"Nothing to see here..."

[flintlock]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

I am rather young, so I have only ever known the kind of politics we deal with today. I don't know if things were more or less corrupt back then. In the very least, the corruption that was there was much more contained. I am very thankful for the Internet, though. It has really opened my eyes to the world. Maybe the corruption was always there, but the lack of an apparatus for seeing it easily was just not there. Now we can hop on and check the facts for everything anyone says. We can go back to the day they were born and know what they have said or done after that point with incredible ease.

Society has a cancer and it has metastasized.

There was corruption then of course. But the outright looting of the treasury, the trillion dollar deficits, the corporate ownership of our politicians, would not have been so easy to pull off. I remember never locking doors. Never dreaming of having to worry about letting kids play in the streets. I would ride my bike to my Grandmothers 10 miles away. Never worrying about some pervert grabbing me. Bad things happened then too of course, but it was really just a different world in some ways. Then again some think the 40s were great. And maybe they were, if you forget about Hitler, or racism,etc. But even then, I think the ordinary people in america at least had a better level of ethical behavior in general. Note I didnt say perfect. But I no longer completely feel safe in a city today. Something that never concerned me in the 80s. There is a culture of violence today. Crimes against children are out of control. Or are they just better at catching people?

[BadJuju]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

There was corruption then of course. But the outright looting of the treasury, the trillion dollar deficits, the corporate ownership of our politicians, would not have been so easy to pull off. I remember never locking doors. Never dreaming of having to worry about letting kids play in the streets. I would ride my bike to my Grandmothers 10 miles away. Never worrying about some pervert grabbing me. Bad things happened then too of course, but it was really just a different world in some ways. Then again some think the 40s were great. And maybe they were, if you forget about Hitler, or racism,etc. But even then, I think the ordinary people in america at least had a better level of ethical behavior in general. Note I didnt say perfect. But I no longer completely feel safe in a city today. Something that never concerned me in the 80s. There is a culture of violence today. Crimes against children are out of control. Or are they just better at catching people?

It was my understanding that violence has went down. The 'wave of violence and culture of violence' that we hear of today is more of a fabrication of the media more than anything. The only reason people worry so much these days about stuff like letting their children hang outside is the media constantly playing up stories that didn't really receive much attention back in the day.

[flintlock]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

My take on Palin. Not stupid, but not brilliant either. Very ambitious. I disliked her when she first came on the scene, as a token woman for the ticket. A true amatuer in the beginning. Still dont like her , but no more than most politicians. One of her faults initially was not being wise enough to realize how ignorant on some issues she was. In other words, she was full of herself and got shot down in interviews as a result. Like most politicians, thinks all you need is a nice smile and a positive attitude. Relied on her looks. Not much depth initially, but has improved. Decided at some point she wanted the money more than the real power. I dont expect her to ever hold a high office. Will always choose reality tv shows and speaking engagements for $ over grueling campaigning and humiliation by the media. Easier to just play on the sidelines. I am a little surprised at how quick some are to champion any politician. In these days of politicians for cash, its like choosing your proctologist.

[c1ue]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

There was corruption then of course. But the outright looting of the treasury, the trillion dollar deficits, the corporate ownership of our politicians, would not have been so easy to pull off.

I don't know about that. Teapot Dome springs to mind.

I think the main difference today - and one point which I do actually agree with the libertarians - is the size of government. In the 1900s, government's hand was very very light on the average American both in the positive and negative sense.

Today it is not.

[lektrode]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

My take on Palin. Not stupid, but not brilliant either. Very ambitious. I disliked her when she first came on the scene, as a token woman for the ticket. A true amatuer in the beginning. Still dont like her , but no more than most politicians. One of her faults initially was not being wise enough to realize how ignorant on some issues she was. In other words, she was full of herself and got shot down in interviews as a result. Like most politicians, thinks all you need is a nice smile and a positive attitude. Relied on her looks. Not much depth initially, but has improved. Decided at some point she wanted the money more than the real power. I dont expect her to ever hold a high office. Will always choose reality tv shows and speaking engagements for $ over grueling campaigning and humiliation by the media. Easier to just play on the sidelines. I am a little surprised at how quick some are to champion any politician. In these days of politicians for cash, its like choosing your proctologist.

