Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-21-2008, 10:32 AM   #41 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
Waiting for my daughter to get out of school in the afternoons, I very often end up in line behind this one car that is covered with patriotic bumper stickers and one of them says 'Support America. Be an American!!' and it's very annoying 'cause here he is in his '80s-era, gas guzzling American landyacht with bumper stickers plastered all over the back...ya know...telling people to be more American.

Now come one, be honest, it is a American made car, right?

I love these guys...

"I support the troops!"... "Send my kid, are you kidding?"

"I support the war, anyone who doesn't is un-American and should move to France!"... "Pay for the war? Ah, hell no I want every dollar I earn!"

Guess they're not interested in having their kids fight the war but have no problem having their grand kids pay for it.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 10:51 AM   #42 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Last time I found Bush humorous was in 2001. Somewhere around the 10th of Sept.

Actually that's not true. I was with him until he started talking about Iraq.
Did you enjoy Gomer Pyle, USMC? I kinda get that "we're at war, but idiots can still be funny" vibe from Bush. Cheney is a dead ringer for Sgt. Carter. "PYYYLE!!"
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 11:32 AM   #43 (permalink)
Eponymous
 
jewels's Avatar
 
Location: Central Central Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Anyone know where any of today's original stars other than Kenny Chesney ranked? I didn't think so, thought I'd ask....

So new music is pretty much dead in great part to FM radio stations promoting garbage.
ClearChannel and those guys do suck, but they've made business decisions. There are no "great" bands for teen music and our kids' tastes are so diverse because they are exposed to so much new music on myspace, that the execs and producers don't know where to go. Necessity and the internet have brought a new "cool" into town.

Most teens today think "radio bands" are not cool (FallOut Boy comes to mind). These kids are the first total myspace generation. Each kid has bands that they've "discovered" and push their parents to take them to "shows". For those not familiar, they're clubs that hire (usually) four (myspace) bands that will tour together to play from 8 - 11 pm, one night only, in different cities in a region. These shows are very intimate, maybe 2-300 people can stand, there are no seats. You can touch and hug band members, get autographs, etc.

I've taken my teens to two concerts this year, and we have two more planned in the next month or two. At $15 or less per ticket, it's a fairly inexpensive night out where they can see their favorite bands and meet up with the myspace "friends" that like the same music.

Sometimes, these kids and the shows will make the band, i.e. My Chemical Romance, which started this way. But now the other kids won't listen to them anymore, because now they're a "radio band". Get it?

We've all done this as teens; we wanted to be listening to something that made us different. And it is, it's just the same kind of different.

Or: I agree with Charlatan.
__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain
jewels is offline  
Old 02-27-2008, 02:24 PM   #44 (permalink)
comfortably numb...
 
uncle phil's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: upstate
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuasiMondo
Anybody remember that old Temptations classic, "Ball of Confusion"


__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.
uncle phil is offline  
Old 02-28-2008, 10:59 PM   #45 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
I can accept the changes in entertainment.... I guess that is just me getting old.

But really come on now, people work hard and try to live the American dream and because they didn't have the right credit they end up in an ARM... then they lose their jobs and rates go up? How is that their fault? And to say "it's just business".

Have we truly become so fucking greedy that we just don't care about others problems as long as we have ours?

I mean we look for cheaper products, so we can buy more, but in the end we ship jobs overseas and the jobs we do keep here pay less and less so then we have to find cheaper goods but that leads to even more jobs being lost and lower wages and so on...... we are facing a downward spiral and all anyone can say is "It's business now, tough shit learn to deal with it...etc".

Then we have candidates, that be honest now, are so inept and have no ideas how to save this country from the downward spiral, that it is sad. Not one of these candidates would have ever gotten this close to the presidency 10,20,30 years ago..... We need a truly great leader to save this country and we get Obama, McCain and Clinton? Wow.

We are at war and yet we buy more and more imports every year. China is our greatest rival and enemy and we are worried that they may cash in their dollars and plummet our economy? How the Hell did we allow them to get that much power over us?

And we won't even talk about how crazy we all seem to be getting.

As much as I want to be optimistic and love this country and believe that we will overcome.... I just can't be that anymore. I see a sad out of control downward spiral and not enough people care enough to stop it.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 02-28-2008, 11:18 PM   #46 (permalink)
But You'll Never Prove It.
 
ItWasMe's Avatar
 
Location: under your bed
You know, Grandpa used to say things like that twenty years ago. In fact, he said it several times in a row because he kept forgetting that he'd just had that conversation (btw that was not a joke). I could understand what he was saying then, but I can see it even more clearly now. I think we're getting old, Pan.
__________________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .


"Ok, no more truth-or-dare until somebody returns my underwear" ~ George Lopez

I bake cookies just so I can lick the bowl. ~ ItWasMe

ItWasMe is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 01:13 AM   #47 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I can accept the changes in entertainment.... I guess that is just me getting old.

But really come on now, people work hard and try to live the American dream and because they didn't have the right credit they end up in an ARM... then they lose their jobs and rates go up? How is that their fault? And to say "it's just business".

Have we truly become so fucking greedy that we just don't care about others problems as long as we have ours?
You don't have to have take an ARM. No one puts a gun to your head to sign on the dotted line. That's a conscious choice. You could continue to rent and work on your credit. Of course, while that goes on the prices continue to fluctuate, by the time your credit is good, you may or may not be be able to finally purchase something. How is that again MY fault? YOU fucked up your credit. Remember when the teacher said, "This is going to go on your permanent record." Well, there is some place where there is REAL consequence to your bad choices and decisions. A person who has poor credit pays more for things, and thus if they have less dollars earned they waste money on higher interest rates. Again, how is that MY fault? High FICO scores aren't about high wages, they are about good credit

from businessweek.com
Quote:
But first, just what is a credit score? To come up with one, Fair Isaac uses 22 pieces of data collected from the three major credit bureaus (Equifax (EFX ), Experian (GUS ), and TransUnion) to calculate a credit score -- 300 is the lowest, 850 the highest. The final number is a composite that comes from individual ratings in five categories: payment history (35% of the rating); length of credit history (15%); new credit (10%); types of credit used (10%); and debt (30%). Income is not a factor. "A person can have a very high income and never pay their bills," said Craig Watts, public affairs manager for Fair Isaac.

Fair Isaac calculates a FICO score based on the data provided by each credit bureau. It's not uncommon to see up to a 50-point differential between ratings. The reason: Bureaus collect data at different times of the month, or one bureau may have inaccurate information.

The higher the score, the lower the risk you are to a creditor -- and the less interest you'll pay. Only 13% of the population has FICO scores of 800 or above; the median is 723. There is no single cut-off for loans, and it varies from industry to industry. But generally borrowers with scores above 740 receive the best rates.

To see how a change in your FICO score affects how much you'll pay, consider this example. On a $350,000, 30-year fixed mortgage, you'll pay 6.24% in interest, or $2,153 a month if you score between 720 and 850. If your score drops to between 620 and 674, your interest rate jumps to 8.05%, and your monthly cost rises to $2,581. You will pay an additional $154,131 over the life of the loan, according to a calculator on myfico.com.
You will pay an additional $154,131 <---- Is that really MY problem?


It's never changed.

Everyone cares about themselves FIRST. I know that I do. If you don't, that's great, but when push comes to shove, will you really give your last bite of food to someone else and starve yourself?

No one tells you to carry a huge debt load on your credit cards. Watching any of the shows like Suze Orman where people call in and say things like "I've got $30,000 in credit card debt, but I'd like to know if I can afford to go on this $10,000 European vacation." "WTF?" Is what goes on in my head when I see or hear this kind of irresponsible question and behavior.

People overspend for Christmas and go into debt for the a good portion of the year, is that responsible? Because they want to have a "nice" Christmas. or but Johnny wanted that XBox360 so I had to get it for him. No fuckin' way. You do without, you make sacrifices, you do something else. You don't go into debt to buy things that don't matter.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 02:09 AM   #48 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
I mean we look for cheaper products, so we can buy more, but in the end we ship jobs overseas and the jobs we do keep here pay less and less so then we have to find cheaper goods but that leads to even more jobs being lost and lower wages and so on...... we are facing a downward spiral and all anyone can say is "It's business now, tough shit learn to deal with it...etc".
While I do sympathize over jobs lost, I still maintain that this is the way the world is going and there is little you can do to change the increase in the Globalization of goods and services.

As I see it, the choices are this:

a) restrict or close the borders to trade and services and prices will go up via inflation or the increased costs of manufacturing, etc. Not to mention, the additional benefits that generally come with increased trade - increasingly stable world politics through greater mutual understand, etc.

b) learn to work in the new realities, experience an adjustment in lifestyle and opportunities, etc.

It's interesting, for years many have called for increased foreign aid and support for the third world. Now that some of these nations are stumbling towards self sustaining economies, sometimes at the expense of jobs in the west, those same people are crying foul.

You can't have it both ways.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 02:54 AM   #49 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
While I do sympathize over jobs lost, I still maintain that this is the way the world is going and there is little you can do to change the increase in the Globalization of goods and services.

As I see it, the choices are this:

a) restrict or close the borders to trade and services and prices will go up via inflation or the increased costs of manufacturing, etc. Not to mention, the additional benefits that generally come with increased trade - increasingly stable world politics through greater mutual understand, etc.

b) learn to work in the new realities, experience an adjustment in lifestyle and opportunities, etc.

It's interesting, for years many have called for increased foreign aid and support for the third world. Now that some of these nations are stumbling towards self sustaining economies, sometimes at the expense of jobs in the west, those same people are crying foul.

You can't have it both ways.
I agree with this. The world is changing. People in other countries (not American, no, but how much does that really matter?) are reaping the benefits (and the headaches) of opportunities that seemed unthinkable just a generation ago. We are still better off than about 90% of the rest of the world who *wish* they had something as mundane to complain about as the sluggish economy and their credit scores.

