socialisim in the us

That image is actually kind of hot. I'd hit it. But in a "hate fuck" type of way. Because the woman isn't really a conservative. I hate to sound sexist, but she's just a piece of ass who one day realized her tits could get her elected as mayor.

As far as hot chick politicians go, Palin is the polar opposite of Segolene Royale (sp).

On a side note: Niki Halley could also get it. (Again, excuse my spelling...long day)

 

Not all women sleep their way to the top.

 

ooooooo-tempting!

 

I've studied much about human sexuality, and, believe it or not, there are men who would find her to be sexually appealing. But, your point is still valid.

.

 

YIKES!

 

A real dog,eh?

 

i'll need rum

 

Don't insult dogs

I really feel bad poking fun because that woman is probably a nice lady, but DAMN

 

She was a successful journalist, asked politicians a lot of inconvenient questions and to be honest, got a bit old and wrinkly, probably has not been a raving beauty in a good many years, so for much of her career, she had to earn her street creds the old fashioned way, she earned them.

It is obvious that all the major television networks use physical beauty as one of the criteria for news reader positions. I admit to be transfixed, even in awe, some of these women are so stunning, so easy on the eyes. Putting aside the ones who are merely eye candy news readers, I want the ones doing the interviews and hard journalism to ask probing questions, to cut through the BS and get at the truth.

 

For this reason all news should be print or audio only, in the voice of a grumpy old man.

.

 

Or Donald Duck.

 

My imagination is now running wild with cartoon characters doing the news. Goofy on Wall Street Week, Elmer Fudd reading the president's speech, and Daisy Duck on the beach report. oh, and Mr. McGoo on eye witness news.

.

 

Angle and Miller basically said unemployment insurance is unconstitutional. So yes.

Fucking scumbags, I swear. Makes you wanna tie a black bandanna around your face and start chucking firebombs, no?

 

while their corporate masters keep profits and stock prices high with the occasional mass layoffs . . .

 

The corporate bosses and their lackeys only back down in the face of brute force.
We cannot deliver brute force without wider support for the social safety net that moderates and progressives want.
One man throwing a firebomb gets shot by a cop and buried and forgotten tomorrow.
A million people (or more?) who know the score will have the power to throw the bums in jail and keep a watchful eye on those who in power who claim to be acting in our best interest.

Tolkien was right. Anyone who wears the Dark Lord's ring too long gets corrupted by it. Wear it only long enough to do what you must, then pass the power quickly on to someone trustworthy before it destroys you.

 

Socialism in my eyes is probably the perfect form of government there is. Its the gray area in a black and white world. Therefor, its like an artform. It takes time to perfect. People in america just aren't patient enough to perfect it.

 

I am too much a pragmatist to advocate pure socialism or pure capitalism. I like Tom Friedman's ideas about a mixed economy. Major infrastructure needs central planning to get implemented. Innovations seem to emerge best in a system of rewards, so do whatever works best!

 

I hear ya. I talk a lot of shit on the market system, but I'm not anti-capitalist. I just don't think capitalism works when the capitalists basically own the government.

For instance...look at public schools. The worst public schools are in the worst neighborhoods because public schools are funded by local property taxes. Why not pump more federal money into those schools, especially urban public schools? The Fed really hates putting money toward big cities, but big cities have the worst public school systems. It makes no sense.

Considering the way America is set up -- as a federal government with strong local governments -- "big socialism" wouldn't work. But the Fed can certainly take care of broader social safety net issues that state and local governments can't handle. Healthcare, for example.

It's sickening, because we can slash 20 or 30 percent of our defense budget and pay for so much...and STILL have the most unquestionably bad-ass military in the world.

 

Our constitution was amended to say that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Could we have corporations declared a "religion" for legal purposes and have a constitutional ban that creates a wall of separation between business and government?

This separation of powers was actually attempted in process of establishing state capitals. Many states deliberately avoided locating their legislature and governor's mansion in the cities that served as the center of commerce and chose a quiet out-of-the-way town for their seat of government.
In our day of rapid transportation, other means will have to be found to separate corporation lobbyists from the ears (and purses) of congress.

I agree that local government and private schools are not able to fund the sheer numbers of kids who need a quality education.

Absolutely! A defense cut should not mean cutting defense, just reducing the contract costs to reasonable figures. The Pentagon is cozy with a handful of defense contractors and paying them far too much.

 

And ya know...I'm not convinced that Americans, in general, dig center-right politics because of some deluded and misguided loyalty to free market principles. I'm really not.

I am, however, convinced that Americans in general have been manipulated by corporate and wealthy forces to think the free market works in their interest. Because it hasn't, not really, since minimum wage legislation, post WW2 prosperity, etc all stemmed from some form of government intervention or action.

Also -- though this might be a simplistic answer -- I think the myth of "the American Dream" has really kicked the shit out of us as a nation, at least in regards to the working classes. Finding fault in the myth of the American Dream is nothing new, but I thought of it earlier as I watched some bullshit "debate" on Fox News.

That super bangable but bitchy blonde broad (Meagan Kelly, is that the name?) was interviewing Anthony Wiener about Obama's capitulation on the Bush Tax Cuts and, inevitably, the interview lurched toward the subject of "the morality of the estate tax" (as Kelly put it).

Kelly blathers about how it's not right to tax someone twice for their wealth, even after that person is dead. But the tax -- 35% on estates worth $5 million or more -- only effects 32,000 people. Those people are, of course, very wealthy.

Yet conservatives often oppose the estate tax on the grounds that hey, they just might earn that much money someday, and would pass it on to their children. And the conservatives who shout that bullshit argument so often are generally, it seems, of the working or middle class variety.

So millions of not-so-wealthy conservatives harbor some wacky dream that, if they just work hard enough, they too can have an estate worth $5 million bucks. But if that's feasible, why does the tax only effect 32,000 people?

It's bullshit. The vast, vast majority of Americans will never be rich. Many won't even join the middle class. Yet we continue to have many not-so-wealthy citizens in a delusional state, swearing up and down that one day they'll have a big chunk of the pie too.

Sad, man. Extremely sad. (Also, infuriating.)