|
Rants
Jul 23, 2010 15:02:11 GMT -5
Post by Rincewind on Jul 23, 2010 15:02:11 GMT -5
Hm, well, I was going to start a new, less important, rant, but let's sound off here first. I don't blame the states for wanting to try to make their own laws if the federal government isn't enforcing theirs. Reagan's attempt at immigration reform was rather a disaster, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Still, I rather think our country has better things to worry about right now than immigration. Because of the economy, there are less illegal immigrants coming here now than there have been in a while, and some are even going home! Rather sad commentary, that. Not to say that illegal immigration isn't a large problem, but we've simply got more important issues. This seems to be something cooked up to be an issue, fundamentally. The one thing that DOES make my blood boil is when conservatives attack Obama for the deficit. I wouldn't mind so much if they'd been concerned about this the whole time- but when W. Bush deliberately did away with a record budget surplus and created a huge deficit for no good reason, they sat back and said nothing. Then there was 9/11 and we needed more money for the wars- and the deficit got even larger. No complaints. Now we have someone trying to dig the country out of a recession and keep the economy from collapsing. What is the generally agreed upon method worldwide? Government spending, generally deficit spending. And NOW people decide that the deficit is a bad thing. Really? Just now? WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU? !? Any president after W's disastrous fiscal policies would be dealing with this issue, and probably in much the same way. But he's a Democrat, so it's bad. Ugh. Unfortunately, the Republicans have been trying to pass themselves off as the party of fiscal responsibility for the last 30 years, and been directly responsible for increasing the federal deficit for most of their time in power (the original Bush being a notable exception- and then he was denied a second term because of what he had to do to achive that). OK, that's my pet peeve. I am annoyed at much of the criticism of Obama when it seems much less based on fact than it had under G. W. Bush, but I expect idiots and asshats on the news these days. I'd just like them to be CONSISTENT idiots and asshats. Is that really too much to ask?
|
|
|
Rants
Jul 23, 2010 15:06:00 GMT -5
Post by Rincewind on Jul 23, 2010 15:06:00 GMT -5
OK, less important rant time-
Pizza Hut has decided that Extra Cheese is not a topping. Buh? That's right, their "$10 pizza, any topping, any crust" *extra for stuffed crust* deal means that you'll pay $10 for a large Supreme pizza, and $11 for a pizza with just extra cheese. As a rather picky vegetarian, and one who has to order pizza with others and find some compromise on toppings, this is frequently what I get. And this is NOT mentioned on their posters or advertising, it's a stealth fee. You can't even choose extra cheese instead of 3 or 4 other toppings. It's just extra.
I am not ordering anything whatsoever from Pizza Hut (with the possible exception of a sit-down buffet with the family) until they change this- which may be never again. This is asinine, ridiculous, and may even be false advertising, given that it is not stated anywhere.
|
|
|
Rants
Sept 30, 2010 9:54:29 GMT -5
Post by Rincewind on Sept 30, 2010 9:54:29 GMT -5
OK, one more on this subject because I'm getting to be quite the broken record here-
So the Republicans who deeply care about the budget and the deficit, the ones courting tea party voters and the models of fiscal responsibility, have come up with a plan to get back on track that involves... keeping tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? And not even touching the vast majority of government spending? I'm sorry, did I miss something, are we back in the 1980's? I'm seeing Reagan's fiscal policies all over again (minus the part about making government smaller), something which his budget director thinks is a horrible idea and which, frankly, only works if representatives in Washington have the guts to cut into areas of spending which are considered to be untouchable, like Defense and Medicare/Medicaid- something they rather obviously don't. For years, the real Republican budgetary plan has appeared to be "If we make a big enough mess here, the Democrats will clean it up and take the fall for doing what needs to be doing while we get the short-term rewards for cutting taxes and spending on what we want."
This is not just me, I have yet to see a real economist take a look at this plan and think it's a good idea. The more negative of them seem to feel that it'll collapse the government entirely in ten years, which has to be some sort of record. THIS IS NOT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. Dammit, you need to raise revenues AND cut expenses, and this plan ignores the former while doing virtually nothing of the latter.