Suck it up, I say.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 05:45 AM   #50 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
yeah, the curious thing i suppose is that this globalizing capitalism game has been sold to folk as an unqualified good--which probably got taken to mean "good for me" since the Good and "good for me" are synonymous here
(i dont know if that's a particularity or not...i suspect it kinda is and kinda isnt)

but let's not be naive about what globalization means: mostly it means, if you actually look at it, the exportation of new and improved versions of the worst features of american-style mass production-oriented factory-fragments (now suppliers in supply chains) to places with weak labor laws, no unions and a big version of what marx used to call the "industrial reserve army"---the central spaces within which these operations are located are those strange "free trade zones" or tax havens---which makes them free of any meaningful contact with the surrounding economies--they are not in ANY meaningful sense contributing to the "development"--what the fuck does that mean?--of the "third world" (which was where before 1960? o wait, i remember: it was empire--and so this "globalization" thing...why it's neocolonialism..but no no, no-one reads those books anymore)...

you remember the good old days, those halcyon days of neoliberal-inspired debt spirals, forced privatization of infrastructure (including in many cases water) repression of political dissent all in the name of "free markets". of course you do.

the state is dismantled, transfers of wealth erased to the greatest possible extent, markets opened for american agricultural combines to dump the results of pathological overproduction of industrial farm objects--and furhter afield, in the various manufacturing shitholes brought to you by nike or versace or the computer hardware manufacturer of your choice wages are low low low and explotiation is high high high and if Trouble comes, the facility can just move.

go team.

all this for the greater profit of shareholders in this the great milton freidman be-responsible-for-nothing-except-profit world expressed in domestic political terms by the populist right and republican party--you know, that curious combination of absolute priority given to profit on the one hand and wholesale delusion about what that might mean for the working joe--now more likely the "service industry joe" in the united states.

there are other things happening as well--the same logic has been applied to more skilled work, and NOW suddenly globalizing capitalism is a bit more scary--but it is STILL in neoliberal-land an unqualified good and trying to oppose it is like being king lear...

let's try to be realistic about this folks--even though it's hard to say anything coherent about much of anything in these little boxes---stock has been trading transnationally since 1970 or so. Since 1970 then the ownership of capitalist firms has no longer been specific to nation-states. Since the 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s, you had a huge extension of just-in-time system inspired remodelling of manufacturing and the fragments of the process--"outsourced"--followed in general terms the pattern set by ownership.

in the united states, the hostility toward unions and the fact that many many people were chumped into buying the ideology of "free markets" is a condition of possibility for this kind of outcome--it is a condition of possibility to the extent that it is about the political consent that was required.

so it seemed to me that for 40 years alot of americans had their collective head up a collective ass about what was happening around you: now you pull it out, look around can't understand what you see because you refused to look beforehand and you cry foul.

presumably like most folk you supported the illusion of free markets and the concomitant lie about the greatest good for the greatest number because you thought that meant everything would be hunky dory for you---americans are like that in a way--it's all one great big lake woebegon, where everybody is above average.


as if this is not disturbing enough for nationalists, the bush administration has been a very significant accelerant in the american loss of power in financial markets. another transnational affair. we haven't really felt the effect of this one yet--but they're coming.

we are about to arrive the new third world.
we hope you've enjoyed your flight.
you booked the ticket, you slept for most of the ride, you misread the brochures.
but as you're about to find out, this is a cheap destination because, despite the photos and tourist copy, it sucks here. and there's no way out.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 02:57 PM   #51 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Yes, I don't mean to imply that globalization is an altruistic endeavor, but it is certainly changing the lives of many people the world over - some for worse, some for better. I realize that exporting our way of life takes with it much of the things that I dislike, even abhor sometimes, about our values - cog-in-the-machine-ism, soulless consumerism, industrial sprawl, etc., etc., but there's no denying that giving people work in many places has enabled them to more easily accomplish basic tasks, like eating regularly. If I put myself in their place, I'd think that the concerns I've expressed above were pompous - the concerns of people who have not walked in my shoes.

But it is kind of delightful that those who have touted the unfettered glory of free market capitalism have found that their enthusiasm has borders - nationalistic pride - while the corporations, mega-corporations, industrial monoliths and their like recognize no such borders. They'll make the money wherever they can find it, whether it benefits Americans or not.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 06:05 PM   #52 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
well, it's more complicated than all that, methinks--in that they're expressions of the largely appalling dynamics of neocolonialism (of course there are folk who benefit, there are economic elites, often the products of this same process): but for alot of folk, these dynamics disappear behind a reality shaped by them--so in already miserable conditions, working in a factory for a tiny amount of money might be better than nothing---but if you read or hear what alot of these folk say about the day-to-day that these gigs make available to them, it's kinda difficult to swallow that "this is better than.." thing.

bottom line is that these firms are so completely, utterly irresponsible that it kinda defies the imagination. what assures that they will stay irresponsible is that they can pack up shop and leave if their margins get hit by most anything. there is, apparently, always a shittier place and always more desperate people to exploit. we of course wear the jersies they make, the shoes they make, drive the cars that contain the components of components that they assemble somewhere way down the supply chain that feeds the supply chain that feeds the supply chain. we have no real contact with or understanding of these conditions.

factor in that the same debt spiral that enabled the leveraging of things like "free-trade zones" also forced may governments into structural adjustment programs, which forced eliminations in a host of social services that were supposed to amerliorate the already shitty situations created for these folk by neo-colonialism---and in many areas by colonialism before that--and, well, it seems that for alot of the world's population, the reality that our socio-economic realities directly or indirectly sit atop of is so unbelievably shitty that it's almost not clear whether it's better to know about it or not.

it's probably better to know, somehow--but not if you're not in a position to do something to change things. just knowing and sitting with it---it's kinda horrifying. i'm serious about this: i sometimes wonder if it is damaging to know too much about this sort of thing without being able to do something with the information.


so that even if areas of the united states are sliding inch by inch into a new third world...folk in alot of areas in the south are sliding into the uncharted dimension of a fourth world--especially in sub-saharan africa.

sometimes the world is *so* ugly--sometimes it's necessary to sit and watch the birds outside. even in the crappiest of places, the same idea holds. there is solace, somehow.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 06:42 PM   #53 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: South Florida
I can't say that I have a whole lot more to add to that, but what cynical way to look at the world. There are so many cliches that can be thrown around..... The Liberal Media controls the world...Big government is tearing this country apart.... too many more to list.

While I agree with the OP I feel that money is the root of all these things. A necessary evil.
__________________
"Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right."
florida0214 is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 07:17 PM   #54 (permalink)
peekaboo
 
ngdawg's Avatar
 
Location: on the back, bitch
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I can accept the changes in entertainment.... I guess that is just me getting old.

But really come on now, people work hard and try to live the American dream and because they didn't have the right credit they end up in an ARM... then they lose their jobs and rates go up? How is that their fault? And to say "it's just business".
Or some of us go to school later in life, get fed the "financial aid" BS and after graduation, can't find a job and get stuck with 10's of thousands of school debt.....get the ARM because the school debt has swallowed us whole and then can barely make the mortgage....these weren't bad decisions, just bad results because those that control the money don't want to give it up without a fight.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Have we truly become so fucking greedy that we just don't care about others problems as long as we have ours?

I mean we look for cheaper products, so we can buy more, but in the end we ship jobs overseas and the jobs we do keep here pay less and less so then we have to find cheaper goods but that leads to even more jobs being lost and lower wages and so on...... we are facing a downward spiral and all anyone can say is "It's business now, tough shit learn to deal with it...etc".
Being caught up in exactly that, it's hard to see it as "just business" but what else is it? The spouse lost what was thought to be a very secure job with a huge cosmetics manufacturer only to be told after 16.5 years that it's "just business,buhbye" as they move to Costa Rica or some such place.
This nation is becoming a nation of services, no longer interested in the pride of the American-made label because it's become too expensive to support those who make slapping that label on the box possible. It is a cycle of greed, but it's not the American worker who comes out of it unscathed. CEO's discovered the power of vested interest, took their wallets and ran outta town.
Jack Roush, a NASCAR car owner, ranted last year about allowing Toyota into Cup racing because it wasn't an American carmaker. Ironically, the badge, Camry, is the only fully-made American car in NASCAR. Chevy, Ford and Dodge all have most of their parts made off-shore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Then we have candidates, that be honest now, are so inept and have no ideas how to save this country from the downward spiral, that it is sad. Not one of these candidates would have ever gotten this close to the presidency 10,20,30 years ago..... We need a truly great leader to save this country and we get Obama, McCain and Clinton? Wow.
AMEN! This election year is pitiful. Simply pitiful. There's two candidates arguing their "experience" and there's less than 20 years of that experience between them. Since when is being married to a president "experience"? I'm actually scared of whatever the results in November will be and I've been voting for 30 years. Did you know that if Hillary got elected, by the end of that first term we'd have had a quarter century of Bush/Clinton "leadership"? *me shudders
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
We are at war and yet we buy more and more imports every year. China is our greatest rival and enemy and we are worried that they may cash in their dollars and plummet our economy? How the Hell did we allow them to get that much power over us?
Nixon probably thought that by opening the trade with China, it would cause the downfall of their communism. He was wrong. In the meantime the afore-mentioned CEOs liked their growing bank accounts and couldn't care less about the politics of it all. Greed has no social conscience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
And we won't even talk about how crazy we all seem to be getting.

As much as I want to be optimistic and love this country and believe that we will overcome.... I just can't be that anymore. I see a sad out of control downward spiral and not enough people care enough to stop it.
People care, but the power is not in laymen's hands. As you mentioned, look what we have running for president. Look who is controlling the money, the war machine, the nation's resources. It's not you, not me and not our neighbors. The millions of us are controlled by the few of them. Know how, if you go to a go-go bar, wave a 10 dollar bill, the dancer will come to you, wiggle her ass and get your $10? We're expected to wiggle while the ones holding everything call the shots. Example: I just got our gas and electric bill-$1200, part of which is from being past due. Can I pay it all? Nope. Can I tell them to shove it and I'll go elsewhere? Nope. I gotta wiggle....and I'm too busy wiggling to help anyone else or even come up with how to help anyone else.
We care, Pan, at least most of us. But we're all going down the same spiral and grabbing onto whatever we can to at least slow the fall. There are those who, like CYN, feel it's NMP and they're probably right. But when things get so askew that every newscast starts with what's happening with our economy, when people are forced to make choices between going out to dinner or paying a bill, the effects spread to everyone, whether they care or not.
Every decade for as long as I can remember, we've been listening to the doomsayers proclaim this country near a recession, in a recession, heading towards a depression, etc. It's still never gotten as bad as 1929 and I doubt it will.Doesn't make it any less scary for those of us walking the edge, but I have to believe that not every tunnel is endless.

