Mark Baland's Philosophies & Politics - Latest Comments

Re: Republican Mantra: Our Children and Grandchildren

markbaland — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 05:04:43 -0000

I think direct democracy, like in the ancient Greek city-states, would be awesome! And I think it could be done electronically. The two major problems I see with that solution, however, are that many people lack internet access, especially broadband, and also that somebody is responsible for programming the voting machines and counting the votes, or verifying the electronic count, and any time you add in the human element you get agendas and the possibility of corruption. I doubt that the people in power now will want to step down though. Sorry about being snobby about your typing errors. It was immature and uncalled for. I guess I go overboard sometimes in defense of my position. I'm glad that I'm not the only person out there thinking about this stuff. And I'm glad that, for now, we have the right to discuss our opinions, online and offline. Let's hope that we don't see this right fade away in our lifetime, or in that of "our children and grandchildren"...

Re: Republican Mantra: Our Children and Grandchildren

Thomas L — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:56:09 -0000

Mark,

Thanks for the corrections to the errors. I enjoyed the response. You are fortunate to have several electrical power providers in your area to choose from, instead of a monopoly as many of us in other areas of the country have. While we differ in political views I believe that is one of the great things about this country, the freedom to express our different opinions.
I do not agree with Bush being a fascist, however I do agree that I should not have refered to liberals as fascist.
Lets put our political differences aside for a moment and look at the bigger picture. What this nation has is a broken political system. Whether a person be a Democrat or Republican, none of us are getting propper representation in the House and Senate. The vast majority of politicians are puppets to whoever is in control of the purse strings. What happened to PUBLIC SERVICE?
I believe politicians are now, and have been for a very long time SELF SERVING. Even our current administration, in my opinion, are self serving. We as tax paying citizens deserve better and propper representation by men and women who are committed to our best interest, not political agendas.
Perhaps with the technology we have available today we really don't need the politicians as our forefathers did. Many of the issues that we entrust the Congress and Senate to decide on could actually be voted on today by the people of this nation? It would certainly cut down on political corruption and wasteful spending. Oops, that would get into someones pockets.

Re: Republican Mantra: Our Children and Grandchildren

markbaland — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:31:42 -0000

>Please explain to us how a person switches to a different "energy company".

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+do+i+switch+electric+companies%3F

>They can't, the utility company which supplies a specific area with
>electricity is what you have. No changing. Therefore the additional costs
>to the companies or coops which supply electricity will be passed along
>to the consumer. End of story.

Perhaps in your area this is true, but it isn't that way everywhere. I live
in North Central Texas, which was traditionally controlled by T.U. Electric,
which later became T.X.U., but currently, I use Reliant, and am about to
switch to Green Mountain Energy, which uses wind farms to generate
their power. They all use a company called OnCor to connect and dis-
connect customers. I guess in some states or areas within states, their
is still no de-regulation of utilities. I think if we can get more solar and
wind and hydrodynamic systems going, and more companies can deliver
energy to customers from clean, renewable sources at competitive rates,
more and more people will switch, starting with those who actually care
about protecting the environment for "our children and grandchildren",
followed later by those who want to seem conscientious or appear trendy,
and finally, at some point, the people who love oil and coal but get
tired of paying extra to help destroy the planet.

>As far as the bailouts and bonuses, you are so focused on what the liberal
>administration and media want you to concentrate on you are not seeing
>the entire picture.

I am an Independent. I only trust or believe the Democrats about 1/2 to 1%
more than the Republicans, because the Democrats at least tell the poor
and middle classes what they want to hear, rather than blatantly ignoring
their needs. However, I take everything I hear in the media with a grain of
salt, whether it's liberal or conservative, because, over time, as fewer
corporations control all of the media outlets, the news becomes subject
to more censorship by advertising interests. I spend a great deal of time
researching and contemplating, and see more of the big picture than
most people do, thank you very much!

>First of all, most of the current crisis stemmed from the liberals pushing
>for everyone to own a home.

Damn liberals, trying to make things where the normal people can enjoy
"the American Dream" which should only be a reality for the exploitative
rich...

>This began with the Clinton administration and further escalated once the
>Democrats gained control of the House and Senate. As a result we ended
>up with people buying homes with ARM mortgages that when the rates
>went up they could not afford.

I should think that opportunistic companies are more to blame for this
than politicians, wouldn't you think? Or do you blame Democrats for slick
talking used car salesmen who sweet talk and bullshit people into cars
that they can't afford, only to repossess them and make more interest
off of several other people without ever losing controlling interest in
their product?

>Then we get the foreclosures beginning followed by the financial demise
>of the banks who either made or bought the sub prime notes.

This wasn't Democrats or Liberals; this was corporate greed, personal
(over)optimism, and de-regulation by Bush era Conservative Republicans.

>Then the mortgage insurers have to start picking up the tab on all the
>defaulted loans which carried mortgage insurance, such as AIG. The
>financial industry is not blind and sees the inevitable coming, hence
>the decline in the entire financial industry as a whole.

Our current economic crisis is a direct result of the hands-off approach
of Conservative Republicans that allowed cheating and stealing and bad
decisions, and now the same people don't want the government to get
involved to fix things, as if, somehow, magically, the executives and
companies who have screwed everyone with their short-sighted greed
are going to all of a sudden change their ways without oversight.

>Unfortunately many of our entrusted Congressmen and Senators as well
>as other high ranking government officials have constituents and financial
>ties in the financial industry and therefore voted for bailing out these
>doomed institutions. They should have let it run its course, the strong
>survive, the weak and greedy fail.

On this we agree. Democrats and Republicans are both, as a group, but
possibly (not probably) with personal exceptions, corrupted and OWNED
by big business. And in free market capitalism, which is what Conservatives
give lip-service to, the companies would have failed and better ones would
have taken their places.

>Would it have impacted us? Most certainly, but yet with the TRILLIONS of
>dollars being spent I and millions of Americans are still unemployed.

I too am unemployed. But I think if trillions are being spent on the "War
on Terror", and the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Big Corporate Failure",
I don't see why we should spend some trillions on stopping global warming,
stopping our dependence on foreign oil, and helping our working people
with new jobs, and affordable education and healthcare...

>Why is this? One reason is the banks have not released the money they
>recieved. Everyone was in such a hurry to pass this garbage they call a
>stimulus package that they did not even read it.

I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats knew that there was no provision
on how the money was to be spent, and I am also sure that the people
that they are giving hundreds of billions to greased their palms with some
millions to make it that way.

>There is a provision in it for the AIG bonuses. The bonuses at AIG totalled
>65 million, how about the 40 BILLION that was channeled through the AIG
>bailouts, unknown to most of you, to foreign banks.

If that was the provision for bonuses, then they have already exceeded it
by 100 million, according to most news sources. As for the billions to foreign
banks, I have heard of that, and assume that is because this country is
being sold out from under us to overseas entrepreneurs. In Texas, our
Conservative Republican Governer Rick Perry, who is practically a clone
of George W. Bush, both in action and in head bobs and squints as he
lies, is selling our tollways to other countries, and I am sure he makes
money on the deals.

