Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think the left and the populists need to get their hands dirty. I'm not above getting into the dirt - the difference is I'm backing my arguments with substance. The right can't articulate any reason for the fury about Iraq other than the need for people to be stupidly unified in anger in order to move into any war. We were cheerlead into a "war" based on lies, and "the right" was the chief instigator of the mob mentality behind it all. I may get on board for other reasons, but I'm going to let you know just how fucking stupidly transparant your whole charade is. Somebody needs to keep the right honest. Consider me your alluy who thinks you're a horse's ass. But keep doing what you're doing - I like my tax break. Just don't expect my kid in your next idiot war. I'll have him mailed to Ireland before I'll play that fucking game.

The thing is, I agree with you about the fury thing. But I can't help it that the only people who color your vision of the "Right" are the drunks left behind when the Right left the legacy of the dying northern cities to the democrats and other leftists. The "Right" is not an angry drunk in the bar or the guy doing a line off your ass. And the "Right" is not McNaRummy or Father Ashcroft.

The Right is not Racist, Sexist, or anti-immigration. The Right is law-abiding, in favor of limited (very limited) government, and hates unfairness and inefficiency. The Right does not externalize costs onto other people's children or other neighborhoods. You might think you know the Right, but all you are describing is the guy getting drunk next to you at the bar.

People like to cast themselves as part of my Right to shield their hateful views under the cloak of my dignity (see e.g., Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly). And stupid people like to cast me out of the Right, in order to present a skewed picture of the Right as a drunk in a bar.

Than again, if you are invoking an image of an imaginary child being drafted to fight someone else's war, am I thinking too little of you in believing that your characterization of the "Right" was formed in a bar in a northern city?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The thing is, I agree with you about the fury thing. But I can't help it that the only people who color your vision of the "Right" are the drunks left behind when the Right left the legacy of the dying northern cities to the democrats and other leftists. The "Right" is not an angry drunk in the bar or the guy doing a line off your ass. And the "Right" is not McNaRummy or Father Ashcroft.

The Right is not Racist, Sexist, or anti-immigration. The Right is law-abiding, in favor of limited (very limited) government, and hates unfairness and inefficiency. The Right does not externalize costs onto other people's children or other neighborhoods. You might think you know the Right, but all you are describing is the guy getting drunk next to you at the bar.

People like to cast themselves as part of my Right to shield their hateful views under the cloak of my dignity (see e.g., Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly). And stupid people like to cast me out of the Right, in order to present a skewed picture of the Right as a drunk in a bar.

Than again, if you are invoking an image of an imaginary child being drafted to fight someone else's war, am I thinking too little of you in believing that your characterization of the "Right" was formed in a bar in a northern city?

hello's Right: The Party of One.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
hello's Right: The Party of One.

Just as long as I'm not in Sebby's drug-coma dreams.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
hello's Right: The Party of One.

the party of two- he's wrong about this one- it's me!

The "Right" is not an angry drunk in the bar

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The Right does not externalize costs onto other people's children or other neighborhoods.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Let's talk environmental policy. Environmental corporate externalities, e.g. pollution, are bourne by society as a whole. By other people's children. In other neighborhoods. Even in other countries. Too bad The Right doesn't include that in it's cost structure, even though it can be quanitfied. The lowered regulatory standards under Bush externalize a HUGE cost. A cost that will have to be paid for when the externalities eventually visibly and horribly materialize via cancer, lung disease and clean-up costs.

But cancer isn't money, so this cost isn't included. And increased environmental standards hinder economic growth, right? Who gives a shit if my kid or your kid pays for it later when he gets lukemia when growth increased by 7% instead of 5% b/c the utility pollution regulations were relaxed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Hahahahahahahahaha!

Let's talk environmental policy. Environmental corporate externalities, e.g. pollution, are bourne by society as a whole. By other people's children. In other neighborhoods. Even in other countries. Too bad The Right doesn't include that in it's cost structure, even though it can be quanitfied. The lowered regulatory standards under Bush externalize a HUGE cost. A cost that will have to be paid for when the externalities eventually visibly and horribly materialize via cancer, lung disease and clean-up costs.

But cancer isn't money, so this cost isn't included. And increased environmental standards hinder economic growth, right? Who gives a shit if my kid or your kid pays for it later when he gets lukemia when growth increased by 7% instead of 5% b/c the utility pollution regulations were relaxed.

Can you please cite one "relaxed standard" that goes to anything where there is evidence of harm?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
False choice, lizard. In the longer term, Sebby will be fabulously wealthy and will have the ability to sneeze at the higher future tax burden and/or eroded social benefit system, even if the net present value of those costs exceeds the tax cuts he gets today.*

This belief, such as it is, resides at the core of Bushian fiscal policy and domestic re-election strategy.

Gattigap

* Or, we'll all be dead. Though possibly counter to the short term planks of Bushian strategy (vote for me or you'll be dead tomorrow), this corollary to Bushian policy and strategy has actually been forwarded by the President himself. Bonus!

Bird in the hand is worth two in the... God, using that cliche is horrible here.

I'm amused by people who live their lives like tomorrow is promised to them. I'll take that cash now. I'll deal with the problems of 40 years from now 40 years from now.

I'm not surprised people on this board find my attitude about these things naively cavalier. A lot of you are a bunch of micromanaging super-planners. Process the data, make sure all contingencies are planned for, make the sensible decision, be safe, make sure your acorns are there for winter.

