Are you sure about that? And do you really mean corruption or rather 'speculated corruption'? You need to do your homework on BOTH sides, here's something that will scratch the surface:
I don't think that the bush admin was that great, but seriously, when things go sour during 1 or 2 terms, do you really think the problems root ONLY occur within those terms, or did you want to learn a term called foreshadowing, reference the clinton era and investigate what he did with the sub prime loans for housing. There are some obvious faults to the bush admin, but to even blame the ticking timebombs, prior to his terms, that went off... you're going to blame him?
Believe me, I don't need the educating. How about McCain and the Keating 5 Savings and Loan Scandal, or Phil Graham, or the deregulation set by Bush, or perhaps Haliburton's no bid war contracts, or the billions in profits for Exxon/Mobil - especially in 2005 - when Americans were paying extreme amounts at the pump. I could go on, but the Bush administration is far from innocent in all of this. Sadly, a lot of it has to do with hedge fundies trading on future speculation of oil, gaining millions in commission and putting millions more in the pockets of oil and gas executives. Not to mention the inflated pricing of the housing market, and the subsequent loans and mortgages given to people as they couldn't afford the inflated prices (and should never have taken or given loans/mortgages they could not afford) - the fact is, no one is innocent but do not be so quick to point fingers, especially at an administration that is just beginning.
Not to mention the inflated pricing of the housing market, and the subsequent loans and mortgages given to people as they couldn't afford the inflated prices (and should never have taken or given loans/mortgages they could not afford) - the fact is, no one is innocent but do not be so quick to point fingers, especially at an administration that is just beginning.
Clinton Era foreshadowed this. I won't blame them completely, but I'm saying the reds warned the blues about this when clinton was lifting regulations back then,, and the warnings echoed in 2001-2006. Now, the video displayed wasn't going to resolve anything as to both sides could've done more to regulate, but to blame (this is where you come in) the administration for it's faults in the 8 yrs solely on this is preposterous
Clinton Era foreshadowed this. I won't blame them completely, but I'm saying the reds warned the blues about this when clinton was lifting regulations back then,, and the warnings echoed in 2001-2006. Now, the video displayed wasn't going to resolve anything as to both sides could've done more to regulate, but to blame (this is where you come in) the administration for it's faults in the 8 yrs solely on this is preposterous
Not 100%. This goes back way before Clinton, some would argue as far back as Carter. If the "reds" knew then why did Bush not do anything other than worsen the same deregulation? To blame anyone on anything is preposterous, I agree 100%. I am just tired of people trashing the new administration without giving it a chance. it's frustrating, and it sets up failure, and only panders to bipartisanship.
Yeah except for that whole mostly-worthless "internet" thing that developed out of ARPANET.
On a side note, the whole "Government is bad so let's minimize it's role in everything except defense and the enforcement of Christian theocratic "morality" through "obscenity" censorship laws, anti-sodomy/oral sex laws, anti-homosexuality and anti-gay marriage laws, banning alcohol sales on Sundays, anti-abortion (even in the case of incest and/or rape) laws, anti-stem cell research laws, pro-creationism and anti-evolution "academic freedom" laws". mythos of the modern conservative movement is getting really tiring. I think most people agree that the Federal government is a necessary force and should be IMPROVED and made more EFFICIENT (not necessarily enlarged), not dismantled. Also, it's funny how republicans are screaming about "big government" and the national debt after 8 years of bush presiding over the largest expansion of federal government and the largest expansion of the national debt in a generation!
Fiscal Conservatism != Social Conservatism
Republicanism (recently) != Conservatism
Please be careful will how you throw around these terms. As a moderate Libertarian, I am oft lambasted for my fiscal conservatism, being lumped in with Republicans and, therefore, Bush. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I am the polar opposite of Bush. Hell, even "True-Blue" Republicans hated Bush for his fiscal Liberalism. So be sure to choose your labels carefully.