>This is what big government and government control gets you.
As I have said, the Bush administration did a LOT of financial
de-regulation, and that contributed to the monkey business that has
caused the crash. If the government, which is big anyway, had been
big enough to police the rich the way they police the rest of us, tapping
our phones without warrants, harassing us on the streets, abducting and
torturing us, and basically gagging us, handcuffing us, and shoving lights
up our asses on a hunch, then they couldn't have gotten away with the
Credit Default Swap and Ponzi Scheming nonsense!

>The economy was in worse shape during and immediately following the
>Carter administration.

Primarily due to the oil crisis, which was caused by OPEC artificially
limiting supply to increase demand and price, as they always do. Carter
had solar panels on the White House to provide some power. Reagan
removed them. Bush Sr. left them off. Clinton replaced them. Bush Jr.
took them off. I assume that Obama will replace them, if he hasn't already.
I think this is a small sign of which party is more in big oil's pockets.

>It was on when Ronald Reagan implimented decreasing the size of
>government and major tax cuts to individuals and businesses did it turn
>around.

It was also Reagan who helped big agri-business to put farmers out of work.
It seems Republicans like big government when it helps the big (rich) guy,
and likes little government interference when it will help the little (poor) guy.

>FDR actually prolonged the great depression by increasing taxes to
>business and industry and creating more government programs to
>supposedly help the economy. Sound familiar?

Yes, it sounds very familiar. This is the nonsense that Fox News and
Conservative bloggers were talking about last week. It's the latest in a
string of half-truths designed to comfort conservative thinkers and to
convert liberals (but that's not working). If you want some more info
on the FDR "New Deal didn't work" concept, read New Republic
magazine. It explains that for the first year only of his presidency,
unemployment grew, and that was because he caved to pressure
from Conservative advisors. The next year, he made more Liberal
changes with more reform programs, and the economy recovered.

>Perhaps you and the rest of the liberals, socialists, fascists and
>communists, including the current administration could learn from
>history.

I obviously have learned much more from history than you; fascists
are not the same as socialists and communists. It is fair to label
Liberal Democrats as socialist or communist as they desire to spread
the wealth from the rich to the poor, as the rich got wealthy by
exploiting the labor and consumerism of the poor (the money didn't
come from out of nowhere, did it?). However, it is Conservative
Republicans who are the fascists. Fascism consists of a strong dictator,
like Bush, who acts without the approval of congress, and makes
war in the name of nationalism, while exploiting and neglecting the
unfortunate. Bush, like Hitler, is a fascist. I guess if you wanted to
compare Obama to Hitler, you could point out that Hitler took wealth
from the Jews, and Obama plans to take wealth from the rich, Jews
or not, but this is a stretch. Obama isn't planning on taking all of the
wealth from the wealthy and putting them in ghettos, then work camps,
then death camps, then gas chambers. He only plans on taking enough
to get the poor back to working for the rich. And Obama isn't acting
without the approval of Congress, like Bush did.

I hope you have learned something from me today. By the way, I
fixed your spelling and grammatical and punctuation errors. You are
welcome.

Re: Republican Mantra: Our Children and Grandchildren

Thomas L — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:56:32 -0000

Please explain to us how a person switches to a different "energy company".
They can't, the utility company which supplies a specific area with electricity is what you have. No changing. Therefore the additional costs to the companies or coops which supply electricity will be passed along to the consumer. End of story.

As far as the bailouts and bonuses, you are so focused on what the liberal administration and media want you to concentrate on you are not seeing the entire picture. First of all, most of the current crisis stemmed from the liberals pushing for everyone to own a home. This began with the Clinton administration and further escalated once the democrats gained controled the house and senate. As a result we ended up with people buying homes with ARM mortgages that when the rates went up they could not afford. Then we get the forclosures beginning followed by the financial demise of the banks who either made or bought the sub prime notes. Then the mortgage insurers have to start picking up the tab on all the defaulted loans which carried mortgage insurance, such as AIG. The financial industry is not blind and sees the inevitable coming, hence the decline in the entire financial idustry as a whole. Unfortunately many of our entrusted Congressmen and Senators as well as other high ranking government officials have constituants and finacial ties in the financial industry and threfore voted for bailing out these doomed institutions. They should have let it run its course, the strong survive, the weak and greedy fail. Would it have impacted us? Most certainly, but yet with the TRILLIONS of dollars being spent I and millions of Americans are still unemployed. Why is this? One reason is the banks have not released the money they recieved. Everyone was in such a hurry to pass this garbage they call a stimulus package that they did not even read it. There is a provision in it for the AIG bonuses. The bonuses at AIG totalled 65 million, how about the 40 BILLION that was channeled through the AIG bailouts, unknown to most of you, to foreign banks. This is what big government and government control gets you. The enconomy was in worse shape during and immediately following the Carter administration. It was on when Ronald Reagan implimented decreasing the size of government and major tax cuts to individuals and businesses did it turn around. FDR actually prolonged the great depression by increasing taxes to business and industry and creating more government programs to supposedly help the economy. Sound familiar?
Perhaps you and the rest of the liberals, socialist, fascist and communist, including the current administration could learn from history.

Re: Republican Mantra: Our Children and Grandchildren

markbaland — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:11:12 -0000

Republicans also keep talking about how taxing people more who make over 250,000 a year means taxing small business owners which means they will not be able to afford to hire more employees.

I don't know of many small businesses right now that are hiring anybody, do you?

What I see is the wealthy getting bailouts and bonuses but still making reductions in work forces and increasing prices for their customers, so it would seem that the only solution to prevent the majority of the middle class from becoming homeless and hungry as more and more of them become unemployed is to take some of the candy from the rich kid's overflowing pumpkins and share it with the poor kids they stole it from.

Re: Republican Mantra: Our Children and Grandchildren

markbaland — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:11:08 -0000

Republicans also keep talking about how President Obama's proposed carbon tax, which penalizes polluters, will costs Americans more money on their energy bills.

This might be true, but doesn't it also mean that Americans will switch to energy companies that use non polluting sources, and thus more energy companies will switch to clean, renewable sources?

Re: There are roaches in the walls of America; let’s clean them out!

Tom Awtry — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:48:41 -0000

For me its unbelievable when this issue was before our legislative branch of government, referring to the temporarily controlling factions within the GOP; and why would the GOP “only” agree to a bipartisan stimulus bill if it was “one-half” authored by them. Are these folks ready for the fruit juice farm or what? Do they understand the meaning of the word “compromise?”

Isn’t this why, we in America we go through the trouble of having elections; to see who more or less, which “party” controls the mandates presented before our “elected” congress?

http://ourcountryspresident.wo...

Re: Obama shuts down US foreign torture prisons but still allows “rendition”

chloé — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 06:21:51 -0000

thankyou for the nice comment :)

Re: my friend Iqbal

markbaland — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 04:59:29 -0000

I found this poem online, that a friend of Iqbal's shared at his memorial, and thought I'd post it for those who were there to enjoy it and for those who weren't.

The poem is titled "Do Not Stand At My Grave And Weep", and although it is unclear exactly who authored it, it has been around since at least 1932, in some version or another.

Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there; I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the diamond glints on snow,
I am the sun on ripened grain,
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning's hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circling flight.
I am the soft starlight at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there; I did not die.

Re: Barack Obama’s Patriotism (and mine too)

markbaland — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:06:42 -0000

"Your views reflect the influence of the liberals who have taken over our
institutions of higher learning. The field of your studies is rife with liberal
professors. Funny though that liberalism is so intolerant of any other view."

Conversativism is about keeping things the same. Liberalism is about fixing
things that aren't right. Being tolerant of one another would be counter-
productive to the goals of either side. As soon as everything I see wrong
with the country (and maybe the world) is finally fixed (which will never
happen) I will become the conservative, wanting to keep things that way.
But then, a new breed of liberals will emerge, with crazy ideas like "we
should start a war", "we should pollute more", and "we should take more
money from the poor to make the rich richer".

"If after 14 years with a degree and having 50 jobs you don't earn enough
to pay taxes you've either had a lot of hard luck or your attitude or work
ethics have held you back."

In all fairness, it started out a lot of hard luck, which led to a weaker
work ethic, which I eventually overcame, but am still experiencing "hard
luck"

"The government isn't supposed to take of you."

I disagree. If the government is going to take care of the interests
of the rich by being paid off to allow them to do what they need to
do to make more money, including taking our jobs oversees, reducing
our benefits, charging us more for products and services, and polluting
our environment, they should have to look out for "the people" as well,
if they are to continue to claim to be "of the people, by the people, and
for the people"...

"This country was founded on the principles of self reliance NOT
government entitlements."

Then big business should not be subsidized, bailed out, and given tax
cuts. They too should be self reliant.

"It was founded because the people were tired of government (a king)
and the want of freedom."

It was founded by wealthy merchants who wanted to be wealthier,
and rallied the poor to fight the British, making the poor think that
their lives would be significantly better, while, in reality, the accent
of their masters was the only change.

"That is why the Constitution does not tell you what the government
owes you, but what the government is not supposed to do. The rest is
supposed to be up to us."

If the federal government existed in a more minimal way, as Libertarians
wish, then I would agree with you. However, since the US government
has bloated into an instrument for corporations to make more money
off workers and customers, I feel it's important to balance this with
some concern for the will and the needs of the people as well. If not,
then we really should just have an actual revolution.

"Our country is full of corruption, in business, in politics, in personal
lives, but it's a human trait, not because capitalism is a corrupt way of
government."

I agree that corruption is human nature. Capitalism is based, in large
part, on greed. Greed is human nature. Corruption is inherent in greed.
When greed grows past the point where one can acquire honestly and
fairly, corruption ensues.

"Anyone can be a great dictator. The only person you have to please is
yourself. There are plenty of bureaucrats in socialistic societies.
Aren't they just government officials following inflexible rules? I
expect you'd find lots of them to be idiots, liars, cheats and thieves.
Of course as a dictator you could have them shot or beheaded. On
the other hand if you are not the dictator you can be shot or
beheaded with no recourse. Things haven't gotten that bad here - yet."

I am glad that you included "yet". If a person has enough power to
influence enough people in a way that upsets the revenue streams of
those in power, those people can be assassinated or framed, every
bit as easily here in our capitalist democracy as they can be in a
socialist dictatorship.

"Most socialistic countries become horrible places to live as opposed
to becoming better. That is until the people get enough and overthrow
the government, although most of the time the replacement is no better."

True. But somehow I doubt that life is going to be getting worse for
the average American under Obama than it was under Bush. He is
already signing legislation to help ensure fairness for employees.
Bush never did anything to directly benefit the masses. Anything
good that happened for the common person under his administration
was an unintentional by-product of something he did for the rich,
but I can't remember a single good thing the government has done
for me in the last 8 years.

"It sounds like you would be better off living in another country since
you don't like it here and Canada isn't really that hard to get to."

I totally agree with you. If I can ever afford it, I will move to Canada.

"Wow, we agree that both political parties suck. There is not enough
difference between them, but to me that means they both are selling
our country down the river. I would not have been much happier if
McCain won than I am that Obama won."

Ideally, I would prefer an independent president and a congress of
independents, but in lieu of that, I prefer the Democrats who will
make life easier for those who have it rough than the Republicans
who will make life easier for those who already have it easy.

"Obama has surrounded himself with too many radicals,"

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Conservatives have not
solved our problems, so it makes sense to try more "radical" measures.

"ones who want the UN to govern the world,"

Ideally, there would be no state, or national, or international government.
All towns and cities would be independently governed by councils of the
wisest young, middle aged, and old people, balanced out among classes,
races, genders, and occupations, and these independent villages would
peacefully coexist without war. However, since human nature doesn't
make this possible, and we already have states and nations, if we are
to move forward as a world working together, and not one ripping
itself apart, I think one world government and currency would be
a good thing. In fact, I am sure you would find it to socialist, but all
nations' goods should be worth the same amount; their labor should
be worth the same amount, etc... That would prevent the victimization
of third world countries by the rich in the developed countries, and
would help keep jobs for the poor and middle classes in the developed
countries.

"ones that want to keep us from voicing our own independent thoughts,

I don't think Obama or any other liberals or democrats are trying to
get rid of freedom of speech. If anybody has been guilty of that,
traditionally, it has been the other side.

"ones that want us to give most of what we earn to the government so they
can decide where to spend it"

Most? Obama has not proposed a 51% tax on anyone. Although I think
for those making millions and billions, that would be fine. The rich enjoy
the luxuries of travel and infrastructure and leisure so they should
help pay for the maintenance of it.

"(Remember Obama and Joe the Plumber? That's socialism)."

I remember Joe the Plumber. Obama wants to make things easier for
the plumbers who can't feed their kids. McCain wanted to make things
easier for the Plumbers, International, Inc. who don't want to wait
an extra month to buy a new jet.

"I'd rather have the choice of how much I want to give of my paycheck
to what charity than have that decided for me by someone who may feel
totally different than I do."

If human nature were not selfish and greedy, that would work. However,
I am not sure about you, but most people who use that argument don't
want to donate to charity; they just don't want to share with those less
fortunate. And the greed of the wealthy turns on them, because the
less they pay the poor and the more they charge the poor, the more
desperate and violent the poor become, and they turn on the wealthy,
robbing and killing them. If the ruling class doesn't adequately care for
the working class, the working class doesn't work as hard for them,
and their productivity and profits go down, and crime against them
goes up. It's synergy. It's the circle of life. And it is way, way out
of balance right now.

"I don't think you can blame all the "global warming" on the US."

I haven't and I won't.

"I happen to side with the approximately half of the scientists who are now
convinced that Al Gore's (a politician NOT a scientist) theory is a congame."

It's a pretty elaborate con game. I wonder where he keeps the giant
machines that are so obviously having an effect on the planet around us?
Or are you saying he is some kind of magician?

"Even if it's true, the solution the government has is to stop pollution
in the US while putting no restrictions on the "developing" countries
which means their polluting will be increasing each year since they are
by definition "developing."