Last edited by ngdawg; 02-29-2008 at 07:20 PM..
ngdawg is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 07:54 PM   #55 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Or some of us go to school later in life, get fed the "financial aid" BS and after graduation, can't find a job and get stuck with 10's of thousands of school debt.....get the ARM because the school debt has swallowed us whole and then can barely make the mortgage....these weren't bad decisions, just bad results because those that control the money don't want to give it up without a fight.
Or one goes to the Dr. one day and hear a string of words put together that they've never heard before. Two years later their bank account is near empty and three out of every four calls are from companies, mainly hospitals and doctors, are looking for "their" money. The other call is from some fool thinking you have money to buy something they're selling. I was lucky I had insurance and a business that continued to earn income even in my absence. Still wasn't enough. Insurance companies, it turns out, love to deny things. You know like medical care. Could have sworn when I bought it it was called medical insurance. Fortunately an arbitrator agreed with me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Being caught up in exactly that, it's hard to see it as "just business" but what else is it? The spouse lost what was thought to be a very secure job with a huge cosmetics manufacturer only to be told after 16.5 years that it's "just business,buhbye" as they move to Costa Rica or some such place.
This nation is becoming a nation of services, no longer interested in the pride of the American-made label because it's become too expensive to support those who make slapping that label on the box possible. It is a cycle of greed, but it's not the American worker who comes out of it unscathed. CEO's discovered the power of vested interest, took their wallets and ran outta town.
Jack Roush, a NASCAR car owner, ranted last year about allowing Toyota into Cup racing because it wasn't an American carmaker. Ironically, the badge, Camry, is the only fully-made American car in NASCAR. Chevy, Ford and Dodge all have most of their parts made off-shore.
No shit! I drove down to southern Mexico last summer. Eleven days in my Ford truck. I never once worried about finding a part. Must have pasted 15 very large Ford plants on the trip. I can also almost guaranty you any Wranger jeans you buy are being made down here.

Nafta was suppose to benefit everyone, at least to some degree. Well try buying an imported item down here. I just went in search of a digital camera to replace one that went tits up. I looked on-line and thought I'd buy a Nikon. Amazon had it for around $750 with the lens I wanted. Down here at Costco? $1500, most of the increase is the national sales tax. I glanced at the laptops and the one I bought right before leaving for about $1200 was $2300.

I know people who fly to Florida to replace their laptops, it's cheaper.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
AMEN! This election year is pitiful. Simply pitiful. There's two candidates arguing their "experience" and there's less than 20 years of that experience between them. Since when is being married to a president "experience"? I'm actually scared of whatever the results in November will be and I've been voting for 30 years. Did you know that if Hillary got elected, by the end of that first term we'd have had a quarter century of Bush/Clinton "leadership"? *me shudders
Yep, seems we're left looking at the lesser of three evils, which I'm told is still evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Nixon probably thought that by opening the trade with China, it would cause the downfall of their communism. He was wrong. In the meantime the afore-mentioned CEOs liked their growing bank accounts and couldn't care less about the politics of it all. Greed has no social conscience.
No some people will always want more. They're members of the "never is enough" club. And they don't give a shit if you starve.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
People care, but the power is not in laymen's hands. As you mentioned, look what we have running for president. Look who is controlling the money, the war machine, the nation's resources. It's not you, not me and not our neighbors. The millions of us are controlled by the few of them. Know how, if you go to a go-go bar, wave a 10 dollar bill, the dancer will come to you, wiggle her ass and get your $10? We're expected to wiggle while the ones holding everything call the shots. Example: I just got our gas and electric bill-$1200, part of which is from being past due. Can I pay it all? Nope. Can I tell them to shove it and I'll go elsewhere? Nope. I gotta wiggle....and I'm too busy wiggling to help anyone else or even come up with how to help anyone else.
We care, Pan, at least most of us. But we're all going down the same spiral and grabbing onto whatever we can to at least slow the fall. There are those who, like CYN, feel it's NMP and they're probably right. But when things get so askew that every newscast starts with what's happening with our economy, when people are forced to make choices between going out to dinner or paying a bill, the effects spread to everyone, whether they care or not.
Every decade for as long as I can remember, we've been listening to the doomsayers proclaim this country near a recession, in a recession, heading towards a depression, etc. It's still never gotten as bad as 1929 and I doubt it will.Doesn't make it any less scary for those of us walking the edge, but I have to believe that not every tunnel is endless.
Really since it became necessary, for whatever reason, for families to need two incomes the tunnel end never seems to appear, IMHO.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 08:53 PM   #56 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
(Sung to: "We Are The Champions" by Queen)


I've paid my dues



Time after time



I've done my sentence



But committed no crime



And bad mistakes



I've made a few



I've had my share of sand kicked in my face



But I've come through



We are the champions



My friends



And we'll keep on fighting



To the end



We are the champions



We are the champions



No time for losers



'Cause we are the champions



of the World

powerclown is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 09:18 PM   #57 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
(Sung to: "We Are The Champions" by Queen)
We are the champions ...
What?
vanblah is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 09:40 PM   #58 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
continued:

I've taken my bows



And my curtain calls



You brought me fame



and fortune



And everything that goes with it



I thank you all



But it's been no bed of roses



No pleasure cruise



I consider it a challenge before
The whole human race



And I ain't gonna lose



We are the champions



My friends



And we'll keep on fighting
Till the end



We are the champions



We are the champions



No time for losers



'Cause we are the champions



of the World

powerclown is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 10:34 PM   #59 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Jesus fucking christ powerclown. Ugh.
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 10:39 PM   #60 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
PowerClown, while I used to agree with all that, it ain't so anymore.

Our sports are corrupt, our entertainers are screwed up in the head and these people make more in a lifetime than teachers, cops, people who truly better society will make in 50 lifetimes.

Life isn't fair, true, but we have such gaps between the haves and have nots that it is pathetic and truly dangerous. We have people who have worked hard all their lives and because of medical, ARMS, student loans, outsourcing, temp services and so on, they lose it all. And the saddest part is the people who are next to lose keep saying, "well those who have lost made poor decisions...it's all their fault... blah blah blah".

Meanwhile, the CEO's keep making more in one day than 90% of their workers combined will in 1 year. They have care only about more and more. Now we have to ask why.

Why are these CEO's stockpiling their monies? Why are these men building fortresses for homes? Why do they feel the need to buy private islands, own 100's of acres and have armed guards? Because they know eventually the workers will revolt.

In order to keep from a revolution, we need to make sure people make barely enough to live so they can't afford to care enough to revolt, prevent them from organizing by making them all hate each other (racisms, partisanship, paranoia, etc) and feed them pablum news items... did you hear the latest on Britney, Bengelina, Clemens, etc... while issues such as the government and waterboarding, the Patriot Act, the war... etc become little blurb news items that no one pays attention to.

Except for a few sports items and the capture of Hussein.... what picture there represents what's best about the country in the last 25 years?

A space program that is in shambles and soon will have no program to send men up for at minimum 10 years while they build the "new" ships.

Industries that have left communities and states near bankruptcy as hey ship jobs overseas?

A government no longer by the people, for the people but controlled by corporate/foreign/ whack job extremist lobbyists?

We have had enough. We the people need to get right what is wrong and find those who will make it happen and cast out those who say "nothing is wrong, the people losing everything... it''s their own damn faults not ours, not big business, not governments.....

meanwhile:

for every person losing a job that tax money is lost.... who do you think makes up the loss?

as people lose more and more and people get paid less and less.... what do you think their kids see?

crime increases as economies falter, drug use increases, discontent, violence and so on all keep increasing.

Those who say nothing is wrong are far far removed from the streets and the communities where the discontent is growing. First it hits the "bad" areas, but eventually and that time is approaching very fast where these people decide to start going after the haves....(hence he fortress homes, the homes overseas, the 100's of acres with armed guards that are small militaries).

The time is coming fast... you can feel it, smell it, see it and know it deep down. And the people who keep saying, "it's not my problem... it's all theirs..." who have bought into the propaganda from the very wealthy and believe that nothing will ever happen to them because they are smart..... will be the ones the rich men they protected throw to the wolves first. And when those protectionists are gone.... the rich will acquiesce and make concessions to restore the peace.

It happens in every revolution and every uprising... the Romans formed European royal families and the Holy Roman Catholic Church after the troops they had built from conquered city states failed, the British sent Hessians over and surrendered when the Hessians from Germany stopped coming to their aid, the French nobles that controlled Louis were in Prague and other parts of Europe before the revolution because they saw it coming, same with the Romanov family from Russia, the USSR communists just changed parties and said "ok, freedoms" and so on and so on.

Those in power and with the money, do not give it up until those they fool into believing that they too will have power, lose.

Pessimistic? Perhaps. But the time is coming soon, again we all can feel something big is going to happen..... the question is what are you willing to do to stop it NOW before it gets that far?

Then again..... PowerClown.... it could just be we all lack Ghoul Power and the magic of Froggy.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 02:58 AM   #61 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
PowerClown, while I used to agree with all that, it ain't so anymore.

Our sports are corrupt, our entertainers are screwed up in the head and these people make more in a lifetime than teachers, cops, people who truly better society will make in 50 lifetimes.

Life isn't fair, true, but we have such gaps between the haves and have nots that it is pathetic and truly dangerous. We have people who have worked hard all their lives and because of medical, ARMS, student loans, outsourcing, temp services and so on, they lose it all. And the saddest part is the people who are next to lose keep saying, "well those who have lost made poor decisions...it's all their fault... blah blah blah".

Meanwhile, the CEO's keep making more in one day than 90% of their workers combined will in 1 year. They have care only about more and more. Now we have to ask why.

Why are these CEO's stockpiling their monies? Why are these men building fortresses for homes? Why do they feel the need to buy private islands, own 100's of acres and have armed guards? Because they know eventually the workers will revolt.

In order to keep from a revolution, we need to make sure people make barely enough to live so they can't afford to care enough to revolt, prevent them from organizing by making them all hate each other (racisms, partisanship, paranoia, etc) and feed them pablum news items... did you hear the latest on Britney, Bengelina, Clemens, etc... while issues such as the government and waterboarding, the Patriot Act, the war... etc become little blurb news items that no one pays attention to.

Except for a few sports items and the capture of Hussein.... what picture there represents what's best about the country in the last 25 years?