Meanwhile, let's also make sure to watch the current administration as critically as we did the previous. If people hated Bush so much, they should probably be taking a closer look at Obama. Let's not forget that Bush had a stimulus package, a Real Estate recovery package and approve TARP. Obama has thus far signed a stimulus package, a Real Estate recovery package and they're now talking about TARP2. To remain consistent, if you disagreed with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, you should also disagree with the Obama's recent spending.
We should also take better effort to watch what is happening, not just listen to what Obama is saying. While he and his ilk are fond of criticizing "the fiscal irresponsibility of the past administration" their solution is to spend twice as much in identical or less-productive ways................ huh? And could someone explain to me the politicians who blame the recent economic climate on the "greedy" banks for their "predatory lending practices" (many of which were regulated upon them, by the way) then turn around and say that the solution is to force the banks to lend more.... uhh..... HELLO!? Forcing the banks to lend IS. WHAT. CAUSED. THE. PROBLEM.
(As you can tell, I don't trust any politician, Democrat or Republican. I think we all have to start doing a better job holding our government responsible for their actions, not just letting it slide because they're slimy politigoons who will just end up doing whatever they want anyway. We control them, not the other way around.)
Of course, some government is obviously necessary, I'm not debating that. Let's just make sure we THINK about logical solutions here. Let's examine cause and effect.
If you want to learn more about Libertarianism, please check out my sig. It cuts the BS out of the Dems and Reps... something I think a lot of people are sick of. It's a good middle ground for the Republicans who reject the social constraints of the Rep. party and the Democrats who are sick of the reckless spending of the Dems.
Please be careful will how you throw around these terms. As a moderate Libertarian, I am oft lambasted for my fiscal conservatism, being lumped in with Republicans and, therefore, Bush. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I am the polar opposite of Bush. Hell, even "True-Blue" Republicans hated Bush for his fiscal Liberalism. So be sure to choose your labels carefully.
Ok, I know I said I'd stop, but I just want to applaud you on your comment. Very well stated, and I myself am just the same, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Thanks
Please be careful will how you throw around these terms. As a moderate Libertarian, I am oft lambasted for my fiscal conservatism, being lumped in with Republicans and, therefore, Bush. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I am the polar opposite of Bush. Hell, even "True-Blue" Republicans hated Bush for his fiscal Liberalism. So be sure to choose your labels carefully.
Meanwhile, let's also make sure to watch the current administration as critically as we did the previous. If people hated Bush so much, they should probably be taking a closer look at Obama. Let's not forget that Bush had a stimulus package, a Real Estate recovery package and approve TARP. Obama has thus far signed a stimulus package, a Real Estate recovery package and they're now talking about TARP2. To remain consistent, if you disagreed with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, you should also disagree with the Obama's recent spending.
The Republicans and Democrats in power have generally tended towards reckless spending over the past several decades. It's usually just a matter of what they want to spend it on. The other side always complains about the spending, but really, they secretly want to take the same money and direct it elsewhere. The complaining is basically a game played on the part of the opposition officials, they don't complain when the tables turn and their pet ideology or project is well-funded.
I don't see alternative parties being a viable option unless the US switches to proportional representation rather than geographical representation. Geographical representation tends to stabilize to a very entrenching equilibrium of two parties and it takes something very big knock one of them out. That something big has only happened once that I am aware, and that was a dissolution due to internal strife, not because of external actions.
Long, long ago - in a galaxy far away - this thread began with comments about Apple's annual meeting. What a bloviated waste of keystrokes and time.
What isn't? We are all just biological space heaters in the grand scheme of things. We are mobile factories that aid in the decomposition of organic matter, with heat byproducts.
Long, long ago - in a galaxy far away - this thread began with comments about Apple's annual meeting. What a bloviated waste of keystrokes and time.
The thread is regarding the political discourse with Apple shareholders, thus the political discourse on AppleInsider. Politics is like a virus, easy to catch but hard to shale \
Just... wow... I love how conservatives are trying their hardest to bring McCarthyism back by using "socialism" as a fear tactic. FYI: social democracy is alive and well for health care in the U.K., Canada, Sweden, Germany - need I go on? Having a fit during an Apple shareholders meeting, swearing and stomping off only demonstrates the frustration and immaturity of their ilk. Leave it out of Apple...