Wrong.

The US can set a good example, by not bailing out the big 3 auto
companies unless they start producing hybrids and electrics.
We can make it legal for people in all 50 states, regardless of how
much land they own, to generate as much of their own power as they
want with clean renewables. We can stop electing representatives
and senators who accept oil bribes. We can put up wind farms,
solar arrays, and hydrodynamic devices everywhere that we can,
like in national parks, on interstate right of ways, and unincorporated
lands nationwide.

AND, we can place trade embargos and other types of sanctions
against countries like China, who is the second biggest polluter, and
closing in on the #1 spot. Almost all of that pollution is created by
manufacturing products for American consumption. The Chinese
have no environmental protection agency. American companies like
Wal-Mart, instead of paying Americans decent wages to make our
own products, under environmental scrutiny, instead increase their
profit margins at the economic expense of the common US citizen,
to whom they provide no manufacturing jobs, at the expense of
the average Chinese person, who works and lives in poor conditions,
and at the expense of the environment, which China does not protect.

"I don't know where you live but I traveled the US from 1999 - 2007
and have seen solar panels in a lot of places and wind farms too. I saw
my first solar homes in Atlanta as early as the early 1980s."

I live in Texas, which is the most anti-green energy state. As for
solar panels and wind farms, they are slowly creeping up around the
USA, but about the only place that they are popular and well-known
is in California, where the government is on-board with conservation,
providing tax breaks and other incentives for going green.

"As for running your car on fry grease, there isn't that much available,
and who knows how much damage is done to people's health producing it?"

There is a lot available. It is currently mostly thrown away. It has
almost zero carbon emissions. It smells much better than gasoline.
The only disadvantage is it makes you want to eat.

But there are hybrid cars and they are becoming more available. Our
auto industry didn't learn from their first warnings about energy as
far back as 1973. I don't happen to believe the government should put
the country another

"Brazil stopped selling vehicles that don't run on ethanol several years
ago too, but how many cars are there in Brazil and Israel? Bother together
probably don't total the number in CA. Traveling across either country
is the equivalent of driving across a couple of states."

Yes, so imagine the difference the USA could make by doing the same!

"What would happen to the cost and availability of electricity if everyone
suddenly had a car they could plug in to the power grid?"

If the people currently employed refining, transporting, and selling gas
were instead re-employed making solar panels and wind farms to create
more electricity, then electricity, although in greater demand, could stay
around the same price.

"If you have a car, would you like it if the government said you have to
scrap it and buy a new electric one in x years?"

Part of the billion dollars a day currently being spent on the war with
Iraq, which is about oil, for the most part, could be spent to convert
American's cars and/or help them upgrade to electrics.

"We had the best, most dependable train system in the world at one time,
but the unions pretty much put them out of business."

Do you mean truck driver's unions or train employee's unions? In either
case, I think unions, while I am sure that they can be troublesome for
executives, are essential for ensuring safe work environments and good
pay and benefits for workers.

"We can't practically switch overnight from what we have to the new
technology"

That is true, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get started now,
and do it as quickly as possible. As a wise man once said, "The journey
of a thousand miles begins with a single step..."

"I wonder if Obama is going to build us a new rail system where we can
run bullet trains? I haven't heard any of that on his agenda."

I haven't heard of the new administration doing that, but it would be
great!

"Yes, Fox News is ONE of the news sources I watch, not the only one,
but I do prefer to hear more than one side of a story which they do a
better job of than most. I quit regularly watching the network news long
ago when I realized I was only hearing the network owner's version of
the news. I don't like being told someone's opinion as a news story."

Agreed. I try to get my news from many different sources, usually
websites, since they are usually 12 hours ahead of the television.

"I was merely pointing out that socialistic countries are not doing any better
job of protecting the environment than we are so I wouldn't look at them
as models of what we should become. I don't know how that connects to
the domino fallacy of logic, I don't even know what that is. I know about
the domino theory as it pertains to democracy and other governments.
I'm not trying misdirection either, just answering your points. I will
admit to some sarcasm which seems not to be only one sided."

My apologies. I did get kind of aggressive, insulting, and judgemental.
It is just that I feel very strongly about my position, and I get
frustrated sometimes when I feel that people are trying to ignore
the future and stick with the status quo.

"I haven't embezzled any money"

I must have not completed my thought. I didn't mean to insinuate
that just because you had traveled that you had embezzled. I was
thinking of something else and my thoughts ran together.

"I don't think either of us is going to convince the other about our
difference of opinions here."

Unfortunately not. It would seem that experiences in life drive a
great many people to opposite extremes. I do appreciate the
discussion, however.

"I believe that if Bush and Cheney had not been in office we would
probably have been attacked again after 9/11. I am not exactly sure
how they managed that since they have done little in some respects like
the borders and immigration screening, but I think you have to give them
credit for keeping the homeland from being attacked directly. I know,
you don't, so we disagree."

It's hard to say. I have to admit that an aggressive, almost paranoid
defense posture may have helped to keep us safe, but a misguided,
mismanaged, offense has helped to make us a target, so it may all
balance out.

"I think you must like children since you are being a responsible single
parent, well as promised during the campaign Obama has already approved
spending money to fund abortions overseas and has promised to sign the
Freedom Of Choice Act which sounds great except that is actually restricts
freedom in that it uses your or excuse me, MY tax dollars to fund abortions,
now that's making the country better."

I think you are being ironic here, saying that you don't support abortion.
I don't like abortion either, but if those kids aren't aborted, it will mean
more unwanted kids, many of whom are poor, and will have more of YOUR
tax dollars spent on them, so choose your poison...

"The government is already too much involved in my life, from taxes to
regulations and seeing the mess they have made of the economy and even
trying to fix it I certainly don't have confidence in them handling my
healthcare or anything else they don't have to."

Well, maybe if Obama can get things passed to allow workers everywhere
to unionize without fear of retribution, then we, the workers can fight
for what we want and need, against the corporate lobbyists, allowing us
to achieve what is required without continuing to need the government to
intervene and give back some of what is taken.

"Actually I believe your research will show that employment was good for
the first 6 of those 8 years."

When it comes to Bush's effect on employment, I am less concerned with
statistics and more with my experiences, which is that the same kinds of
jobs I used to do pay less, and are less common, and everything costs
more. Surely you are not a social darwinist, believing that the government
should allow inflation to spiral out of control with no adjustments to
taxes and wages until some people just can't afford to live and die out?

"Obama's own staff doesn't agree with him on the number of jobs he claims
he will create. In fact his own numbers keep changing."

Well, I would assume that most of those changes are based on research
and advisement and working with multiple departments, not schizophrenia.

"He does say that he will put a lot more people on the government payrolls,
80% of one category of job growth he said would be in the public sector,"

Well, if private industry isn't willing or able to provide jobs to the people
who have made them their money by making and selling and buying their
wares, it's only fair that the same government that they lobbied to
allow them to do as they please in the past now helps the people who
have suffered.

"your oh excuse me again, MY taxes will have to pay their salaries."