A space program that is in shambles and soon will have no program to send men up for at minimum 10 years while they build the "new" ships.

Industries that have left communities and states near bankruptcy as hey ship jobs overseas?

A government no longer by the people, for the people but controlled by corporate/foreign/ whack job extremist lobbyists?

We have had enough. We the people need to get right what is wrong and find those who will make it happen and cast out those who say "nothing is wrong, the people losing everything... it''s their own damn faults not ours, not big business, not governments.....

meanwhile:

for every person losing a job that tax money is lost.... who do you think makes up the loss?

as people lose more and more and people get paid less and less.... what do you think their kids see?

crime increases as economies falter, drug use increases, discontent, violence and so on all keep increasing.

Those who say nothing is wrong are far far removed from the streets and the communities where the discontent is growing. First it hits the "bad" areas, but eventually and that time is approaching very fast where these people decide to start going after the haves....(hence he fortress homes, the homes overseas, the 100's of acres with armed guards that are small militaries).

The time is coming fast... you can feel it, smell it, see it and know it deep down. And the people who keep saying, "it's not my problem... it's all theirs..." who have bought into the propaganda from the very wealthy and believe that nothing will ever happen to them because they are smart..... will be the ones the rich men they protected throw to the wolves first. And when those protectionists are gone.... the rich will acquiesce and make concessions to restore the peace.

It happens in every revolution and every uprising... the Romans formed European royal families and the Holy Roman Catholic Church after the troops they had built from conquered city states failed, the British sent Hessians over and surrendered when the Hessians from Germany stopped coming to their aid, the French nobles that controlled Louis were in Prague and other parts of Europe before the revolution because they saw it coming, same with the Romanov family from Russia, the USSR communists just changed parties and said "ok, freedoms" and so on and so on.

Those in power and with the money, do not give it up until those they fool into believing that they too will have power, lose.

Pessimistic? Perhaps. But the time is coming soon, again we all can feel something big is going to happen..... the question is what are you willing to do to stop it NOW before it gets that far?

Then again..... PowerClown.... it could just be we all lack Ghoul Power and the magic of Froggy.
Least you got it, I thought someone put the wrong mushrooms on his salad last night. Also got many of the lyrics wrong. I mean come on it's "Bohemian Rhapsody." It was in "Waynes World," it's a classic, get it right.


I pretty much agree with you on all points. Except I think the fat cats are building bigger houses and more stuff to show off to other fat cats, again with the "never is enough" club. They're not worried about any revolt, the US population has been beaten down so long they'll accept anything at this point. I heard a congress women from some upper mid west state bragging about the workers in her district. She said (something like) "We're really proud of our work ethic up here, most people are working two job and some even three! And she said that like it was a good thing. Hey dumb ass- people are working two and three jobs because your economy SUCKS ASS!

People are too busy feeding their families to revolt against anything or any one.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:39 AM   #62 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Interesting that the song was written and sung by Britons...

Just saying.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:39 AM   #63 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Jesus fucking christ powerclown. Ugh.
What...you don't like Queen? They're British too, right. It was bad at the end of Carter's presidency too, and look how things improved after 8 years of The Gipper.
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 08:34 AM   #64 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
Quote:
It was bad at the end of Carter's presidency too, and look how things improved after 8 years of The Gipper.
i suppose that anyone can say just anything on a messageboard--but this is just dissociative. that cant be a happyplace. well, i suppose it can if you dont know its dissociative.

WAKE UP.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 08:42 AM   #65 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
What...you don't like Queen? They're British too, right. It was bad at the end of Carter's presidency too, and look how things improved after 8 years of The Gipper.
I love Queen. I hate threadjacks. This is the father of all threadjacks.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 09:34 AM   #66 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
I don't think PC was a threadjack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
What...you don't like Queen? They're British too, right. It was bad at the end of Carter's presidency too, and look how things improved after 8 years of The Gipper.
Says exactly why he posted them here. And he has a very legitimate point, it has looked bad in this country in the past and we have always come through stronger. It's optimism I wish I still had, to be honest.

No, those pics show me that we should be looking at them going, "we DID that and WE can do better NOW."

Unfortunately, the pessimists in all of us and the first reactions are "threadjack" and that is part of the problem. We have been conditioned to look at inspirational things and say "that's the past". It may well be, the problems above are very real and we need a great leader to help us recover from first though.

Once we rebuild and get back to sanity (if it is possible.. but again we need a ruly great leader that inspires, McCain/Obama/Clinton are not exactly inspirational) we will accomplish all those and more. I just hope it is soon. I don't want to leave a fucked up nation that is borderline third world with no hope to me son and someday grandchildren. I want a country for them as great as the country that I, my parents and grandparents grew up in.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 03-01-2008 at 10:43 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 09:58 AM   #67 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
there are structural problems that we need to address--or at least face--the implications of choices that are now part of the collective history that shapes the realities we move through. addressing these problems really isn't a matter of attitude.

personally, my optimism about the states resides entirely in the possibility that we can, collectively, make fundamental changes in the system that we work within. i think it is, in fact, possible that we can make this a different, better place on a more rational and sustainable basis than it now is.

take for example the ridiculous levels of state spending that is pushed into the military. i put up a thread about this last night in politics because i happened to find a couple articles that spoke directly to this problem and which use recent data to make the case---the american system is proving to be about as flexible as the soviet system was--absurd levels of resources have gone into "defense" systems (the soviet correlate was heavy industry and military sectors) to the neglect of civilian-oriented activities, infrastructure, education, etc. this model has been wrapped up in others--the delusional system of "free markets" for example--the consequences of which lay behind every last point in the op, and every last point that has followed---they fit together in that military expenditures and war was taken as a mechanism to stabilize the economy in general (this is one argument--i think the picture is more complicated, but hey, this is a messageboard and complexity is an affliction). this is coming unravelled and the problems you complain about are symptoms.

this is not the end of the world.
there are alternatives which are possible--if we face the reality we are dealing with. if we don't--welcome to the new third world. but i don't think we are collectively past a point of no return. but to face that reality and do begin maybe doing something about it requires work and that work requires--i think--a basically different political context--one in which information about problems is as important as information that enables you or me or anyone else to "feel good" and by feeling good to pretend that everything is basically hunky dory--it is irresponsible to retreat into this position at a point where things need to change, the basic priorities we have been working within for 60 years have to change, the model is finished, it is over--but not everything is over--the model has simply run its course.

i personally do not care about patriotism and the circle-jerk that is its core--but i do care that a more humane system, a more sustainable system is possible and that the same levels of effort and ingenuity that went into fashioning the current model could be expended making a different, better one.

the world as it currently is is an ugly ugly place in many ways--but it doesn't have to be that way. change is not automatic. change is political--politics is information, debate, deliberation. there is no god that will take care of us--we are not a city on a hill--nothing is accomplished by self-congratulation or pining for a previous moment when self-congratulation was easier.

we have to look.
we have to wake up and look.
we have to figure out how to act--even if it's in a small context and affects small things--the make a different SYSTEM---a variant of what is, but not the same as what is.

there are reasons to be optimistic.
there are reasons not to be.
much depends on how you see the choices, whether you see them as being addressed or not.

right now, most of what i see in american politics is avoidance.
that can go on--and the shit will hit the fan--and then we'll all be boo hoo something bad happened where we you daddy why didnt you think for us so that we could be safe. or we could collectively grow the fuck up, stop pretending that we are the world and start thinking about how to make things otherwise.

take money out of the ridiculous military-industrial contractor-orld and spend it on rebuilding infrastructure, set up microcredit systems that enable new types of economic and social diversity to unfold, invest state funds in supporting civilian oriented economic possibilities--provide universal health care, change the way public education is funded away from local property taxes to flat funding across states. rebuild infrastructure, change the transportation model away from our near-exclusive reliance on automobiles.

why the hell not? the united states spends more on "defense" against imaginary enemies than the rest of the world put together. and that's just one sector.


there are lots of possibilities--try to look forward.
the past is gone.
no amount of lamentation will change that.
the past is gone, over, dead as a doornail and every minute it falls further and further away. there is no going back.


but we are alive--and that is a lovely thing--and we should look and move forward because there really is no other rational choice.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 12:01 PM   #68 (permalink)
comfortably numb...
 
uncle phil's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: upstate
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
What...you don't like Queen? They're British too, right. It was bad at the end of Carter's presidency too, and look how things improved after 8 years of The Gipper.
what improved?
__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.
uncle phil is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 12:11 PM   #69 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
What...you don't like Queen? They're British too, right. It was bad at the end of Carter's presidency too, and look how things improved after 8 years of The Gipper.
powerclown, if Ronald Reagan was not a "product" of the activity and intent displayed below, (please tell me the date when the "process", and the "playas"...the wealthy scions of society who controlled the media...."changed", and I will withdraw my comments...) WTF was Reagan, then?

If I, as you do, found my own POV to be so closely in synch with the wealthiest, conservative white men who call the shots in the good ole USA, i wouldn't be posting confirmation of it on an internet discussion forum..... I'd be too concerned about triggering suspicion that I was incapable of thinking anything that was not influenced by huge amounts of investment of those who require many to think the way you do, if they hope to overcome their lack of a natural constituency, each election day.

Quote:
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2008/feb/27/cover/

The Rise and Fall of the Copley Press

By Matt Potter | Published Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008

....When author Upton Sinclair ran for governor in the 1934 Democratic primary on a progressive platform he labeled “End Poverty in California,” he took San Diego County by 3000 votes. After the Copley papers repeatedly savaged him during the general election, he lost the county by 10,000 votes. It was just one of many moves Copley made to keep the lid on the city’s radicals and reformers during hard times....
Quote:
http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/ye...5/sinclair.asp

...RIGHT BACK WHERE WE STARTED FROM

by Curt Gentry
Gentry is a former journalist and the author of thirteen books, including The Last Days of the Late, Great State of California and J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets.

Upton Sinclair's surprise victory in the California Democratic primary of 1934 frightened the California business establishment -- and the California press lords -- as did nothing before or after. A longtime socialist, Sinclair was the author of dozens of muckraking books, the best known being The Jungle, an expose of the meat-packing industry. But it was one of his numerous pamphlets, I, Governor of California, and How I Ended Poverty, that thrust him into the political spotlight. In the midst of the Depression, his EPIC (End Poverty in California) plan drew a huge grass-roots following. Sinclair advocated having idle factories turned into cooperatives and manned by the unemployed; public ownership of utilities; special taxes on large land holdings; and -- the clincher that brought Standard Oil of California, banks, insurance companies, realtors, and the major movie studios into the fray -- a state income tax on corporations.