OK, I see how this is going here. Hm, I wonder what the best investments are if you're planning on the collapse and bankruptcy of the USA.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Rants
Sept 30, 2010 12:37:26 GMT -5
Post by Dmitri on Sept 30, 2010 12:37:26 GMT -5
Look up "Supply-Side Economics" in a macroeconomics textbook for an of the theory.
It is worth noting that in worked pretty well to grow GDP at rates above 3% in the 80s, adjusted for inflation, and helped to drag us out of a recession. It is also worth noting that Kennedy did some of this stuff, too, and it worked pretty well, while raising tax rates during hard times usually has disastrous results because it kills both the ability of the consumer to demand goods and services, and the ability of the producer to innovate and create new goods and services which might increase demand.
Not saying it is what we should be doing now... I really don't know what we should be doing, honestly. I haven't read enough of the economic proposal right now to really have an honest opinion. Yet I do have a pretty decent understanding of micro and macro, and can say confidently that there are "real economists" who support the idea. When we start tossing around terms like "real economists" we are pretty close to just beating up people instead of ideas, something that is easy but hardly useful. As for the history of it... people gotta lay off the Reagan thing, because 1) it wasn't as bad, objectively and by the numbers, as people try to make it out to be, and 2) SS econ is actually a viable theory held by some economists, it just isn't the "in-vogue" idea of the liberal elite, so it gets little coverage in most mainstream media.
|
|
|
Rants
Sept 30, 2010 20:40:15 GMT -5
Post by grond on Sept 30, 2010 20:40:15 GMT -5
I want to chime in with a mild ech-hmm at the liberal main-stream media. A fairly large number, and I believe majority, of the discussion based programming (talk-shows) that are not comedic variety hours are pro-republican. Whether this is because republican politics is favorable to high salaried entertainers, or because republican rhetoric (I hope that is the word I'm looking for) is usually more suited to inspiring the feelings and provocations we look for in entertainment (having a real tough time spelling that one today) is any body's guess (probably someone knows, or at least has a better informed theory than mine). All the same, the sheer amount of controversy that surrounds these ideas is empirical proof that the material receives mass media exposure. I will allow that if internet blogues (I don't actually want to know the right way to spell that), independent news letters and the Daily Show constitute main stream media, they probably are largely democratic/ tea party/ green party/ constitution party/ and what's that other thing that got upset with Ron Paul for running as a republican so he could save his current political position while taking less of a longshot gamble at getting the presidency than it would have been running as a non republican non democrat (can't call it a third party because we have like 8 parties, or more) who have historically never broken a significant enough percentage of the votes to even be close to the viable horse to bet on. . . ummm, dang I thought it would come to me. But seriously, news papers, as I have been informed, though have no first hand source so maybe I've been duped, are often, probably mostly, conservative. Radio talk shows that don't air on NPR or its few affiliates are conservative (ok, you got me, I lied, nothing on Fox news radio is conservative, but they push the republican agenda). Television is often either in support of the current cabinet, or conservative (usually conservative). Comedy and fiction are Democratic more often. That said, any economic recovery plan is seriously unpredictable because it relies on the reactions of an emotional and unpredictable beast, the American consumer, which is easily prodded be negative enforcement. A sad byproduct of our pessimistic survival instincts; Focus on the bad, it has to be changed or escaped, the good will stay around on its own. The strongest tool to see our way through bad times is positivity. Nothing works but that which we make work. My brain is starting to leak out of my ear from thinking, I should go drink to replace it.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Rants
Sept 30, 2010 21:30:30 GMT -5
Post by Dmitri on Sept 30, 2010 21:30:30 GMT -5