I take it that you are upset, feeling that myself and other people who
are currently unemployed or underemployed are sucking up your
taxes. Perhaps, if some day in the future, our roles are reversed,
you would prefer to starve in the cold while I enjoy my good times?

"I hope your son can live in a better world, but if you raise him to
believe that the freedom he has just because he is born here is a bad
thing and not to appreciate that a lot of people helped make this a free
country (all wars were not for oil, you'd be living in Nazi Germany today
if not for the self sacrifice of many) and you teach him that the
government can and should do everything for him rather than using
his own initiative it's not likely that he will be any happier here than you are."

I am not teaching him any of those things. And as for the Nazi thing,
the fact that some wars are more justified than others doesn't mean
that I have to condone all wars.

"I hope you'll save this and read over it again when you become rich,
it would be interesting to know if you will still feel happy to pay the
government higher taxes (higher than what?) and let them decide who
to help and how to help them."

If I ever get rich, it will be in some way that doesn't require me to
abuse and victimize others, as many in business and politics have done.
And, if I ever get rich, I will know that my taxes are going to create
a better society, which will be OK, knowing that I have to live amongst
those less fortunate, and remembering how it was to be one of them.

"Since there is little incentive or opportunity to be productive, most
aren't so a lot of people need help."

I realize that. Europe, for example, is experiencing the harsh reality
of a burgeoning welfare population. That is why I think that capitalist
desire, tempered with some socialist compassion, is the best solution.

"I hope you don't have the idea that I am rich or ever have been. I've
worked since I was 14 and fulltime since I was 18 and I'm still not rich."

I don't know if you are rich or not, nor is it important to my arguments.
Whether you are making $30,000, $300,000, or $3 million a year, you
are arguing against changes in society which will benefit many people
who are having a tough time, many of whom have worked long and hard
with nothing to show for it.

"Like I said, neither of us is going to change the other's mind so I'm
through with this conversation. Since it's your blog you have the last word.
So have at it and I hope you are not disappointed with your new president."

I hope so as well.

Re: my friend Iqbal

Anthony — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:18:37 -0000

I was fortunate to have a few laughs and some enlightening conversations with Iqbal. I think Mark is correct that "Iqbal is watching the world with concern, curiosity, and insight from wherever he is now, and is having a good laugh with friends".

Re: Barack Obama’s Patriotism (and mine too)

Common Tater — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:40:08 -0000

>I'm not even making enough to owe taxes. I am 35. I am a single dad. I don't know what gives you the impression that I am young and inexperienced, or that I am some mindless product of overbearing college professors. I graduated with a philosophy degree 14 years ago. I was quite a political and sociological researcher in college, as well as studying the world's major religions and spending time in holy houses of all faiths. I have had over 50 different kinds of jobs. I have EXPERIENCE, thanks.
Your views reflect the influence of the liberals who have taken over our institutions of higher learning. The field of your studies is rife with liberal professors. Funny though that liberalism is so intolerant of any other view. If after 14 years with a degree and having 50 jobs you don't earn enough to pay taxes you've either had a lot of hard luck or your attitude or work ethics have held you back.
>1.) As a poor person, yes, of course I would prefer socialism. It is the wealthy who prefer and enjoy the benefits of capitalism. Study some history, and you will see what I mean.
My family was not well off enough to send me to college, but I think I have enjoyed the benefits of capitalism. I was able to get a job, several in fact (not near 50 though) and I have studied some history and other subjects enough to get a degree; however, I had to do that at night.
>2.) As a poor person, I haven't been able to do much world traveling, sorry.
My first travels were dictated by being drafted into the military. My later travel was because I took a job overseas.
>3.) Where is it that you witnesses socialism, out of curiosity?
Cuba, Hungary and France.
>The government takes care of everyone, well not exactly, it's really only the few who are in power.
And this is different from our present situation, how, exactly?
The government isn't supposed to take of you. This country was founded on the principles of self reliance NOT government entitlements. It was founded because the people were tired of government (a king) and the want of freedom. That is why the Constitution does not tell you what the government owes you, but what the government is not supposed to do. The rest is supposed to be up to us.
>I never said that socialism is perfect, but capitalism, in practice, is every bit as corrupt as communism, in different ways.
Our country is full of corruption, in business, in politics, in personal lives, but it's a human trait, not because capitalism is a corrupt way of government.
>I would be a GREAT leader, if I were a dictator. As a bureaucrat I would suck; I don't have the patience to work with a team of idiots, liars, cheaters, and thieves.
Anyone can be a great dictator. The only person you have to please is yourself. There are plenty of bureaucrats in socialistic societies. Aren't they just government officials following inflexible rules? I expect you'd find lots of them to be idiots, liars, cheats and thieves. Of course as a dictator you could have them shot or beheaded. On the other hand if you are not the dictator you can be shot or beheaded with no recourse. Things haven't gotten that bad here - yet.
>I won't argue that the quality of life is not too bad here. I never said I want to live in Russia or China or Iraq or Afghanistan, or some horrible place. I would however, from everything I have read, seen, and heard, in the media, and from people who have lived or visited there, rather live in Canada, Europe, or the Netherlands than here in the corporate-worshiping, war-mongering, polluting USA.
Most socialistic countries become horrible places to live as opposed to becoming better. That is until the people get enough and overthrow the government, although most of the time the replacement is no better. It sounds like you would be better off living in another country since you don't like it here and Canada isn't really that hard to get to.
>I agree with you on one thing, the rich have too many tax breaks and loopholes here, this country has gone soft but it isn't going to be any better with Obama.
>You may be right. I am hoping that you are not. I think the democrats and republicans are both corrupt sell-out parties. If they weren't, they wouldn't have corporate sponsors who control what they are allowed to say and see to it that they get airtime. I voted for Nader. He is an outspoken individual who has been an active advocate of the US people all his life. But he didn't have a chance, seeing as how he didn't get enough corporate media exposure and wasn't even allowed in the debates. But that's the way the evil, greedy bastards in charge want it. The Demo-Repub monopoly of power are getting paid off to allow the oil industry to cause global warming which is melting Greenland, the north pole, and Antarctica, and will be directly responsible for flooding 60% of the Earth's population, when, if we were allowed to generate our own power with wind turbines and solar arrays, which is not legal in most towns, and power our cars with fry grease, which is being outlawed to prevent oil revenue losses, these disasters could be easily averted.
Wow, we agree that both political parties suck. There is not enough difference between them, but to me that means they both are selling our country down the river. I would not have been much happier if McCain won than I am that Obama won. Neither one of them is for protecting our country, but Obama has surrounded himself with too many radicals, from ones who want the UN to govern the world, to ones that want to keep us from voicing our own independent thoughts, to ones that want us to give most of what we earn to the government so they can decide where to spend it (Remember Obama and Joe the Plumber? That's socialism). I'd rather have the choice of how much I want to give of my paycheck to what charity than have that decided for me by someone who may feel totally different than I do. I have been a registered Dem, and a registered Rep, but in the general election I have always voted as an Independent no matter which party I was registered as. I don't think you can blame all the "global warming" on the US. I happen to side with the approximately half of the scientists who are now convinced that Al Gore's (a politician NOT a scientist) theory is a congame. Even if it's true, the solution the government has is to stop pollution in the US while putting no restrictions on the "developing" countries which means their polluting will be increasing each year since they are by definition "developing." I don't know where you live but I traveled the US from 1999 - 2007 and have seen solar panels in a lot of places and wind farms too. I saw my first solar homes in Atlanta as early as the early 1980s. As for running your car on fry grease, there isn't that much available, and who knows how much damage is done to people's health producing it? But there are hybrid cars and they are becoming more available. Our auto industry didn't learn from their first warnings about energy as far back as 1973. I don't happen to believe the government should put the country another trillion dollars in debt to make sure they do, but that's another thread.
>What environmental destruction are you speaking of? The one where we use our own natural resources? This country is more environmentally conscious than any other.
>Bullshit! Israel's leaders just switched the country to all electric vehicles. The European union's bullet trains use a fraction of our antique airlines. You really need to do some research somewhere other than the 700 Club and Fox News and the George W. Bush Presidential comic book library.
I was speaking of the environmental impact of producing oil and gas for energy. Brazil stopped selling vehicles that don't run on ethanol several years ago too, but how many cars are there in Brazil and Israel? Bother together probably don't total the number in CA. Traveling across either country is the equivalent of driving across a couple of states. What would happen to the cost and availability of electricity if everyone suddenly had a car they could plug in to the power grid? If you have a car, would you like it if the government said you have to scrap it and buy a new electric one in x years? We had the best, most dependable train system in the world at one time, but the unions pretty much put them out of business. Yeah, I'm pissed too because no one in our government has had the foresight to prepare for the future which has become now. We can't practically switch overnight from what we have to the new technology even if we could wave a magic wand a create all the new technological wonders we want overnight, but we could have prepared responsibly, but look at Congress now that gas is less than $2.00 a gal they are talking about adding more tax. I wonder if Obama is going to build us a new rail system where we can run bullet trains? I haven't heard any of that on his agenda. Yes, Fox News is ONE of the news sources I watch, not the only one, but I do prefer to hear more than one side of a story which they do a better job of than most. I quit regularly watching the network news long ago when I realized I was only hearing the network owner's version of the news. I don't like being told someone's opinion as a news story.
>Or are you speaking of this country not using it's own resources and depending on other countries to drill for oil and gas. Do you think these other countries are drilling and mining with the environment in mind? Not even. Take a look at the pollution they are creating,
>I never said that all other countries are not damaging the environment. You are using Conservative arguing tactics: the domino fallacy of logic, misdirection, and sarcasm.
I was merely pointing out that socialistic countries are not doing any better job of protecting the environment than we are so I wouldn't look at them as models of what we should become. I don't know how that connects to the domino fallacy of logic, I don't even know what that is. I know about the domino theory as it pertains to democracy and other governments. I'm not trying misdirection either, just answering your points. I will admit to some sarcasm which seems not to be only one sided.
>oh I forgot you probably haven't ventured outside the safety of this country to see what's really going on in the real world.
>Oh, my bad, with the rising price of electricity, gas, and food, I can barely afford all three plus rent. I'm a bad person for not embezzling public money to fund my world adventure.
I haven't embezzled any money and I don't think a person has to in order to travel. At least that has been true in the past, everyone's economic situation has been drastically altered this year, probably Bush's fault .. oops sarcasm again. Between the current economy and being a single parent I can see your being a responsible parent is more important at this time in your life. I don't know about your past. I know right now I can't travel like I could at one time, without embezzling or stealing.