The campaign that followed has been described by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., as "the first all-out public relations blitzkrieg in American politics." Realizing that too much depended on the outcome of the election to entrust it to the state's feeble Republican party, business and industry leaders banded together and hired outside help....

....But even more important was the role of the press.

California's most powerful publisher, in terms of circulation, was William Randolph Hearst. Even if they had been able to ignore their philosophical differences, there was no question of Hearst supporting Sinclair, not after the candidate stated that one of the reasons he was running for governor was because he was sick of watching "our richest newspaper publisher keeping his movie mistress in a private city of palaces and cathedrals, furnished with shiploads of junk imported from Europe, and surrounded by vast acres reserved for the use of zebras and giraffes." Yet the Hearst papers were relatively fair to Sinclair, reserving most of their vitriol for the editorial pages.

(One notable exception was an unattributed bums/boxcar photo that appeared in the Los Angeles Examiner. Sharp-eyed movie fans recognized it as a scene from the movie Wild Boys of the Road. The still print had been provided by the MGM publicity department.)

"Fairness" hardly characterized the efforts of Hearst's leading competitors. Kyle Palmer, the political editor of the Los Angeles Times, raised funds and wrote speeches for Governor Merriam while directing the paper's coverage of the campaign. Chester Rowell, editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, drafted Merriam's platform, while Earl "Squire" Behrens, the paper's political editor for four decades, would later admit that he had personally developed and "used as straight news items, anti-Sinclair statements from leading Democrats."

The Los Angeles Times didn't keep its political bias a secret. Every day the paper carried, on its front page, a box of "Sinclairisms." Sinclair on the sanctity of marriage: "I have had such a belief . . . I have it no longer." On religion: "a mighty fortress of graft." On bankers: "legalized counterfeiters." On the American Legion: "riot department of the plutocracy" and conductors of "drunken orgies." Nearly all of the quotes were out of context; some of the most inflammatory were actually dialogue from characters in Sinclair novels. As the candidate himself told a journalist, if he lost it wouldn't mean that socialism had failed, only that he had written too many books.

Sinclair lacked the support of a single daily newspaper. Nor did he obtain much help from the many small but influential weeklies, some 700 in all, since Clem Whitaker, himself a former journalist, had established a "cozy relationship" with their publishers. According to Mitchell: "Besides his Campaigns, Inc. operation, Clem ran an advertising company in Sacramento and he had discovered that one operation benefited the other: it was amazing how much free coverage for his candidate he could secure simply by placing a few dollars' worth of advertising in each of the weeklies. . . . In a depression every few dollars mattered." Lest there be any doubt of his purpose, he insisted on paying for the ads in advance.

Late in the campaign, The New York Times sent Turner Catledge out to report on the strange goings-on in California. Scanning the Los Angeles Times, he saw stories on Governor Merriam's every appearance, but no mention of EPIC rallies or speaking engagements by candidate Sinclair. At dinner that night he queried the paper's political editor, Kyle Palmer. "Turner, forget it," Palmer replied. "We don't go in for that kind of crap that you have back in New York -- of being obliged to print both sides. We're going to beat this son-of-a-bitch Sinclair any way we can. We're going to kill him."

Beat him they did, though only by 200,000 votes, Merriam receiving 1.1 million, Sinclair 900,000. But kill him they didn't, although the EPIC movement itself, divided by factionalism and ironically even some Red-baiting, was assimilated into the newly resurgent Democratic party. Earlier, Sinclair had told one EPIC crowd that if they elected Merriam they would still have poverty and "I'll again be a writer. I won't need to think about what Pasadena thinks of me. I can go back to that blessed state of not being recognized on the streets." His first effort, of course, was a pamphlet entitled I, Candidate for Governor of California, and How I Got Licked. Returning to fiction, he wrote the highly popular Lanny Budd novels, one of which won him a 1943 Pulitzer Prize; remarried at eighty-three; and died, in 1968, an ninety. No one has ever been able to determine exactly how many books and pamphlets he published.

It would be an exaggeration to say that the campaign of 1934 was the last hurrah for the California press lords, the beginning of the end of their dominance of the electoral process. (Kyle Palmer, Earl "Squire" Behrens, and their successors would play kingmakers for another two decades, giving us, among others, Richard Milhous Nixon.) But the seeds were planted -- professional full-service campaign management, attack ads, the creative use of film, radio, and direct mail -- that would, as author Mitchell notes, forever change the way candidates ran for office.....
Quote:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA01/Whi.../sinclair.html
THE MOVIES AND POLITICAL PROPAGANDA
from The Movies On Trial
Upton Sinclair

........That I know what I am talking about was proved when I happened to write on a subject that did not involve the profit system. Several concerns were bidding for "The Wet Parade" before the book was out. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer paid twenty thousand dollars for it, and they spent half a million and made an excellent picture, following my story closely.

Now I loomed on the horizon, no longer a mere writer, but proposing to apply my rejected scenarios! While I was in New York some reporter asked: "What are you going to do with all the unemployed motion picture actors?" I answered: "Why should not the State of California rent one of the idle studios and let the unemployed actors make a few pictures of their own?" That word was flashed to Hollywood, and the war was on.

Louis B. Mayer, president of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, was vacationing in Europe when he got this dreadful news, and he dropped everything and came home to take charge of the campaign to "stop Sinclair." You see, he is chairman of the State Committee of the Republican party, so he had a double responsibility. I have met "Louie Bee," as he is called, now and then. I once took Bertrand Russell to lunch with him by invitation and learned that a great film magnate doesn't have time to talk with a mere philosopher, but politely appoints a substitute to see that he is properly fed and escorted round the lot.

Also Mr. Hearst was summoned from his vacation. Mr. Hearst belongs to the movie section. Hearst had been staying at Bad Nauheim. He was hobnobbing with Hanfstaengel, Nazi agent to the United States. You see, Hearst wants to know how the Reds are to be put down in America; so "Huffy," as they call him, flew with Hearst to interview Hitler.

As soon as Hearst learned of my nomination, he gave out an interview comparing me with the Pied Piper of Hamlin; and then he came back to New York and gave another interview, and from there to California, where he called me "an unbalanced and unscrupulous political speculator." His newspapers began a campaign of editorials and cartoons denouncing me as a Communist. I didn't see any denouncing me as a free-lover, and a menace to the purity and sanctity of the American home.

The first threat of the movie magnates was to move to Florida. Warner Brothers said they would go - and proceeded to start the construction of two or three new sound stages in Hollywood. Joseph Schenck of United Artists travelled to Florida to inspect locations, and the Florida legislature announced its intention to exempt motion picture studios from all taxes, and a mob of new "come-ons" rushed to buy lots.

Of course, this talk of moving was the veriest bunk. It would cost a billion dollars to move, and the British would grab the business meanwhile. Where would they get their mountains, and their eucalyptus trees, which represent the foliage of North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia? Above all, what would they do about the mosquitoes? I have lived in Florida, and I said to my audiences: "Right in the middle of a scene, one would bite the lady star on the nose and cost them fifty thousand dollars."

But that didn't keep them from building up the terror. Orders for an assessment came; and in Hollywood an assessment means that the check is written for you, and you sign it. In this case it was for one day's pay of everybody in all the studios - except the big "execs." The total amount raised was close to half a million. There was a little rebellion, but I didn't hear about it in any paper in California. I had to go to the London News-Chronicle to learn that Jean Harlow and James Cagney were among the Protestants. From the same paper I learn that Katharine Hepburn was threatened with dismissal if she supported Upton Sinclair.

I am happy to say that a few Hollywood writers showed political independence. Frank Scully got up a committee in my support, and it was joined by Dorothy Parker, Morris Ryskind, Gene Fowler, Lewis Browne and Jim Tully.

Also they started in making newsreels. Will Hays sent a representative to attend to this. They invented a character called the "Inquiring Reporter." He was supposed to be travelling around California, interviewing people on the campaign. They were supposed to be real people, but of course they were actors. On November 4, the New York Times published a two-column story from their Hollywood press correspondent, from which I quote:

FILMS AND POLITICS
HOLLYWOOD MASSES THE FULL POWER OF HER RESOURCES
To FIGHT SINCLAIR

The City of Los Angeles has turned into a huge movie set where many newsreel pictures are made every day, depicting the feelings of the people against Mr. Sinclair. Equipment from one of the major studios, as well as some of its second-rate players, may be seen at various street intersections or out in the residential neighborhood, "shooting" the melodrama and unconscious comedy of the campaign. Their product can be seen in leading motionpicture houses in practically every city of the State.

In one of the "melodramas" recently filmed and shown here in Los Angeles, an interviewer approaches a demure old lady, sitting on her front porch and rocking away in her rocking chair.

"For whom are you voting, Mother?" asks the interviewer.

"I am voting for Governor Merriam," the old lady answers in a faltering voice.

"Why, Mother?"

"Because I want to have my little home. It is all I have left in the world."

In another recent newsreel there is shown a shaggy man with bristling Russian whiskers and a menacing look in his eye.

"For whom are you voting?" asked the interviewer.

"Vy, I am foting for Seenclair."

"Why are you voting for Mr. Sinclair?"

"Vell, his system vorked vell in Russia, vy can't it vork here?"

All these releases are presented as "newsreels."

Another "newsreel" has been made of Oscar Rankin, a colored prizefighter and preacher who is quite a favorite with his race in Los Angeles county. Asked why he was voting for Governor Merriam, he answered that he liked to preach and play the piano and he wants to keep a church to preach in and a piano to play.

Merriam supporters always are depicted as the more worthwhile element of the community, as popular favorites or as substantial business men. Sinclair supporters are invariably pictured as the riff-raff. Low paid "bit" players are said to take the leading roles in most of these "newsreels," particularly where dialogue is required. People conversant with movie personnel claim to have recognized in them certain aspirants to stardom.

At another studio an official called in his scenario writers to give them a bit of advice on how to vote. "After all," he is reputed to have told his writers, "what does Sinclair know about anything? He's just a writer."