+1
(esp the 'one of her faults' part, as a lot of us here can relate to... ;)

but for some of us, it isnt The Person that we 'champion' its What She Does/Has Done
and What She Says, along with How She Says It
and frankly, i dont care whether she actually writes it all or not, only THAT SOMEBODY SAYS IT

so...like i said above, at least she Walks the Walk _and_ Talks the Talk
even IF i dont necessarily agree with her on _everything_ she says/does
at least we know - from her record in AK - that she acknowledges what The Real Problems are (vs the manufactured/faux outrage and opinion-poll-driven pandering that some of her adversaries love to stump about)

and, the best part: she isnt/wasnt afraid of being a One-Term office holder = quite refreshing, in that regard, in particular - and in so being, GOT THINGS DONE, that _really_ matter
(instead of shamelessly pandering to toenail slivers of the electorate in an effort to 'broaden the base' of support - so typical of those that subscribe to the 'victim/persecution-industrial complex' mentality that so pervades the left = why the liberal/intellectual-industrial complex doesnt like her, as she's a real threat to their .gov-sponsored gravy train, the REAL objection by them to candidates like her)

and we need more political candidates like her, ones that arent afraid to call it like they see it and then go out and do something about it, without worry or concern for being re-elected.

far as i'm concerned the The Real Solution is to
ELIMINATE THE JOB TITLE of 'career politician'
and send them all home and back to work, like The Rest of US, at the fixed-end of their term(s) in office, with an absolute ban on further running for office (or lobbying) after some number of offices-held - and yes, that would also mean new rules/laws on lobbying etc and shutting down the revolving-door tween the .gov and the private sector (esp in the FIre areas)

[lektrode]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

I don't know about that. Teapot Dome springs to mind.

I think the main difference today - and one point which I do actually agree with the libertarians - is the size of government. In the 1900s, government's hand was very very light on the average American both in the positive and negative sense.

Today it is not.

+1
when they start telling us what kind and what size soft drinks we can have, its WAY PAST THE POINT of 'good' government

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

Agree the world is a better place than 1000 years ago. Or even 150 perhaps. Or even 50 . What many people may be refering to is the contrast between now and more recent times (50s-70s?). Evil has always existed, but I cant remember the level of corruption today, nor the general acceptance of shady behavior, on such a grand scale. At least the crooks had the sense to be more discrete back in "the good old days". I think the moral decay in our leaders is simply a result of the general decay of society. Has nothing to do necessarily with religion. Unless someone thinks society doesn't need any ethical standards, in which case they are sorely mistaken. Unfortunately many people equate rejection of religion with rejecting everything it stands for. As if to share common beliefs is contrary to their principles. I think a lot of society has thrown out the concept of ethical behavior in their rush to reject religion. And the results are obvious. A lot of Christian teachings, for example, are based on good advice for life in general. Don't steal, don't mess with your neighbors wife. Good advice regardless.

A few years back I saw the film When We Where Kings. It is a film about a boxing match, but the remarkable thing for me is the attitude towards social change exhibited by virtually everybody in the film. Everybody thinks that society can be perfected, that poverty can be wiped out, that crime can be a thing of the past, and most importantly, that corruption is an evil to be wiped out. Watching it is a reminder of how far we have come. Too big to fail anyone?

[Polish_Silver]

Palin's book: going rogue

I looked briefly at Palin's book "going Rogue". I think it is her only book so it should be what is most important to her. If it represents her thinking, she is too shallow for high office. It is a detailed description of her campaign experience
with Mc Cain. She rehashes her speeches, press encounters etc. No real analysis of the issues that I could find.

I have read that she was fairly effective in Alaska.

[Slimprofits]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

Do we agree that Palin as a good interview candidate?

Palin's conversion or whatever you want to call it, occurred sometime in 2009-2010.

Here she was in September of 2011:

Sarah Palin, in Iowa, attacks Obama and ‘crony capitalism’

By Dan Balz, Published: September 3, 2011

INDIANOLA, Iowa — Sarah Palin delivered a populist broadside here Saturday against President Obama, the entire political establishment and what she called the “crony capitalism” that she said is destroying the country. But she offered no fresh clues about whether she will seek the presidency in 2012.

Casting herself as the ultimate outsider, the former Alaska governor used a tea party rally to chastise the president and a “permanent political class” that she said has protected their powers and enriched them, their friends and their contributors at the expense of ordinary Americans and the country’s well-being.