"I want to chime in with a mild ech-hmm at the liberal main-stream media. A fairly large number, and I believe majority, of the discussion based programming (talk-shows) that are not comedic variety hours are pro-republican. Whether this is because republican politics is favorable to high salaried entertainers, or because republican rhetoric (I hope that is the word I'm looking for) is usually more suited to inspiring the feelings and provocations we look for in entertainment (having a real tough time spelling that one today) is any body's guess (probably someone knows, or at least has a better informed theory than mine). All the same, the sheer amount of controversy that surrounds these ideas is empirical proof that the material receives mass media exposure. I will allow that if internet blogues (I don't actually want to know the right way to spell that), independent news letters and the Daily Show constitute main stream media, they probably are largely democratic/ tea party/ green party/ constitution party/ and what's that other thing that got upset with Ron Paul for running as a republican so he could save his current political position while taking less of a longshot gamble at getting the presidency than it would have been running as a non republican non democrat (can't call it a third party because we have like 8 parties, or more) who have historically never broken a significant enough percentage of the votes to even be close to the viable horse to bet on. . . ummm, dang I thought it would come to me. But seriously, news papers, as I have been informed, though have no first hand source so maybe I've been duped, are often, probably mostly, conservative. Radio talk shows that don't air on NPR or its few affiliates are conservative (ok, you got me, I lied, nothing on Fox news radio is conservative, but they push the republican agenda). Television is often either in support of the current cabinet, or conservative (usually conservative). Comedy and fiction are Democratic more often." - Grond
Largely depends on what you mean by "conservative" and "liberal". The perspective of many would be...
Fox? Guess it's as close as you get nowadays in mainstream media. MSNBC? Liberal. CNN? Liberal. Print papers are sometimes more conservative, sometimes more liberal. Blogs and the like tend to be a mixed bag, but are hardly mainstream media. Hollywood and academia? Liberal. NPR? Wacko-off-the-deep-end liberal.
While that may or may not be true, it is fairly important to remember that we live in Lancaster County, bastion of tradition that it is. I find the New Era/Intelligencer to be pretty atypical as opposed to something like the Times or the Post.
|
|
Steve
Braggart
THAT'S A STATISTICAL ANOMALY!
Posts: 148
|
Rants
Sept 30, 2010 22:40:52 GMT -5
Post by Steve on Sept 30, 2010 22:40:52 GMT -5
Oh hey guys. Just setting a record straight here.
If you define "mainstream media" as the media without a political bias, it doesn't exist. C-SPAN is as close as it gets, and they rarely do anything except broadcast legislative hearings. Fox isn't news. It's republican-biased swill. MSNBC isn't news. It's liberally-biased swill. The best you can do to get a decent picture is scan a variety of networks and develop an opinion of your own. Be one of the small percentage of americans that does.
I don't have an answer to the current recession, but Obama's ideas are not the problem. He's doing a good job. He's just too naive to notice that the legislative branch isn't.
|
|
|
Rants
Oct 1, 2010 14:38:44 GMT -5
Post by grond on Oct 1, 2010 14:38:44 GMT -5
Well, it has long been my opinion that the media has heavily trended towards conservative, but as I said, or implied, that is definitely a product of bias (my opinion is the product of bias). So I will gracefully stand corrected.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Rants
Oct 1, 2010 16:43:15 GMT -5
Post by Dmitri on Oct 1, 2010 16:43:15 GMT -5
Well, it has long been my opinion that the media has heavily trended towards conservative, but as I said, or implied, that is definitely a product of bias (my opinion is the product of bias). So I will gracefully stand corrected. No need to really stand corrected. Given that conservative and liberal take on different meanings to different people, particularly based on which channels, times, etc. you watch or read, it is easy to have it be "moderate" to one guy and "liberal" to others.
|
|
|
Rants
Oct 2, 2010 7:22:08 GMT -5
Post by grond on Oct 2, 2010 7:22:08 GMT -5
Well, I think the key there is noting the difference between "conservative" and Republican, "liberal" and Democrat, because the two political parties seem to be heavily represented along with their ideas and agendas, but they are not always true to their normal or traditional stances. After all, the early democrats were staunch conservatives and wasn't Lincoln a Republican?