Hitherto the movies have maintained that they could not do any kind of "educational" work; their audiences demanded entertainment, and they could have nothing to do with "propaganda." But now, you see, that pretense has been cast aside. They have made propaganda, and they have won a great victory with it, and are tremendously swelled up about it. You may be sure that never again will there be an election in California in which the great "Louie Bee" will not make his power felt; and just as you saw the story of "Thunder Over California" being imported from Minnesota, so will you see the "Inquiring Reporter" arriving in Minnesota, Mississippi, Washington, or wherever big business desires to ridicule the efforts of the disinherited to help themselves at the ballot-box.

Listen to the lords of the screen world vaunting themselves: The front page of the Hollywood Reporter eleven days prior to the election.

This campaign against Upton Sinclair has been and is dynamite.

When the picture business gets aroused, it becomes AROUSED, and, boy, how they can go to it. It is the most effective piece of political humdingery that has ever been effected, and this is said in full recognition of the antics of that master-machine that used to be Tammany. Politicians in every part of this land (and they are all vitally interested in the California election are standing by in amazement as a result of the bombast that has been set off under the rocking chair of Mr. Sinclair.....
host is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 04:14 PM   #70 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle phil
what improved?
Out of many things, he gave millions of Americans reason to be optimistic again. Like what Kennedy did for America in the 60s. Would you consider that improvement?
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 04:52 PM   #71 (permalink)
peekaboo
 
ngdawg's Avatar
 
Location: on the back, bitch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Least you got it, I thought someone put the wrong mushrooms on his salad last night. Also got many of the lyrics wrong. I mean come on it's "Bohemian Rhapsody." It was in "Waynes World," it's a classic, get it right.
Nope. "We Are the Champions." Only lyric he got wrong was "And I never lose", not 'we ain't gonna lose".
ngdawg is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 05:16 PM   #72 (permalink)
comfortably numb...
 
uncle phil's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: upstate
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Out of many things, he gave millions of Americans reason to be optimistic again. Like what Kennedy did for America in the 60s. Would you consider that improvement?
are you serious?

between ronnie raygunz and GB I, this country was seriously headed for the economic toilet. i defer to Host for the particulars...

where were you in the 70's and early 80s?
__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.
uncle phil is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 05:25 PM   #73 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Nope. "We Are the Champions." Only lyric he got wrong was "And I never lose", not 'we ain't gonna lose".

Well wipe the egg from my face. Knew the lyric was off but had the song all wrong. Perhaps I should check my salad mushrooms?
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 05:36 PM   #74 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle phil
are you serious?

between ronnie raygunz and GB I, this country was seriously headed for the economic toilet. i defer to Host for the particulars...

where were you in the 70's and early 80s?
I was dicking around at the time, much like Carter. Reagan's tax cuts and regulatory reforms led to some of the greatest economic times this country has ever known. He set into motion events that created 17 million new jobs, and cut black unemployment in half. Pretty impressive in my book.
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 05:57 PM   #75 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
.....right now, most of what i see in american politics is avoidance.
that can go on--and the shit will hit the fan--and then we'll all be boo hoo something bad happened where we you daddy why didnt you think for us so that we could be safe. or we could collectively grow the fuck up, stop pretending that we are the world and start thinking about how to make things otherwise.

take money out of the ridiculous military-industrial contractor-orld and spend it on rebuilding infrastructure, set up microcredit systems that enable new types of economic and social diversity to unfold, invest state funds in supporting civilian oriented economic possibilities--provide universal health care, change the way public education is funded away from local property taxes to flat funding across states. rebuild infrastructure, change the transportation model away from our near-exclusive reliance on automobiles.

why the hell not? the united states spends more on "defense" against imaginary enemies than the rest of the world put together. and that's just one sector....
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Out of many things, he gave millions of Americans reason to be optimistic again. Like what Kennedy did for America in the 60s. Would you consider that improvement?
powerclown, is it "improvement"....the result of Reagan persuading so many to engage in "politics of avoidance"? His message was that a disasterous war was a "noble cause", and that "free markets" should be permitted to feed us "cheap oil", until we abandoned all of Carter's alternative energy initiatives and investment, and until the entire fledgling solar energy industry was bought up and curtailed by big oil, itself. The lesson that could have been learned from the war in Vietnam, was "avoided", and here we are today, trapped in Iraq and in Afghanistan, all of our ground forces, and even our National Guard.

The US is totally dependent on foreign oil and "enjoys" twin $700 billion plus annual debt increases in trade and national debt. Oil hit $103 per bbl, just this week.

Yeah, "Ronnie" made us "feel good", because he told us not to worry about oil or imperialistic foreign poilicy, and we listened. The rich ole boy WASP oligarchy that paid to produce "Ronnie" and to persuade you to think politically and socially, in lockstep with the way they think, must be awfully proud of the way their plan has worked out. They are wealthier than ever before, but we're ?????

Quote:
Ten Years After -- Vietnam's Legacy: A Decade After War, U.S. Leaders Still Feel Effects of the Defeat --- For Politicians and Military, Avoiding Next 'Vietnam' Guides Policy Decisions --- No Consensus About Lessons
By David Ignatius. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jan 14, 1985. pg. 1

By David Ignatius
Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jan 14, 1985. pg. 1

{First of a Series}

....The soul-searching over Vietnam extends even to the Reagan cabinet. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argues that the nation should avoid future Vietnams by fighting only popular, winnable wars; Secretary of State George Shultz counters that the U.S. must be ready to use force, even in ambiguous situations, to support its interests.

Vietnam frightened America. It was the nation's first defeat in war, and it made Americans more cautious and less certain about the world. Indeed, in the decade after Vietnam, the U.S. has been wary of military commitments and uncharacteristically worried about the future. The perceived hesitation and drift in foreign policy came to be known as "the post-Vietnam syndrome."

The after-effects of the war can be seen clearly in the two groups that were most involved in running it: the military and the foreign-policy establishment. Both groups waged war in the mid-1960s with bravado and conviction but suffered crises of confidence after the defeat, attacked as they were by the left as warmongers and by the right as losers.

Vietnam set America wobbling. Television brought the killing and the seeming futility of the conflict into every home and sparked public protest, and some old values and institutions were weakened. Much of the public came to distrust the country's leaders, especially those who had involved America in Vietnam. Congress distrusted the executive branch. And press reports fostered an atmosphere of suspicion. The tradition of bipartisan foreign policy disintegrated.

Harold Brown, who was Air Force secretary during President Johnson's buildup in Vietnam and later was President Carter's secretary of defense, explains: "There was more than a loss of confidence among the foreign-policy elite, there was a loss of legitimacy. And it wasn't just the defeat in Vietnam that did it, it was the backbiting that followed."

The acrimony continues. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, says the old establishment lost its will to rule, and that it now wants the U.S. to be loved rather than feared and respected.

"The Vietnam War contributed to a loss of self-confidence and moral self-righteousness with which any elite has to be imbued. Today, the members of the old elite are self-searching, agonizing, apologizing," Mr. Brzezinski says.

"Baloney," responds McGeorge Bundy, who was national security adviser to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. He says of the Brzezinski critique of the establishment: "The people I know who fit into that category -- including me -- don't strike me as demoralized." Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk dismisses the Brzezinski argument as "manure."

<h3>Ronald Reagan, who called the war "a noble cause,"</h3> entered the White House in 1981 hoping to end the post-Vietnam syndrome. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger argues that Mr. Reagan's election itself was part of the national reaction to Vietnam. "Vietnam put in motion such a weakening of America and created so many frustrations that a reaction to the right was inevitable," Mr. Kissinger says.

President Reagan may have eased the residual pain of Vietnam, with his patriotic talk about standing tall. But certain problems of the post-Vietnam era remain, especially the absence of bipartisan foreign policy. The bitter debates of the past four years over Lebanon, Central America and arms control suggest that the old consensus is dead.

"One of Mr. Reagan's achievements is that he has undone much of the damage we have suffered," says Mr. Kissinger. "But he can't undo the sequence of events -- Angola, Iran, Afghanistan, Nicaragua -- which were the indirect consequences of Vietnam. The fact that we have such difficulty today discussing Central America in strategic terms -- as opposed to abstract moral terms -- is a burden Reagan must carry."

Richard Holbrooke, a politically liberal former State Department official who spent three years in Vietnam in the mid-1960s, sums up how the war changed America's image of itself:

"I grew up in school believing that the United States had never lost a war. My children don't think that. I grew up thinking that the United States was the strongest country on earth. My kids think that maybe Russia is. Suddenly we became fallible."

Looking back at the war and the civilian strategists who haggled over every bombing target, Mr. Holbrooke concludes: "The basic, simpleminded American view was right: Win it or get out."

From post #14 <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108864">Vietnam:Reagan's "Noble War", The Left forced the US to fight with one hand tied,Or?</a> thread:

Quote:

Compared to the opinions of the US military leaders who served, and led...in Vietnam, your comments seem unpersuasive. If you have something to back what you claim, why not react to the points made in that informative piece:
http://www.vva.org/TheVeteran/2000_07/despmeas.htm
A publication of Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. ®
An organization chartered by the U.S. Congress

June 2000/July 2000
Desperate Measures
Search And Destroy, Rolling Thunder, Agent Orange, Phoenix, And Taking The Night Away From Charlie......
...because, Marv....your posted points remind me more of Reagan's political rhetoric, than of any substantive debate.

....and Marv.... 4 years after the 3 year long, period of "Rolling Thunder" ended, with the '68 Tet Offensive......the US was still bombing, just the way you apparently thought they weren't...."hot n' heavy":
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...-07-NBC-4.html
NBC Evening News for Sunday, Nov 07, 1971
Headline: Vietnam / Fighting / Air War / Report
Abstract: (Studio) Battle occurred Sunday E. of Saigon between Americans and VC. Viet Cong casualties reported B-52 bombers hit Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam. United States air support more important Center of International Studies at Cornell University releases report with regard to air war.
REPORTER: Garrick Utley

(DC) Study shows level of bombing greater under President Nixon than under Lyndon Baines Johnson: in 1965-68, 3,015,000 tons dropped; in 1969-71, 3,400,000 tons dropped. United States dropped 2 million tons of bombs in World War II; 1 million tons in Korea and 6 million tons in Indochina. 1,050,000 civilians killed since 1965: 6,000,000 refugees reported Defoliation since 1962 affected 14% total area: 5,200,000 acres forest land, and 560,000 acres crop land. Report's final remark read.
REPORTER: Robert Goralski
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...23-NBC-11.html

NBC Evening News for Tuesday, May 23, 1972
Headline: Vietnam / Bombing
Abstract: (Studio) United States pilots bombing North Vietnam may now attack almost anything contributing to North Vietnam's war effort, according to Defense Department, Ind. as well as military targets will now be hit. Electric power plant hit near Hanoi. Americans use new bombs guided by lasers to destroy 6 bridges on rail line leading from Hanoi to P.R. China.
REPORTER: Garrick Utley


http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...20-CBS-12.html
CBS Evening News for Wednesday, Jun 20, 1973
Headline: Bombing Statistics / Cambodia-Laos
Abstract: (Studio) United States drops 50,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia in last 2 mos. Statistics from Senator Harold Hughes. More bombs dropped on Laos than all enemies in WW II.
REPORTER: Roger Mudd
Marv, IMO, the things about Vietnam, that you are convinced of, are absurd, "feelings based" opinions, not supported by the actual record. How many more tons of bombs should have been dropped, and how many more Vietnamese should have been killed of wounded, to "win it"?