I'm a conservative & I'd appreciate it if you'd quit painting me with such a broad brush. Urlick is a nutcase & has nothing to do with me. The fact that you think he is a classic representation of conservative shows me you know nothing about us, he is a minority in the conservative movement.
All I want is the government to get it's greedy hands out of our money. They want to help the poor, how about coming up with more incentives & assistance for organizations that help the poor instead of building their own institutions & then letting a bunch of bureaucrats shave their share off the top.
So you're suggesting that Sweden is going to elect a mass-murdering despot as leader soon? Should I start stock-piling cheap furniture now?
Did I mention Sweden? Socialism has many steps to its goal. But then why look abroad ...
Cap & Trade will shift so many jobs and companies overseas that we will be fortunate if APPL remains a US based corp ...and it will not be moving to Europe.
As for cheap furniture - if it's wood, then you will have a great stockpile to keep your self warm in the winter after all the coal-fired plants are shut in the next year or so.
Please please please pick up a book (besides Ann Coulter's talking points rhetoric "Godless", she and O'Reilly are mere pundits and nothing more) and educate yourself. It is ignorant sheeple such as yourself that embarrass the USA.
Thank you. I just don't have the patience anymore to try to reason with those who don't have even an elementary understanding of politics and history. It's become very apparent through the 2008 campaign that a certain ignorant and uneducated subsection of America equates any capitalist democracy that supports a basic level of human welfare and social services
as representative of "socialism" or "communism". This of course mostly coming from the conservatives on the "Religious Right" -- that bastion of Jesus-inspired compassion, empathy, and self-less altruism.
I guess I'm too young to really understand the psyche of a middle-aged (under-educated) conservative, but I'm sure it has to do with living through the cold war. It's unfortunate that these people seem to see the immeasurably complex subject of political philosophy and governing in black and white. Apparently, the idea that "socialist" ideals of liberty, equal rights, equal opportunity, etc can not only be embraced but actually be compatible within the context of a modern capitalist democracy has been lost on them.
Cap & Trade will shift so many jobs and companies overseas that we will be fortunate if APPL remains a US based corp ...and it will not be moving to Europe.
First of all, carbon reduction programs will be proposed and initiated on a global level, not solely the United States. We have in fact been the sole holdout among developed countries in doing ANYTHING to slow climate change. Cap and trade programs will force the hand of large polluting companies and industries (like coal, oil, certain manufacturing) to move to new technology and generate revenue to reinvest in American renewable energy projects.
Secondly, I love how many people seem to be worried solely about economic growth when we are talking about possible global CATASTROPHE. I want my (eventual) children and grandchldren to live in a better world than I do, not one brimming with global conflict over food, energy, and land shortages with a ravaged environment and wilting ecosystem.
First of all, carbon reduction programs will be proposed and initiated on a global level, not solely the United States. We have in fact been the sole holdout among developed countries in doing ANYTHING to slow climate change. Cap and trade programs will force the hand of large polluting companies and industries (like coal, oil, certain manufacturing) to move to new technology and generate revenue to reinvest in American renewable energy projects.
I agree, but I think the "developed" word is the crux of the problem, these treaties treated developed countries much more stringently than developing ones. Even if the developed world went carbon neutral, that doesn't matter unless China and India, among others, also take similar measures. CO2 production is exacerbated by increasing industrialization, and these populations outnumber developed world several times over.
I agree, but I think the "developed" word is the crux of the problem, these treaties treated developed countries much more stringently than developing ones. Even if the developed world went carbon neutral, that doesn't matter unless China and India, among others, also take similar measures. CO2 production is exacerbated by increasing industrialization, and these populations outnumber developed world several times over.
I completely agree, particularly in regards to large countries like China, India, etc..