>I don't believe in Utopia. But I know that things can be better. Getting Bush and Cheney out of office is a step to a better life for not just the USA, but much of the world.
I don't think either of us is going to convince the other about our difference of opinions here. I believe that if Bush and Cheney had not been in office we would probably have been attacked again after 9/11. I am not exactly sure how they managed that since they have done little in some respects like the borders and immigration screening, but I think you have to give them credit for keeping the homeland from being attacked directly. I know, you don't, so we disagree. I see Obama as an agent of change, just not for the better. He has already started in his first full day in office making a big production of change in the way things are done by signing an executive order that no lobbyist will work in his White House for any agency/dept related to their lobbying activities then he promptly appoints not one but two and grants waivers to his executive order, then appoints a guy as Treasury Sec who everyone can see cheated on his taxes, and on and on. Congress is no better, they approve them, so I don't see anything better coming. I think you must like children since you are being a responsible single parent, well as promised during the campaign Obama has already approved spending money to fund abortions overseas and has promised to sign the Freedom Of Choice Act which sounds great except that is actually restricts freedom in that it uses your or excuse me, MY tax dollars to fund abortions, now that's making the country better. I know, you think he is better for the country, we disagree.
>I didn't vote for Obama. I am not a sucker. Obama was not playing to me. If he was, he wouldn't have mentioned nuclear and "clean" (HAHA) coal in the debates.
I may have misjudged who you voted for, but apparently from your support for his socialistic ideas you believe he will make this a better country. I don't, but that's because as I stated above I don't think giving most of my money to the government to spend is anything other than socialism and I don't believe in that form of government. The government is already too much involved in my life, from taxes to regulations and seeing the mess they have made of the economy and even trying to fix it I certainly don't have confidence in them handling my healthcare or anything else they don't have to.
>So, somehow Obama is going to be worse for employment than what we have had the last 8 years? He's going to have to ry really hard to suck as bad as Dubya and Dick.
Actually I believe your research will show that employment was good for the first 6 of those 8 years. Obama's own staff doesn't agree with him on the number of jobs he claims he will create. In fact his own numbers keep changing. You don't have to get that from Fox News just check the internet for some of his speeches. He does say that he will put a lot more people on the government payrolls, 80% of one category of job growth he said would be in the public sector, your oh excuse me again, MY taxes will have to pay their salaries.
>I know Canadians. My ex-wife is Canadian. Her sister, in Canada, who has many health problems, and is poor, is well taken care of. Here, she would be dead. Perhaps that would be well suited to your Nazi-Republican Social Darwinism sensibilities, but I think she's better off alive.
I know some Canadians too. A good friend of mine is a retired (on disability) plumber who did not have all those kind words for their system. In fact I recall during a visit to the states while waiting for treatment he explained that although he could not receive his treatment for another several weeks he had to return to Canada after a certain time. Being out of the country too long would cause him to loose his medical benefits until the next open season when he could re-enroll. So I guess different people there have different experiences. I don't know why you figure your ex-sister-in-law would have died if she was here since federal law won't let hospitals turn you away even if you can't pay. As I said before, you'd probably be better off if you moved to Canada. You know you don't have to sneak into the country unless you are wanted or are declared an undesirable.
>I would love to get a "green" job, so I am not contributing to disaster and death and can leave my son a better world.
Good luck. I hope your son can live in a better world, but if you raise him to believe that the freedom he has just because he is born here is a bad thing and not to appreciate that a lot of people helped make this a free country (all wars were not for oil, you'd be living in Nazi Germany today if not for the self sacrifice of many) and you tech him that the government can and should do everything for him rather than using his own initiative it's not likely that he will be any happier here than you are.
>Not all the people who aren't working or who are poor lack initiative. Some lack education. Some lack the physical ability. If I ever get rich, and I can help others by paying higher taxes, or donating time, effort, and money, then I will be proud and happy to do so. I'm not one of those sick, greedy people who needs to build an infinite amount of money in accounts that I will never be able to use, at the expense of the well being of others, just so my descendants can be spoiled snobs who do the same.
True not all people who don't work lack initiative, lack of education is almost always due to lack of initiative. Look at Obama, he was poor, at least relatively. I hope you'll save this and read over it again when you become rich, it would be interesting to know if you will still feel happy to pay the government higher taxes (higher than what?) and let them decide who to help and how to help them. You see under socialism you don't even have the option of deciding who you think you'd like to help. Since there is little incentive or opportunity to be productive, most aren't so a lot of people need help. I hope you don't have the idea that I am rich or ever have been. I've worked since I was 14 and fulltime since I was 18 and I'm still not rich.
>I've been surviving the big scary real world for some time, and raising a child in it. Have fun in your brainwashed fantasies.
Like I said, neither of us is going to change the other's mind so I'm through with this conversation. Since it's your blog you have the last word. So have at it and I hope you are not disappointed with your new president.

