tvashtarkatena

You read the synopsis, and that's what counts. The rest is just supporting arguments you won't grasp anyway. In any case, I got you to stop posting. Cool. I didn't think that was possible.

It was a stuffed Smurf. I'm sure of it. Maybe.

Yeah, I'd like to see you quote where I pitted socialism against democracy. I thought only GOP simpletons played the 'ism only' game. Also a nice rhetorical ploy to dodge the debate by claiming that we're not speaking the same language or using the same terms or whatever bullshit you just tried to foist here. Yes, we're speaking exactly the same language. And I'm saying that, for the most part, you're thesis is full of shit given current trends. Localism will occur in most places regardless of politics due to the hard limitations of resource depletion. Sooner or later, it's a hard stop. Sustainable cultures, the only kind that will survive eventually, will necessarily be managing their resources more tightly and locally. Latin America may be abandoning some of the more rapacious economic 'reforms' of the past, but this does not equate to a substantial move away from democracy with the notable exception of Venezuela. Similarly, the increased regionalism in response to a United States-gone-wild is a form of localism, not a movement away from Democracy. Finally, a movement towards socialist policies also does not constitute a movement away from democracy. Latins, like us, have used their democratic power to vote for leaders who will enact them. I'd say their democracies are as healthy as ever. America has already drifted pretty far towards a European model of socialist democracy, thanks to Bush, and will continue to do so. The issues of most concern to Americans nowadays are nearly all domestic and demand such a movement: health care, job protection, financial regulation, energy independence, and the environment. The fact that our federal government is a dinosaur doesn't mean that this tidal change isn't happening among the populace and at all other levels of government. In a way, the incompetence of the Bush administration has forced this necessary change. Unfortunately, the cost of their failures may take everyone, even at the state and local levels, down the toilette with them. We'll see...pretty soon, I'd wager. America is saddled with just under half the population who seem to be living in the middle ages. This half is definitely holding the country back...no, make that dragging the country down, but I believe the conservative movement of which I speak is dying in the face of a harsh reality.

I'll be there.

I believe air and emotion as collateral have already been tried.

I wouldn't compose a requiem for democracy just yet. The world has steadily marched towards democracy over the past century, most notably since the end of colonialism and the fall of the Soviet Union. Even China, officially communist, has become far more democratic since its Maoist days. Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian revolution is a temporary luxury funded by petro-dollars, not a latin American-wide movement. Most of latin America, although perhaps less aligned with the United States now, remains solidly democratic. Truly totalitarian states, once the norm for half the world, can only be found in a few backwater nations these days. I suppose you could point to Putin and Chavez as bellweathers, but somehow, I doubt they're leading some world trend. So what of the future? The future will bring more localism forced by increasingly expensive energy. Localism typically brings a more democratic system for obvious reasons, particularly when there is already a culture of democracy in place, as is the case over much of the world now. Larger national goverments will weaken as a result of this decentralization of political control brought about by resource limitations. Resource scarcity will mean less surplus with which to buy big national luxuries such as air craft carriers, space weapons, and fighter planes. The role of national goverments will shrink accordingly. That is not to say that national systems won't exist; information systems to aid in providing more efficient health care would be one consolidation that would greatly cut duplicated costs and waste, for example. But the nice-to-haves-but-don't-really-need, such as a huge offensive military (which sucks up 59% of our discresionary national budget) will no longer be affordable. In short, we in the US will probably see what seems like a contradiction; increased socialism (it's already happening, and will need to happen much more to achieve energy independence, etc) and a weaker federal goverment, primarily through shrinking a bloated military, paid for with debt, that we haven't been able to afford for quite some time now. Reaganesque federal control mechanisms, such as block grants to states, will probably go away to, leaving states to fend for themselves on most infrastructure issues.

One of Bail Out's glaring omissons is the return to the gold standard. Two big problems with mortgage backed securities are a) no one seems to know what they're worth and b) real estate values are subject to speculation. We need to base our fractional reserve on something with tangible, intrinsic value that, unlike real estate, is neither volatile nor speculated on.

Under the Keynesian Economics, wealth gets transferred to those who control it and everyone else is placed under its debt, just as it is today. Eventually the debt becomes too great to keep propped up by artificial economics. It builds debt, not wealth. Except for the people who sit at the top of this system. And is so cunning in its deceit, that only one in a million understand it, just like Keynes himself said. "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some....The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920 Thomas Jefferson got it right! I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. Can you explain for us again who is at fault for the present crisis? Nixon for doing away with the gold standard? Socialists? Deregulators? Whoever invented fractional reserve banking way back in the Middle Ages? Also, how has our wealth been gradually transfered to the government exactly? Did this continue to happen even in times of zero national debt? Use as few sentences as possible, please. We're not interviewing Sarah Palin here.

Why do you think Obama's arrogant? He doesn't seem to come across that way, and even McCain isn't claiming that. He's well spoken, confident, and gentlemanly. Does that come across as arrogant to you? If so, how should a well educated, well spoken person act nowadays? Just curious.

Somehow, given the way your man Gramps is doing, I dooooon't think that'll be necessary.

I like the new avatar. It's fucked up. Never was comfortable with the smurf (it's NOT A MUPPET, DYEEOOOOOD). I mean, what do smurfs represent? Anyone? And furthermore, did smurfs walk the earth at the same time Barney did?

It seems that the new bail out deal is even worse for the public than the old one due to the addition of even more regressive tax cuts. The increase in FDIC coverage from 100K to 250K is probably needed for businesses, not so much for individuals. The gaping whole in the plan, and one that greatly reduces its chances of bouying up the eonomy, is the lack of foreclosure/bankrupcy reform; the ability to re-negotiate primary home mortgages. This is the root cause of the current crisis. Not addressing it does not effectively address the crisis. It won't cost the Fed a dime, either, but, apparently, the GOP's base will have none of it. Meanwhile, McCain's numbers continue to slip. It seems that his grandstanding over the past two weeks didn't quite come off the way he expected it would. Newly registered voters nationwide, and there are a lot of them of late, are breaking for Obama 2:1. Oops.

Freeeekin Grinch'z alwayz got thuh nucul'r bud, brah

Pack that Third Dynasty one hitter with sumora thyat fawkin mummy weed, Doooooood.

Sounds like there'll be sum kyuhllr schmaoke thar, myahn.

I think what Dawg is implying here is that alcohol abuse is preferable to THC abuse.

I was just down in the Sierras, and, don't get me wrong, the Sierras are great, but they are very barren and monochromatic. I found myself missing those deep green glacier carved valleys that you never, ever want to drop into. After almost 3 decades, the Cascades still delight and surprise me every time I go out.

Oh, Jaybus, I just saw the banner ad. HAW!

2nd Ascent in Seattle is a DMM dealer and will order picks for customers. Doesn't help an Alaskan, but....

Dude, you're later than a republican presidential candidate during a financial crisis.

Even The Dumb in this country are just a little pissed off right now.

They've already floated that one. It went over like a grogon in a kiddy pool.

It's precisely this trait that has the national media skewering Palin. What plays well in podunk, AK, doesn't quite fly in the Pros.

Yeah, but that was parody back then. Now these Stepford-zombie-freaks run the country. It's just not funny anymore. Who knew Dallas was a reality show?

You can't make silk out of a Moose's ear. Palin's gonna look stupid during the debate, as she has during her other appearances (only this time she'll face an experienced, well spoken opponent who will try to make her look stupid, instead of fawning interviewers trying to help her embarrass herself less) and McCain's numbers will certainly not rise as a result. I'm not sure there's all that much wrong with the debate format. It's how the candidates choose to answer the questions that matters.