Suck my cock. Ever hit the brakes at 80 and realized you were on black ice? Ever had a biopsy come back inconclusive? Ever seen someone young close to you die of something really fucked up and totally unpredictable? Life's terminal and money's easy to come by. I need a healthy amount to live as I like, but so far, I've struggled and managed. I may never have a Rolls, but shit's never going to be bad if you're willing to work and have a brain. Dem , GOP, whig, whatever... won't mean a rats ass to me in the end anyway, so why not take the free dinners now?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can you please cite one "relaxed standard" that goes to anything where there is evidence of harm?

So you're beginning with the assumption that increased pollution isn't harmful, and that I must convince you otherwise? Are you R.J. Reynolds?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Bird in the hand is worth two in the... God, using that cliche is horrible here.

I'm amused by people who live their lives like tomorrow is promised to them. I'll take that cash now. I'll deal with the problems of 40 years from now 40 years from now.

I'm not surprised people on this board find my attitude about these things naively cavalier. A lot of you are a bunch of micromanaging super-planners. Process the data, make sure all contingencies are planned for, make the sensible decision, be safe, make sure your acorns are there for winter.

Suck my cock. Ever hit the brakes at 80 and realized you were on black ice? Ever had a biopsy come back inconclusive? Ever seen someone young close to you die of something really fucked up and totally unpredictable? Life's terminal and money's easy to come by. I need a healthy amount to live as I like, but so far, I've struggled and managed. I may never have a Rolls, but shit's never going to be bad if you're willing to work and have a brain. Dem , GOP, whig, whatever... won't mean a rats ass to me in the end anyway, so why not take the free dinners now?

I like this post, Sebby, though FWIW my post wasn't directed at you in particular, but at the increasingly indefensibility of Bushian fiscal policy.

Enjoy the dinner.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Hahahahahahahahaha!

Let's talk environmental policy. Environmental corporate externalities, e.g. pollution, are bourne by society as a whole. By other people's children. In other neighborhoods. Even in other countries. Too bad The Right doesn't include that in it's cost structure, even though it can be quanitfied. The lowered regulatory standards under Bush externalize a HUGE cost. A cost that will have to be paid for when the externalities eventually visibly and horribly materialize via cancer, lung disease and clean-up costs.

But cancer isn't money, so this cost isn't included. And increased environmental standards hinder economic growth, right? Who gives a shit if my kid or your kid pays for it later when he gets lukemia when growth increased by 7% instead of 5% b/c the utility pollution regulations were relaxed.

We covered this in the old days on the Infirm politics boards. The not_Right (is that you?) used scare tactics to ban DDT. Now (insert some huge number) of children die every year because of mosquito-borne diseases.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's)? I dare you to look for any study that reasonably demonstrates they are dangerous.

You want to know the greatest environmental impact in this country? Suburbs are the greatest environmental impact.

You want to know why suburbs exist? Because the Democrats have completely fucked up almost every one of America's major cities. Look around you in Chicago. Who's the boogeyman in your wasteland? Daley? Mell? Blagoyevich? Madigan?

(lowering his voice) Obviously this is a much bigger topic, and I'll be happy to discuss it on a separate thread any time here.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
So you're beginning with the assumption that increased pollution isn't harmful, and that I must convince you otherwise? Are you R.J. Reynolds?

As you typed these words, your pulse increased. You exhaled more Carbon dioxide. You increased pollution.

So yes, merely saying pollution increased is meaningless unless you show what you mean. Are you speaking of the arsenic levels? Do you have any specifics, or are you flying on hyperbole here?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ever hit the brakes at 80 and realized you were on black ice? Ever had a biopsy come back inconclusive? Ever seen someone young close to you die of something really fucked up and totally unpredictable? Life's terminal and money's easy to come by. I need a healthy amount to live as I like, but so far, I've struggled and managed. I may never have a Rolls, but shit's never going to be bad if you're willing to work and have a brain. Dem , GOP, whig, whatever... won't mean a rats ass to me in the end anyway, so why not take the free dinners now?

S-L-O-W D-O-W-N!!!

Sebby Jr. needs you to be around when they come and try and draft him.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let me get this straight. Allawi is a puppet, but Araphat is leader worthy of respect, the undivided attention of the American president for several weeks at Camp David, and the Nobel Peace Price.

This is why the DEMs have become a minority party.

If you mean Arafat, then I personally believe he is a terrorist thug. However, he at least had, until recently, the power to control people's actions in a general sense. He no longer has that power, so he no longer has any claim to particular attention.

Since you asked.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You want to know the greatest environmental impact in this country? Suburbs are the greatest environmental impact.

You want to know why suburbs exist?

My guess is either flouridation of urban water supplies or school desegregation.

Real estate developers and highway contractors may also play a role.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If by puppet you mean we had a hand in picking him, our troops are necessary for his government's survival and he can't do too much we disagree with, then he is a puppet. But he is a puppet of the US government, not Bush. If Kerry wins the Iraq government will still be as much his puppet for the forseeable future. Kerry ridiculed someone/something he'll need.

Don't you have this ass-backwards? Allawi is about as useful as tits on a bull. And his appearance in the US was pure electioneering. Unless he had to come to the home office to sign for his paycheck.