Re: Mark’s BookMarks

markbaland — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:42:30 -0000

I will be adding more links in various categories as I get around to it.

Re: I discriminate against racist people

Monique Ross — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:18:28 -0000

Maybe we need to come up with alternative methods, like you said (i.e. jail them). I love you Mark. You tell it like it is. Racism is so outdated and most people who are...need to get over it! If you turn us inside out...we are all the same and suffer the same and love the same as well as bleed the same. A blind person can see that.

Re: my friend Iqbal

Monique Ross — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:10:32 -0000

Wow, I wished I could have attended, but I had a wedding shower at 3pm. But, just like Mark said this gentleman was quite an interesting fellow. God Bless him where he is now.

Re: my friend Iqbal

David — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:51:44 -0000

Thanks for Mark that does speak to the Hope that I still have in Humanity. I wish more people could be as open minded and open hearted as the He was and you are.

Blessed Be

Re: my friend Iqbal

Jorg — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:04:25 -0000

Thanks Mark
You did It For All Of Us .

Amen

Re: Barack Obama’s Patriotism (and mine too)

markbaland — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:49:36 -0000

"IF you pay taxes you either have paid LESS taxes in the past 8 years than before (you probably don't have that comparison)
or you are making a lot more money than you were 8 years ago (again you probably don't have anything to compare there either).
You no doubt believe what you say is true and without anything to compare it to it is easy not to see anything other than what
you are told by your college professors if you had any. In other words, you have no life experience upon which to base the mindless
crap you profess to believe."

I'm not even making enough to owe taxes. I am 35. I am a single dad. I don't know what gives you the impression that I am young and inexperienced, or that I am some mindless product of overbearing college professors. I graduated with a philosophy degree 14 years ago. I was quite a political and sociological researcher in college, as well as studying the world's major religions and spending time in holy houses of all faiths. I have had over 50 different kinds of jobs. I have EXPERIENCE, thanks.

"As I said you THINK you'd prefer socialism. Have you ever really seen people living under socialism? I have, firsthand and it isn't pretty."

1.) As a poor person, yes, of course I would prefer socialism. It is the wealthy who prefer and enjoy the benefits of capitalism. Study some history, and you will see what I mean.
2.) As a poor person, I haven't been able to do much world traveling, sorry.
3.) Where is it that you witnesses socialism, out of curiosity?

"The government takes care of everyone, well not exactly, it's really only the few who are in power."

And this is different from our present situation, how, exactly?
I never said that socialism is perfect, but capitalism, in practice, is every bit as corrupt as communism, in different ways.

"Maybe you think that will be you, but just because you think you'd be a good leader won't make it so, except in a make believe
world where you really don't have to accomplish anything to be great."

I would be a GREAT leader, if I were a dictator. As a bureaucrat I would suck; I don't have the patience to work with a team of idiots, liars, cheaters, and thieves.

"Why aren't people flocking to those socialist countries to live? Because it's better HERE, and it has been for about 200 years."

I won't argue that the quality of life is not too bad here. I never said I want to live in Russia or China or Iraq or Afghanistan, or some horrible place. I would however, from everything I have read, seen, and heard, in the media, and from people who have lived or visited there, rather live in Canada, Europe, or the Netherlands than here in the corporate-worshiping, war-mongering, polluting USA.

"I agree with you on one thing, the rich have too many tax breaks and loopholes here, this country has gone soft but it isn't going to be any better with Obama."

You may be right. I am hoping that you are not. I think the democrats and republicans are both corrupt sell-out parties. If they weren't, they wouldn't have corporate sponsors who control what they are allowed to say and see to it that they get airtime. I voted for Nader. He is an outspoken individual who has been an active advocate of the US people all his life. But he didn't have a chance, seeing as how he didn't get enough corporate media exposure and wasn't even allowed in the debates. But that's the way the evil, greedy bastards in charge want it. The Demo-Repub monopoly of power are getting paid off to allow the oil industry to cause global warming which is melting Greenland, the north pole, and Antarctica, and will be directly responsible for flooding 60% of the Earth's population, when, if we were allowed to generate our own power with wind turbines and solar arrays, which is not legal in most towns, and power our cars with fry grease, which is being outlawed to prevent oil revenue losses, these disasters could be easily averted.

"What environmental destruction are you speaking of? The one where we use our own natural resources? This country is more
environmentally concious than any other."

One aspect of the environmental destruction that I am speaking of is the "war on terror" which is an excuse for a war to secure oil rights for the rich who prevent the spread of alternative energy, both by lobbying and by buying patents and then not using them.
As for America being the most environmentally conscious, I can't argue whether or not we are the most conscious, but we are not the most successful in acting on that conscience. Israel's leaders just switched the country to all electric vehicles. The European union's bullet trains use a fraction of our antique airlines. You really need to do some research somewhere other than the 700 Club and Fox News and the George W. Bush Presidential comic book library.

"Or are you speaking of this country not using it's own resources and depending on other countries to drill for oil and gas. Do you think these other countries are drilling and mining with the environment in mind? Not even. Take a look at the pollution they are creating,"

I never said that all other countries are not damaging the environment. You are using Conservative arguing tactics: the domino fallacy of logic, misdirection, and sarcasm.

"oh I forgot you probably haven't ventured outside the safety of this country to see what's really going on in the real world."

Oh, my bad, with the rising price of electricity, gas, and food, I can barely afford all three plus rent. I'm a bad person for not
embezzling public money to fund my world adventure.

"Sorry, but your very statements give me every reason to believe that you live in a state of mind where you have all these utopian beliefs about how great things are under socialism without taking the time or effort to find out the truth."

I don't believe in Utopia. Human nature makes paradise impossible. But I know that things can be better. Getting Bush and Cheney out of office is a step to a better life for not just the USA, but much of the world.

"You are just the kind of sucker Obama was playing to and now you can see how much better things will really be."

