest economy!

I thought wealth and education for women was supposed to lower fertility rates. What the hell is going on here?! Is she trying to single-handedly create her own ethnically diverse master race?

Speaking of IUDs

As usual your filibustering generally boils down to a Hobson's Choice, bland truisms, and a generalized disconnection from reality. The first is that technocracy is inevitable so pick your poison. Sorry Jay, but leaving the real policymaking to egghead economists with warped assumptions about humanity running computer games programs while the "political sphere" is entirely made up of stage-managed celebrity candidates whose messages are determined by the results of focus-groups doesn't sound very democratic. Not surprising coming from someone with so much love for the "Great Communicator" and an unhealthy contempt for democracy in practice. The second is the well-worn adage about the "government which governs least". I think we'd all agree about corruption and the like. However, what is astounding is that in your technocratic vision, power simply disappears or disipates through the marketplace. Ironic considering that if anything in the age of neoliberalism the bonds between State and the corporate elite have expanded and intensified tremendously. Cheney's energy policy example is only the tip of the iceberg. Corporations enabled by the State are to be where real decision-making takes place, "the people" (oops, sorry I forgot, "there is no society, only individuals") are reduced to a conglomerate of product preferences and lifestyle choices. The bit about discounts basically still boils down to what I suggested: an excuse for politicians to sit on their hands, timber companies, real-estate developers, mining companies, oil companies, agribusiness, and the rest to continue making money hand over fist with their eyes on the short-term gain, and "consumers" to keep stuffing their gullets and leaving future generations to clean up the mess. All with the stamp of approval of a real live computer model and all based on the facile assumption that the gravy train of technological innovation and improvements in efficiency bringing us closer (to what, I'd love to hear) will never ever stop. I'm not sure if global warming is "the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced", but as with all the great challenges and endeavors human beings have undertaken, an economist is probably the last person I'd ask to help.

That's not what Scott said.

Then call the stock-holder hotline cause that's where all your fucking 401K money is going too.

Hey Alkoholeke, if you're pissed off at Bank of America, maybe you should take advantage of their employee grievance procedure considering that you work for them.

The Trap is rad.

Exactly! So keep your head down, forget the past, keep buying shit, and trust that the technocrats will make the best decisions for you. Oh yeah, don't forget to vote!

Given the insularity of most, I'd say the vastly underestimate the value of them for those as well. California without snowpack would cease to function; there goes the 5th largest economy in the world; there goes the food basket of the world. Dude, giant pipes from Canada's lakes. Free-trade in fresh water don't you know!

Like most of these game-theory type models, the results are rigged from the very beginning. The outcomes are predetermined by their implicit assumptions about "rational" behavior, how it defines "human well-being" and what constitute real benefits. Wow, how hard would it have been to guess that this is "how an economist would manage a response to global warming" admittedly ignoring the threat to human and animal populations and "the damage that it may do". Translation: lowest cost possible/unrestricted profit-maximization full steam ahead. "Yeah, you know, if we just make some more money we can fix all these problems later. Yeah, don't worry we're like saving up all this money to use later on, you know, for important stuff." Glaciers gone, birds gone, ice gone, entire ecosystems gone. What a joke. Your reading of marginalized populations and environmental exploitation is just as bad. As usual it lacks any historical basis whatsoever. But as you say, that's for another discussion.

Went to Georgetown today. PBR murals, guys with mohawks driving BMWs, and fat-fucks in Docker pants from Bellevue appraising properties. That place is doomed.