With the record of "all that help" from the US.....directly from at least 1964 to the end of 1972, why was the US unsuccessful in it's goal of "Vietnamizing" that civil war? Could the comments in the second quote box on this thread's OP, possibly be the reason?

The underlying factor in all this is that while there were people in South Vietnam who didn't like the Vietcong, there were very few people willing to die for the Saigon government. The Saigon government was corrupt and ineffective, and that was the bottom line......
The point of everything that I've posted, Marv...is that because the above "lesson" was and still is obscured....for you....by Ronald Reagan's rhetoric, and that of others, the US is grinding it's treasury, it's military forces, and the people of Iraq....to pieces,,,,relearning, the same lesson. So far....only US troops, in response to orders from civilian politcal leaders, show consistent willingness to reliably counter Iraqi insurgency and preserve the US installed and facilitated Iraqi government. Iraqis have not "stood up", so we can stand down....and they won't...to the point that our forces will ever withdraw without a collapse of the Iraqi security forces, after the US withdrawal,

That is why the Iraqi security forces won't be properly equipped or have full logistics support. The fear of US leaders is that the assets of US trained Iraqi forces will fall into the hands of the insurgents. That is already the case, in too many instances, just as ended up happening with the military assets of ARVN forces, in 1975.

http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...10-ABC-12.html
ABC Evening News for Tuesday, Feb 10, 1970
Headline: VIETNAMIZATION
Abstract: (Studio) Melvin Laird arrives in Saigon; says Vietnamization irreversible.
REPORTER: Howard K. Smith

(DC) Laird expects to drive home facts to Nguyen Van Thieu. Laird will. make it plain United States cuts to go on; nothing will stop it.
REPORTER: Bill Gill

(Studio) Major part of Vietnamization is teaching South Vietnam to fight for themselves with United States weapons.
REPORTER: Howard K. Smith

(Fort Wolters, Texas) Fort Wolters, helicopter training for 300 South Vietnam; 19 weeks of training; more training in Alabama follows; may train thousands. <h3>Many trainees have reservations about their government, especially about its corruption. [South Vietnam SOLDIERS - can t talk about political]</h3>
REPORTER: Gregory Jackson
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...-04-ABC-3.html
ABC Evening News for Tuesday, Jul 04, 1972
Headline: Vietnam War / United States Training
Abstract: (Studio) Fall of Quang Tri city to South Vietnam seems near. South Vietnam paratroopers landed in city limits and set up own defense positions 1/2 mile from city center. South Vietnam helicopter pilots trained in US.
REPORTER: Harry Reasoner

(Savannah, Georgia) Over 1400 South Vietnam completed 5 month helicopter pilot course in past 2 years Training to be in South Vietnam by South Vietnam from now on, a loss for Savannah families who housed South Vietnam pilots in training.
REPORTER: David Snell
The record shows that the US gave it an earnest try....Marv.....for more than a decade.....with a half million US troops, all the bombing imaginable, 58,000 American dead....and an impressive Vietnamization of the war.....and it turned out not to be enough Marv. Wishing and indoctrination via political rhetoric and individual anecdotal references of lower echelon US veterans of the Vietnam conflict, cannot turn what happened into what you think happened.

Same shit....different day:
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...-17-NBC-7.html
NBC Evening News for Tuesday, Feb 17, 1970
Headline: Vietnamization
Abstract: (Studio) Defense Secretary Melvin Laird reports to Pres-. on Vietnamization; military part of schedule. Dep. United States Ambassador to Vietnam William Colby testifies to Senate committee [Senator Stuart SYMINGTON - asks Colby if South Vietnam could handle situation in Vietnam without Americans] <b>[William COLBY - believes Vietnamization a gradual thing; can give no set time for all Americans getting out.]</b>
REPORTER: David Brinkley

C'mon.....Marv !
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...15-CBS-10.html
CBS Evening News for Friday, Oct 15, 1971
Headline: Reagan / South Vietnam Visit
Abstract: (Studio) California Governor Ronald West Reagan, on Asian tour, congratulates South Vietnam President Nguyen Van Thieu on unopposed election victory; notes George Washington unopposed.
REPORTER: Walter Cronkite

(Saigon, South Vietnam) Thieu puts in urgent request for Reagan's visit; fears appearance of snub if he didn't come. <b>[REAGAN - says doesn't know why such an uproar over uncontested election; feels purposes for Americans dying in South Vietnam still valid; notes United States fighting against totalitarianism.]</b>
REPORTER: Bruce Dunning
I thought it was Ronald "Wilson"....not "West".....the point is.....Reagan knew better....but he was a fucking actor..... it was all a performance, Marv. WINK

Last edited by host; 03-01-2008 at 06:02 PM..
host is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 08:09 PM   #76 (permalink)
peekaboo
 
ngdawg's Avatar
 
Location: on the back, bitch
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle phil
are you serious?

between ronnie raygunz and GB I, this country was seriously headed for the economic toilet. i defer to Host for the particulars...

where were you in the 70's and early 80s?
We can step back in time to Kennedy and his sending more than just a patrolling "police action" to Vietnam....by the time Johnson took over, we were so far into the pit, he couldn't see his way out....

Remember the "gas crisis" of about 1978-78? Wasn't Reagan. Carter.
In 1981, during Reagan's first full year, interest rates went up
in a bid to stop the "great inflation of the 60's and 70's". The recession that followed was dubbed the worst since the Great Depression, but was shortlived; within one year, the US experienced a "robust expansion".
Source

Every election year, we go through an "economic crisis". It's fear generated by the money traders but we blame it on whomever holds office. Of course, the president of time isn't totally blameless, but neither is he wholly responsible. But it's so much easier to blame one guy than memorize the names of all those who truly are responsible.
ngdawg is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 08:50 PM   #77 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
We can step back in time to Kennedy and his sending more than just a patrolling "police action" to Vietnam....by the time Johnson took over, we were so far into the pit, he couldn't see his way out....

Remember the "gas crisis" of about 1978-78? Wasn't Reagan. Carter.
In 1981, during Reagan's first full year, interest rates went up
in a bid to stop the "great inflation of the 60's and 70's". The recession that followed was dubbed the worst since the Great Depression, but was shortlived; within one year, the US experienced a "robust expansion".
Source

Every election year, we go through an "economic crisis". It's fear generated by the money traders but we blame it on whomever holds office. Of course, the president of time isn't totally blameless, but neither is he wholly responsible. But it's so much easier to blame one guy than memorize the names of all those who truly are responsible.
ngdawg, I am glad that you are posting regulalry here. But I don't read the same "stuff" you do, I guess.....

From Kennedy's last two news conferences:



Quote:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9507
John F. Kennedy
448 - The President's News Conference of
October 31st, 1963


[3.] Q. Mr. President, back to the question of troop reductions, are any intended in the Far East at the present time, particularly in Korea, and is there any speedup in the withdrawal from Viet-Nam intended?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, when Secretary McNamara and General Taylor came back, they announced that we would expect to withdraw a thousand men from South Viet-Nam before the end of the year, and there has been some reference to that by General Harkins. If we are able to do that, that would be our schedule. I think the first unit or first contingent would be 250 men who are not involved in what might be called front-line operations. It would be our hope to lessen the number of Americans there by 1,000, as the training intensifies and is carried on in South Viet-Nam.....


....[29.] Q. Mr. President, in negotiating the limited nuclear test ban treaty we and the Russians avoided the issue of international inspection by limiting it to the three environments in which that, theoretically, was not required. Now we have joined at the U.N. in proposing a wider ban, including underground tests. Is there anything new in the state of the art of detection or in our understanding of the Soviet position that leads us to hope we can get anywhere with this approach?

THE PRESIDENT. I am doubtful that we can get any place. We are still insisting on inspection. The Soviet Union is still resisting inspection. And therefore, unless the art of seismology improves, I would think we would not get an agreement. Sometime it may improve so that it is not necessary for us to have the kind of detailed inspections that we believe necessary or perhaps the Soviet Union will change its policy. I would hope either event would occur. For the present, I am not optimistic.
Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.

Note: President Kennedy's sixty-third news conference was held in the State Department Auditorium at 4 o'clock on Thursday afternoon, October 31, 1963.

Quote:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9519
John F. Kennedy
459 - The President's News Conference of
November 14th, 1963

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, gentlemen and ladies.

[1.] Q. Mr. President, how menacing do you regard the Cambodian threat to reject our foreign aid, and can that country be slipping into the Communist orbit?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I regard it as serious. It is my hope that Prince Sihanouk, who must be concerned about the independence and the sovereignty of his country-he has after all been involved for many years in maintaining that independence-will not decide at this dangerous point in the world's affairs to surrender it. I would think that he is more concerned about Cambodian independence than we are. After all, he is a Cambodian. So my judgment is that in the long run he would protect that independence. It would be folly not to, and I don't think he is a foolish man.


[3.] Q. Mr. President, what are the prerequisites or conditions for resumption of some sort of trade with Red China?

THE PRESIDENT. We are not planning to trade with Red China in view of the policy that Red China pursues. When the Red Chinese indicate a desire to live at peace with the United States, with other countries surrounding it, then quite obviously the United States would reappraise its policies. We are not wedded to a policy of hostility to Red China. It seems to me Red China's policies are what create the tension between not only the United States and Red China but between Red China and India, between Red China and her immediate neighbors to the south, and even between Red China and other Communist countries.