I didn't vote for Obama. I am not a sucker. Obama was not playing to me. If he was, he wouldn't have mentioned nuclear and "clean" (HAHA) coal in the debates. But I think Obama is an infinitely better choice for the American people at large than John McCain would have been, except maybe for Joe The Plumber.

"Of course, if you, as I suspect, believe people shouldn't drive cars (no need to if you don't have a job), don't have much future in the world except what the ObamaNation will provide you like welfare, don't have the initiative to see the world except as it is told to you by the likes of Michael Moorer (ever wonder why he isn't down in Cuba enjoying all that socialized medicine he's so fond of?) then you'll be perfectly happy with the new administration."

So, somehow Obama is going to be worse for employment than what we have had the last 8 years? He's going to have to try really hard to suck as bad as Dubya and Dick. As for Michael Moore, while I don't doubt that he downplays some facts that are counter-productive to his points, and plays up those facts that support him (just as almost every documentary film maker does), the country and the world would be better off with more investigative journalists stirring up information that is unflattering to those with the power and wealth.

"You can skateboard down to the welfare office and pick up your check, and wait for months to see a doctor if you need one (check with the Canadians if you don't believe it),"

I know Canadians. My ex-wife is Canadian. Her sister, in Canada, who has many health problems, and is poor, is well taken care of. Here, she would be dead. Perhaps that would be well suited to your Nazi-Republican Social Darwinism sensibilities, but I think she's better off alive.

"maybe you'll get one of those "green" jobs and make lots of money ... "

I would love to get a "green" job, so I am not contributing to disaster and death and can leave my son a better world.

"of course if you do you'll be in the rich category and Obama wants to take part of what you earned and spread it around to those who don't have the initiative to work ..."

Not all the people who aren't working or who are poor lack initiative. Some lack education. Some lack the physical ability. If I ever get rich, and I can help others by paying higher taxes, or donating time, effort, and money, then I will be proud and happy to do so. I'm not one of those sick, greedy people who needs to build an infinite amount of money in accounts that I will never be able to use, at the expense of the well being of others, just so my descendants can be spoiled snobs who do the same.

"so enjoy yourself if you ever get out in that big scary real world."

I've been surviving the big scary real world for some time, and raising a child in it. Have fun in your brainwashed fantasies.

Re: Barack Obama’s Patriotism (and mine too)

common tater — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:37:07 -0000

IF you pay taxes you either have paid LESS taxes in the past 8 years than before (you probably don't have that comparison) or you are making a lot more money than you were 8 years ago (again you probably don't have anything to compare there either). You no doubt believe what you say is true and without anything to compare it to it is easy not to see anything other than what you are told by your college professors if you had any. In other words, you have no life experience upon which to base the mindless crap you profess to believe. As I said you THINK you'd prefer socialism. Have you ever really seen people living under socialism? I have, firsthand and it isn't pretty. The government takes care of everyone, well not exactly, it's really only the few who are in power. Maybe you think that will be you, but just because you think you'd be a good leader won't make it so, except in a makebelieve world where you really don't have to accomplish anything to be great. Why aren't people flocking to those socialist countries to live? Because it's better HERE, and it has been for about 200 years. I agree with you on one thing, the rich have too many tax breaks and loopholes here, this country has gone soft but it isn't going to be any better with Obama.
What environmental destruction are you speaking of? The one where we use our own natural resources? This ocuntry is more environmentally concious than any other. Or are you speaking of this country not using it's own resources and depending on other countries to drill for oil and gas. Do you think these other countries are drilling and mining with the environment in mind? Not even. Take a look at the pollution they are creating, oh I forgot you probably haven't ventured outside the safety of this country to see what's really going on in the real world.

Sorry, but your very statements give me every reason to believe that you live in a state of mind where you have all these utopian beliefs about how great things are under socialism without taking the time or effort to find out the truth. You are just the kind of sucker Obama was playing to and now you can see how much better things will really be. Of course, if you, as I suspect, believe people shouldn't drive cars (no need to if you don't have a job), don't have much future in the world except what the ObamaNation will provide you like welfare, don't have the initiative to see the world except as it is told to you by the likes of Michael Moorer (ever wonder why he isn't down in Cuba enjoying all that socialized medicine he's so fond of?) then you'll be perfectly happy with the new administration. You can skateboard down to the welfare office and pick up your check, and wait for months to see a doctor if you need one (check with the Canadians if you don't believe it), maybe you'll get one of those "green" jobs and make lots of money ... of course if you do you'll be in the rich category and Obama wants to take part of what you earned and spread it around to those who don't have the initiative to work ... so enjoy yourself if you ever get out in that big scary real world.

Re: Barack Obama’s Patriotism (and mine too)

markbaland — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:36:43 -0000

I would prefer socialism (although I doubt that is going to happen) to the fascism that we are currently under. I would assume that my "ilk" feel the same. And as for throwing the baby out with the bathwater (a phrase older than I with which I am familiar nonetheless), if we are talking about conservative Republicans as the bathwater, that would make the babies environmental destruction, war profiteering, and welfare for the rich only (tax breaks and bail-outs). I think those are babies that we can do without...

Re: Barack Obama’s Patriotism (and mine too)

common tater — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:39:21 -0000

I am sure you will feel really free in a socialistic society. Unless you will be one of the lucky few Elite leaders, then you will be less than nothing and with no voice to object. You should really look at the common people living under socialism, that's you, a little guy. You will be less than nothing and the elite won't care what you think. There may be problems in this country, it isn't perfect, but you don't see people dying to leave, just dying to get in. That tells me that we have a better country, even with it's faults than anyone else has, but you and your ilk are throwing the baby out with the bathwater (to use a phrase probably older than you).

Re: Mark Online

markbaland — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:30:28 -0000

Just in case anybody wants to check out any of my ideas or creations or interests to better cyber-stalk me, I have provided a map of my online existence to make it easy.

Re: What’s the Real Difference between the Dems & Reps?

Gilmour Poincaree — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:25:03 -0000

When travelling abroad I noticed that foreigners actually see no diffrence in between Republicans and Democrats ... and coming to think of it, Democrats are seen as rather conservatives when compared to their national political spectrum ... and Republicans come closer to militant fascism ...

Re: About Me

markbaland — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000

OK, so I am ultra-liberal. I couldn't even believe when I read that I wasn't liberal.

Re: 2 medical conditions found responsible for common unpleasant political symptoms

David — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:10:36 -0000

I think you feel that you failed to mention one of the more common ailments afflicting majority of politians who work in Washington D.C. That ailment, Cranial Rectumitus (head up your butt). This disease strikes majority of persons who serve more than a week in this city, but it has been seen in other cities through out the country as well. Early signs of this horrible disease include the words coming out of a person's mouth begin to smell like feces due to the exesive time that the head spends up there. This disease has been known to strike Democrats and Republicans alike. One thing we do know about this disease is that that the higher ranking you become apparently the higher you head creeps up your rectum. There is no known apparent cure for this affliction, however, the longer you spend out of office and the further away you get from D.C. the symptoms do tend to subside.