“There is a name for this,” Palin said. “It’s called corporate crony capitalism. It’s not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts . . . and influence peddling and corporate welfare.”

Palin has said she will announce by the end of this month whether she will join the race for the White House in 2012. On Friday night, she told reporters “there’s room for more” candidates in the GOP field and when she arrived to greet supporters at a local restaurant, she was greeted with chants of “Run, Sarah, run.”

Many of those in Saturday’s large and enthusiastic audience, who braved repeated downpours until shortly before Palin appeared, came in anticipation that she might tip her hand in her speech. She stopped well short of that, but instead offered one of the most sweeping critiques of the political system since she first appeared on the national scene.

Palin sought to tap into the deep disaffection with Washington, as well as the widespread anxiety over the economy, by attempting to set herself apart from those in power and even those in her own party seeking the presidency. Palin decried the policies Obama has put in place as she called for an American restoration that would return power to the people.

“Folks, the truth is Barack Obama is adrift with no plan because his fundamental transformation is at odds with everything that made this country great,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense. He doesn’t make sense.”
Crony capitalism, she said, represents “the collusion of big government and big business and big finance, to the detriment of all the rest.” She said she fought and defeated that kind of collusion as governor of Alaska.

[Polish_Silver]

Will Palin get specific?

“There is a name for this,” Palin said. “It’s called corporate crony capitalism. It’s not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts . . . and influence peddling and corporate welfare.”

.

GReat to hear someone say this. I wonder if she can get more specific--propose reforms for the financial sector, bring back Glas-Steagal, etc. Obama was all about "Change".

[lektrode]

Re: Will Palin get specific?

why be 'specific' when all every aspect of 'the political economy' presents such a target rich environment.

but no matter, when the lamestream media has so thoroughly 'discredited' her and makes her the butt of the liberal commentariat's jokes

but at least we get to see queen nancy SQUIRM:



and does anybody really believe that if it wasnt for ms sarah's op/ed in the wsj, that there would have been any action on this issue whatsoever?

i mean for over 2 years the dems had full control of the agenda and what happened?
well....besides bailout of AIG so GS could make even more billions as the great meltdown ensued; bailout of the auto unions with cash fer klunkers so we get to pay dramatically more for used cars; 800billion to maintain the status quo/bailout the state/municipal unions for another year; a trillion dollar giveway to the med ins/drug mob, 2 different 2500 page+ presents to the lawyer brigade (obama'scare, barney bill/finance 'reform')....

all in all, quite a record of 'achievement' i must say....

but them bad ole oil co's are makin WAY too much money - what, 10% ?

[doom&gloom]

Re: Will Palin get specific?

I watch that clip and my Bullshit Meter pegs on high. I really detest that woman.

[ltullos]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

Suppose I am in the minority here, but I for one could care less what she has to say in an interview here or anywhere else. You can add to that list: Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Alan Greenspan, Jack Welch, Robert Rubin, Dick Durbin, Mitch McConnell, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Dimon, Hank (Maurice) Greenberg.

On the other hand, should you care to speak with Harry Markopolous, Elizabeth Warren, Brooksley Born, Shelia Barr, or Neil Barofsky; I'm all in because these people actually were astute enough to recognize the fraud that has destroyed our country and principled enough to try to do something about it.

[lektrode]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

Suppose I am in the minority here, but I for one could care less what she has to say in an interview here or anywhere else. You can add to that list: Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Alan Greenspan, Jack Welch, Robert Rubin, Dick Durbin, Mitch McConnell, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Dimon, Hank (Maurice) Greenberg.

On the other hand, should you care to speak with Harry Markopolous, Elizabeth Warren, Brooksley Born, Shelia Barr, or Neil Barofsky; I'm all in because these people actually were astute enough to recognize the fraud that has destroyed our country and principled enough to try to do something about it.

+1
now we're talkin/getting somewhere...
but still think palin has some kind of 'mandate' to speak/write or at least mouth the words (she does have a pretty face, after all ;) and perhaps has more of a 'bully pulpit' than the others listed

but markopolis, ms brooksley and warren et al i definitely want hear a lot more from - warrens work (on the reality of the middle class) cant be ignored much longer (by either side of the aisle)

[lektrode]

Re: Will Palin get specific?

keyword = pegged