[5.] Q. Mr. President, there have been published reports that General Harkins may have lost his usefulness in Viet-Nam because of his identification with the Diem regime and lack of contacts with the new generals running the country. Would you care to comment on that?

THE PRESIDENT. I think it is wholly untrue. I have complete confidence in him. He was just doing his job. I think he said in the interview yesterday he had seen Mr. Nhu, I think, only three times. He had seen President Diem on a number of occasions. That was his job, that is what he was sent for-to work with the government in power--that is what he will do with the new government. I have great confidence in General Harkins. There may be some who would like to see General Harkins go, but I plan to keep him there.

Q. Following up that, sir, would you give us your appraisal of the situation in South Viet-Nam now, since the coup, and the purposes for the Honolulu conference?

THE PRESIDENT. Because we do have a new situation there, and a new government, we hope, an increased effort in the war. The purpose of the meeting at Honolulu--Ambassador Lodge will be there, General Harkins will be there, Secretary McNamara and others, and then, as you know, later Ambassador Lodge will come here--is to attempt to assess the situation: what American policy should be, and what our aid policy should be, how we can intensify the struggle, how we can bring Americans out of there.

Now, that is our object, to bring Americans home, permit the South Vietnamese to maintain themselves as a free and independent country, and permit democratic forces within the country to operate--which they can, of course, much more freely when the assault from the inside, and which is manipulated from the north, is ended. So the purpose of the meeting in Honolulu is how to pursue these objectives.

Q. Mr. President, Madam Nhu has now left the United States, but indicated that she intends to return. Will we renew her tourist visa?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. And if she asks for it, will we grant her permanent residence--

THE PRESIDENT. I think we'd certainly permit her to return to the United States, if she wishes to do so.

[6.] Q. Mr. President, year by year, the foreign aid program seems to encounter more and more resistance in the Congress. And this year we are seeing Senators who ordinarily in the past have gone along with the program--

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. This is the worst attack on foreign aid that we have seen since the beginning of the Marshall plan.

Q. In the event that one of these years the Congress, the arguments for foreign aid notwithstanding, surprises itself by voting the program out, what would we then do?

THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be a great mistake. Of course, some of the difficulty is where the President sits and where the Members of the Senate sit. It has been said very many times, and I have never questioned it, that the Senate and the Congress have every right to decide how much money should be appropriated. That is their constitutional right.

But on the other hand, the President bears particular responsibilities in the field of foreign policy. If there are failures in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, and South Viet-Nam, Laos, it is usually not a Senator who is selected to bear the blame, but it's the administration, the President of the United States.

I regard this--President Eisenhower regarded it, and President Truman--it is no coincidence that all three Presidents since this program began, and Presidential candidates-Mr. Nixon, Mr. Stevenson, Governor Dewey, that all of them, Governor Rockefeller today, others--it seems to me all recognize the importance of this program. It is because it is a very valuable arm of the United States in the field of foreign policy. I don't think it is recognized what an important influence this has.

Now, we spend $51 billion or $52 billion on defense. We spend $2 1/2 billion on the atomic energy program. We spend $5 bib lion on space, of which at least a good percentage has a military implication in the sense of our national security. We spend all of this money and yet we are going to deny the President of the United States a very valuable weapon in maintaining the influence of the United States in this very diversifted world.

I can't imagine anything more dangerous than to end this program. I can assure you that whoever is President of the United States succeeding me will support this program.

Now, the second point I want to make is that what we are now talking about is only a fourth of what we tried to do in the early fifties. What I said in the--I don't understand why we are suddenly so fatigued. I don't regard the struggle as over, and I don't think it is probably going to be over for this century. I think this is a continuing effort, and it is not a very heavy one. It is a fraction of our budget, a fraction of our gross national product. The gross national product of the United States has increased $100 billion, will have by the end of this year, in a 3-year period.

So what we are asking is a billion dollars less than in the average program since '47. The need today is greater, these countries are poorer, there's a good many more of them; and yet we are being denied, the President of the United States is being threatened with denying him a very important weapon in helping him meet his responsibility. The Congress has its responsibility. But in the field of foreign policy there are particular burdens placed on the President, whoever he may be.

The Supreme Court in the Curtis Rider case said that the President is the organ of the country in the field of foreign policy. I just want to say personally as President, and my predecessor said the same, this program is essential to the conduct of our foreign policy, and therefore I am asking the Congress of the United States to give me the means of conducting the foreign policy of the United States. And if they do not want to do so, then they should recognize that they are severely limiting my ability to protect the interest. That's how important I think this program is.

Q. Before you leave the subject, sir, would you comment just a bit further? It is still a fact that a negative action by a Congress is something that an administration has great difficulty in coping with. Has the administration, has the Government, looked ahead to that possibility and prepared against it?

THE PRESIDENT. No, I can't believe that the Congress of the United States is going to be so unwise unless we are going to retreat from the world. Are we going to give up in South Viet-Nam? Are we going to give up in Latin America?

I have said before that what we are talking about in the case of Latin America and the Alliance for Progress, for all of Latin America, is what the Soviet Union and the bloc are putting into Cuba alone. Now, can you tell me the United States is not able to do that? In addition, these amendments which are passed because they don't like a particular leader or a particular national policy as of the moment--it is a very changing world. Because they don't like the fishing policy we are going to decide to end all aid to the three countries in Latin America that are hardpressed, rather than permitting us to negotiate the matter out. But anyway, as I say, they have their responsibilities and I have mine. I am just trying to make it very clear that I cannot fulfill my responsibility in the field of foreign policy without this program.

Now, the most important program, of course, is our national security, but I don't want the United States to have to put troops there. What's going to happen in Laos if it collapses? Are they going to blame the Senate or are they going to blame me? I know who they are going to blame. So I need this program.


[21.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the changed situation in South Viet-Nam, do you still expect to bring back 1,000 troops before the end of the year, or has that figure been raised or lowered?

THE PRESIDENT. No, we are going to bring back several hundred before the end of the year. But I think on the question of the exact number, I thought we would wait until the meeting of November 20th.


Note: President Kennedy's sixty-fourth news conference was held in the State Department Auditorium at 11 a.m. on Thursday, November 14, 1963.
Kennedy did not live to give another news conference because he died in Dallas, eight days later....

What did you like best about the "Reagan economic miracle", was it the huge increase in debt triggered by deep tax cuts and simultaneous increases in military spending? We still haven't paid back the $3-1/2 trillion, and the interest paid to service that debt has long since eclipsed any benefit from the "expansion" it helped to drive. It took more than 80 years to accumulated a national debt just under $1 trillion. Reagan racked up a quick $1-1/2 trillion and his successor, Bush, almost $2 trillion more.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
I was dicking around at the time, much like Carter. Reagan's tax cuts and regulatory reforms led to some of the greatest economic times this country has ever known. He set into motion events that created 17 million new jobs, and cut black unemployment in half. Pretty impressive in my book.
Quote:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
Yes, the national debt, just under $1 trillion when Reagan's first annual federal budget year began, only increased 4-1/2 times, by the time we were rid of 12 years of Reagan/Bush voodoo fiscal discipline.

In the year preceding the first Clinton managed federal budget, the years ending 9/30/93, the national debt had increased $390 billion in just 12 months.

At the end of the 7th Clinton managed budget year, on 9/30/00, the national debt increased just $18 billion in the previous 12 months, and unemployment was at it's lowest percentage level, ever.

Isn't it easier to "ramp up" job growth when you are increasing the national debt by $350 billion per year, on average over 12 years, than when you are reducing it, to an average of just $160 billion per year, over the subsequent seven year period?

Last edited by host; 03-01-2008 at 08:58 PM..
host is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 09:00 PM   #78 (permalink)
peekaboo
 
ngdawg's Avatar
 
Location: on the back, bitch
Whre in those Kennedy interviews does he state that he increased the "police action" in Vietnam from 500 US troops to 16,000?
ngdawg is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 09:13 PM   #79 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Whre in those Kennedy interviews does he state that he increased the "police action" in Vietnam from 500 US troops to 16,000?
These are probably Kennedy's last public words on the subject, in an answer to a reporter during his final news conference, on 11/14/63:

Quote:
Q. Following up that, sir, would you give us your appraisal of the situation in South Viet-Nam now, since the coup, and the purposes for the Honolulu conference?

THE PRESIDENT. Because we do have a new situation there, and a new government, we hope, an increased effort in the war. The purpose of the meeting at Honolulu--Ambassador Lodge will be there, General Harkins will be there, Secretary McNamara and others, and then, as you know, later Ambassador Lodge will come here--is to attempt to assess the situation: what American policy should be, and what our aid policy should be, how we can intensify the struggle, how we can bring Americans out of there.

Now, that is our object, to bring Americans home, permit the South Vietnamese to maintain themselves as a free and independent country, and permit democratic forces within the country to operate--which they can, of course, much more freely when the assault from the inside, and which is manipulated from the north, is ended. So the purpose of the meeting in Honolulu is how to pursue these objectives.
Now what is it that you are trying to do with this? The man was suddenly killed. Before he died, he state his intent for the direction of troop levels in Vietnam, as I documented in the quotes from his last two news conferences, in my last post.

If he had not been killed, and had done the opposite as far as troop levels in Vietnam, of wha the said he planned to do, I could see where you are trying to take your srgument. That is not how things went. He did not live to do anything beyond what he said he planned to do.

What influences your apparently unwavering opinion on this? Is it the interpretation of others? Who are they?
host is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 09:33 PM   #80 (permalink)
peekaboo
 
ngdawg's Avatar
 
Location: on the back, bitch
I don't have an unwaivering opinion of this. It's a simple fact-Kennedy increased the troops presence in Vietnam from 500 to 16,000. It matters not what he "said" he'd do because he was killed.
How many of us get judged by what we say we're going to do? I'm thinking...nobody but politicians.

If I have any opinion at all it's that we as Americans need to stop sugarcoating things and making people saints. The 'Good Old Days" weren't that good, they're just old. This thread is about that, more or less. For every sentiment, there's a reality and for every reality, there's an alternate version.
Kennedy was martyred-he made some major blunders during his short term; only by being assassinated was his position elevated to that of regal US saint.
ngdawg is offline  
 

Tags
country, today, wrong, wtf


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:40 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360