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Rants
Oct 2, 2010 10:34:23 GMT -5
Post by Dmitri on Oct 2, 2010 10:34:23 GMT -5
Quite true - for what it is worth, a brief history of major American political parties and a base line ideology for each (thanks Dr. McLarnon - never thought I'd actually get to use his class much!)
Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans
Federalists (John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay) - very pro-business and industry, pro-British, in favor of a powerful executive and powerful Federal government over the rights of states
Democratic-Republicans (Tom Jefferson, Aaron Burr, John Quincy Adams) - very pro-farmer, pro-French, pro-state's rights
Federalist Party largely dies by about 1815 and leaves just one party for a few years, the Era of Good Feelings as it was called.
Democrats vs. National Republicans
National Republicans - the party of JQA, supported business and internal improvements and expansion, powerful central government
Democrats - the party of Jackson, supported smaller farmers and states over the federal, individuals over collective
By about 1834 the National Republicans had joined forces with other groups to form the Whigs.
Whigs vs Democrats
Whigs - the party of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, John C Calhoun, opposed to Jackson, really a hodge-podge of pro-business, pro-abolition, pro-expansion, pro-British ideas and factions with little to bind them together except for their hatred of Jackson and his "dictatorial" policies, and support for a National Bank
Democrats - still basically the party of Jackson, now with a pro-slavery Southern bent coming more to the foreground
By 1850 the Whigs are largely defunct, have splintered into a variety of parties like the Know-Nothings (an anti-immigrant party, mostly), the Free Soil Party (expansion to the West) and a variety of other parties, including abolitionist parties.
Republicans vs Democrats
Republicans - anti-slavery, pro-executive and Federal government, pro-north, Unionist
Democrats - pro-slavery, pro-south, state's rights, Secessionist
This is a simplification of the lead up to the Civil War, and it continued after the War. The Dems took a long time to get any credibility back after their anti-Unionist positions during the War, and their support of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan afterwards, along with the sheer number of former Rebel officers who joined their ranks.
Democrat vs Republican (1865-1900)
Democrat - small farmer, pro-states, anti-black, pro-Southern rebuilding, isolationist
Republican - bigger business, investment, pro-North and Western expansion, foreign involvement
In about 1900 the major shift in Republican party politics was towards greater government involvement in business affairs with regulatory actions and even greater expansionist policies.
Basically for the next 60 years the Republicans will support civil rights, be pro-business, etc. The Democrats will support segregation, rural areas, etc. They will both waver on the issues of isolationism and foreign affairs, with each party taking different stances at different times. In the 1960s a shift began to take place, though, as more of the Democratic party began to shift to the left socially, embracing some of the young people in the peace movements, hippies, etc. This results in many of the socially "conservative" members of the Democratic party bolting to the Republicans over issues like sexual orientation, abortion, etc. With the defeat of McGovern in 1972 the shift was pretty well complete. The Republican's retained their pro-business leanings, but picked up a large Southern group that favored slower movement towards egalitarianism. In the 80s and 90s this polarization continued with the major issues being wrapped in social terms, including the difference between a welfare state and a more purely merit-based society.
Either way, my point is that Grond is quite correct. There are both conservative and liberal elements within both parties.
|
|
|
Rants
Oct 31, 2010 16:04:02 GMT -5
Post by Dragonsrule on Oct 31, 2010 16:04:02 GMT -5
ALL COMPUTER HACKERS, should have their hands cut off. I do long days Fri/Sat and when I tried to get into LOTRO today, my password/username do not match kept coming up. Nothing would work, even trying to get my password retrieved, apparently goes to a new E-mail adress, since I never recieved an E-mail.
I made a F2P account just to see something and sure enough all my characters were logged on/off on 10/29/10 between 11am and 1145 am. I was at work at those times. So I figure the Bastards are going to gut all my characters and my house.
Needless to say I am totally pissed off, ready to break down. I have 2years invested in all that stuff. Plus its my Lifetime account.
|
|