Comments
Are you sure about that? And do you really mean corruption or rather 'speculated corruption'? You need to do your homework on BOTH sides, here's something that will scratch the surface:
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
I don't think that the bush admin was that great, but seriously, when things go sour during 1 or 2 terms, do you really think the problems root ONLY occur within those terms, or did you want to learn a term called foreshadowing, reference the clinton era and investigate what he did with the sub prime loans for housing. There are some obvious faults to the bush admin, but to even blame the ticking timebombs, prior to his terms, that went off... you're going to blame him?
Believe me, I don't need the educating. How about McCain and the Keating 5 Savings and Loan Scandal, or Phil Graham, or the deregulation set by Bush, or perhaps Haliburton's no bid war contracts, or the billions in profits for Exxon/Mobil - especially in 2005 - when Americans were paying extreme amounts at the pump. I could go on, but the Bush administration is far from innocent in all of this. Sadly, a lot of it has to do with hedge fundies trading on future speculation of oil, gaining millions in commission and putting millions more in the pockets of oil and gas executives. Not to mention the inflated pricing of the housing market, and the subsequent loans and mortgages given to people as they couldn't afford the inflated prices (and should never have taken or given loans/mortgages they could not afford) - the fact is, no one is innocent but do not be so quick to point fingers, especially at an administration that is just beginning.
Not to mention the inflated pricing of the housing market, and the subsequent loans and mortgages given to people as they couldn't afford the inflated prices (and should never have taken or given loans/mortgages they could not afford) - the fact is, no one is innocent but do not be so quick to point fingers, especially at an administration that is just beginning.
Clinton Era foreshadowed this. I won't blame them completely, but I'm saying the reds warned the blues about this when clinton was lifting regulations back then,, and the warnings echoed in 2001-2006. Now, the video displayed wasn't going to resolve anything as to both sides could've done more to regulate, but to blame (this is where you come in) the administration for it's faults in the 8 yrs solely on this is preposterous
Clinton Era foreshadowed this. I won't blame them completely, but I'm saying the reds warned the blues about this when clinton was lifting regulations back then,, and the warnings echoed in 2001-2006. Now, the video displayed wasn't going to resolve anything as to both sides could've done more to regulate, but to blame (this is where you come in) the administration for it's faults in the 8 yrs solely on this is preposterous
Not 100%. This goes back way before Clinton, some would argue as far back as Carter. If the "reds" knew then why did Bush not do anything other than worsen the same deregulation? To blame anyone on anything is preposterous, I agree 100%. I am just tired of people trashing the new administration without giving it a chance. it's frustrating, and it sets up failure, and only panders to bipartisanship.
Can't we all reach common ground? Let's just say this mess is from 16 years of Baby Boomers in control (Clinton and Bush) and call it a day.
A-men
Can't we all reach common ground? Let's just say this mess is from 16 years of Baby Boomers in control (Clinton and Bush) and call it a day.
Agreed.
Can't we all reach common ground? Let's just say this mess is from 16 years of Baby Boomers in control (Clinton and Bush) and call it a day.
Sounds good to me!
Now, when's that updated Mac mini coming out?
Jimzip
Yeah except for that whole mostly-worthless "internet" thing that developed out of ARPANET.
On a side note, the whole "Government is bad so let's minimize it's role in everything except defense and the enforcement of Christian theocratic "morality" through "obscenity" censorship laws, anti-sodomy/oral sex laws, anti-homosexuality and anti-gay marriage laws, banning alcohol sales on Sundays, anti-abortion (even in the case of incest and/or rape) laws, anti-stem cell research laws, pro-creationism and anti-evolution "academic freedom" laws". mythos of the modern conservative movement is getting really tiring. I think most people agree that the Federal government is a necessary force and should be IMPROVED and made more EFFICIENT (not necessarily enlarged), not dismantled. Also, it's funny how republicans are screaming about "big government" and the national debt after 8 years of bush presiding over the largest expansion of federal government and the largest expansion of the national debt in a generation!
Fiscal Conservatism != Social Conservatism
Republicanism (recently) != Conservatism
Please be careful will how you throw around these terms. As a moderate Libertarian, I am oft lambasted for my fiscal conservatism, being lumped in with Republicans and, therefore, Bush. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I am the polar opposite of Bush. Hell, even "True-Blue" Republicans hated Bush for his fiscal Liberalism. So be sure to choose your labels carefully.
Meanwhile, let's also make sure to watch the current administration as critically as we did the previous. If people hated Bush so much, they should probably be taking a closer look at Obama. Let's not forget that Bush had a stimulus package, a Real Estate recovery package and approve TARP. Obama has thus far signed a stimulus package, a Real Estate recovery package and they're now talking about TARP2. To remain consistent, if you disagreed with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, you should also disagree with the Obama's recent spending.
We should also take better effort to watch what is happening, not just listen to what Obama is saying. While he and his ilk are fond of criticizing "the fiscal irresponsibility of the past administration" their solution is to spend twice as much in identical or less-productive ways................ huh? And could someone explain to me the politicians who blame the recent economic climate on the "greedy" banks for their "predatory lending practices" (many of which were regulated upon them, by the way) then turn around and say that the solution is to force the banks to lend more.... uhh..... HELLO!? Forcing the banks to lend IS. WHAT. CAUSED. THE. PROBLEM.
(As you can tell, I don't trust any politician, Democrat or Republican. I think we all have to start doing a better job holding our government responsible for their actions, not just letting it slide because they're slimy politigoons who will just end up doing whatever they want anyway. We control them, not the other way around.)
Of course, some government is obviously necessary, I'm not debating that. Let's just make sure we THINK about logical solutions here. Let's examine cause and effect.
If you want to learn more about Libertarianism, please check out my sig. It cuts the BS out of the Dems and Reps... something I think a lot of people are sick of. It's a good middle ground for the Republicans who reject the social constraints of the Rep. party and the Democrats who are sick of the reckless spending of the Dems.
-Clive
Fiscal Conservatism != Social Conservatism
Republicanism (recently) != Conservatism
Please be careful will how you throw around these terms. As a moderate Libertarian, I am oft lambasted for my fiscal conservatism, being lumped in with Republicans and, therefore, Bush. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I am the polar opposite of Bush. Hell, even "True-Blue" Republicans hated Bush for his fiscal Liberalism. So be sure to choose your labels carefully.
Ok, I know I said I'd stop, but I just want to applaud you on your comment. Very well stated, and I myself am just the same, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Thanks
Fiscal Conservatism != Social Conservatism
Republicanism (recently) != Conservatism
Please be careful will how you throw around these terms. As a moderate Libertarian, I am oft lambasted for my fiscal conservatism, being lumped in with Republicans and, therefore, Bush. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I am the polar opposite of Bush. Hell, even "True-Blue" Republicans hated Bush for his fiscal Liberalism. So be sure to choose your labels carefully.
Meanwhile, let's also make sure to watch the current administration as critically as we did the previous. If people hated Bush so much, they should probably be taking a closer look at Obama. Let's not forget that Bush had a stimulus package, a Real Estate recovery package and approve TARP. Obama has thus far signed a stimulus package, a Real Estate recovery package and they're now talking about TARP2. To remain consistent, if you disagreed with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, you should also disagree with the Obama's recent spending.
The Republicans and Democrats in power have generally tended towards reckless spending over the past several decades. It's usually just a matter of what they want to spend it on. The other side always complains about the spending, but really, they secretly want to take the same money and direct it elsewhere. The complaining is basically a game played on the part of the opposition officials, they don't complain when the tables turn and their pet ideology or project is well-funded.
I don't see alternative parties being a viable option unless the US switches to proportional representation rather than geographical representation. Geographical representation tends to stabilize to a very entrenching equilibrium of two parties and it takes something very big knock one of them out. That something big has only happened once that I am aware, and that was a dissolution due to internal strife, not because of external actions.
Long, long ago - in a galaxy far away - this thread began with comments about Apple's annual meeting. What a bloviated waste of keystrokes and time.
What isn't? We are all just biological space heaters in the grand scheme of things. We are mobile factories that aid in the decomposition of organic matter, with heat byproducts.
Long, long ago - in a galaxy far away - this thread began with comments about Apple's annual meeting. What a bloviated waste of keystrokes and time.
The thread is regarding the political discourse with Apple shareholders, thus the political discourse on AppleInsider. Politics is like a virus, easy to catch but hard to shale
I'm a conservative & I'd appreciate it if you'd quit painting me with such a broad brush. Urlick is a nutcase & has nothing to do with me. The fact that you think he is a classic representation of conservative shows me you know nothing about us, he is a minority in the conservative movement.
All I want is the government to get it's greedy hands out of our money. They want to help the poor, how about coming up with more incentives & assistance for organizations that help the poor instead of building their own institutions & then letting a bunch of bureaucrats shave their share off the top.
So you're suggesting that Sweden is going to elect a mass-murdering despot as leader soon? Should I start stock-piling cheap furniture now?
Did I mention Sweden? Socialism has many steps to its goal. But then why look abroad ...
Cap & Trade will shift so many jobs and companies overseas that we will be fortunate if APPL remains a US based corp ...and it will not be moving to Europe.
As for cheap furniture - if it's wood, then you will have a great stockpile to keep your self warm in the winter after all the coal-fired plants are shut in the next year or so.
Don't worry, be happy.
Please please please pick up a book (besides Ann Coulter's talking points rhetoric "Godless", she and O'Reilly are mere pundits and nothing more) and educate yourself. It is ignorant sheeple such as yourself that embarrass the USA.
Thank you. I just don't have the patience anymore to try to reason with those who don't have even an elementary understanding of politics and history. It's become very apparent through the 2008 campaign that a certain ignorant and uneducated subsection of America equates any capitalist democracy that supports a basic level of human welfare and social services
as representative of "socialism" or "communism". This of course mostly coming from the conservatives on the "Religious Right" -- that bastion of Jesus-inspired compassion, empathy, and self-less altruism.
I guess I'm too young to really understand the psyche of a middle-aged (under-educated) conservative, but I'm sure it has to do with living through the cold war. It's unfortunate that these people seem to see the immeasurably complex subject of political philosophy and governing in black and white. Apparently, the idea that "socialist" ideals of liberty, equal rights, equal opportunity, etc can not only be embraced but actually be compatible within the context of a modern capitalist democracy has been lost on them.
Cap & Trade will shift so many jobs and companies overseas that we will be fortunate if APPL remains a US based corp ...and it will not be moving to Europe.
First of all, carbon reduction programs will be proposed and initiated on a global level, not solely the United States. We have in fact been the sole holdout among developed countries in doing ANYTHING to slow climate change. Cap and trade programs will force the hand of large polluting companies and industries (like coal, oil, certain manufacturing) to move to new technology and generate revenue to reinvest in American renewable energy projects.
Secondly, I love how many people seem to be worried solely about economic growth when we are talking about possible global CATASTROPHE. I want my (eventual) children and grandchldren to live in a better world than I do, not one brimming with global conflict over food, energy, and land shortages with a ravaged environment and wilting ecosystem.
First of all, carbon reduction programs will be proposed and initiated on a global level, not solely the United States. We have in fact been the sole holdout among developed countries in doing ANYTHING to slow climate change. Cap and trade programs will force the hand of large polluting companies and industries (like coal, oil, certain manufacturing) to move to new technology and generate revenue to reinvest in American renewable energy projects.
I agree, but I think the "developed" word is the crux of the problem, these treaties treated developed countries much more stringently than developing ones. Even if the developed world went carbon neutral, that doesn't matter unless China and India, among others, also take similar measures. CO2 production is exacerbated by increasing industrialization, and these populations outnumber developed world several times over.
I agree, but I think the "developed" word is the crux of the problem, these treaties treated developed countries much more stringently than developing ones. Even if the developed world went carbon neutral, that doesn't matter unless China and India, among others, also take similar measures. CO2 production is exacerbated by increasing industrialization, and these populations outnumber developed world several times over.
I completely agree, particularly in regards to large countries like China, India, etc..