He whose full name must not be spoken

"To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook," H.R. Haldeman told Nixon on June 14.

"But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing: you can't trust the government; you can't believe what they say; and you can't rely on their judgment. And the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong."

If you can't trust government then why do you want to give more and more control to the government?

Zig,

What gets more press, the President's 32% approval rating or Congress' 20%?

SheikBen wrote:Zig,

What gets more press, the President's 32% approval rating or Congress' 20%?

The President's of course. It is up; it is down- sort of like a yo-yo. But it's not an absolute comparison. If you'd do a poll on the approval rating of specific members of Congress, I think that you would find the numbers higher than on Congress as an institution.

Like I said, Congress as an institution is always "down"- as Presidential apologists always remind us when the President's approval rating is at its lowest. And so it isn't news that it's down. But when it is talked about, it is the same story- that "Congress" is held in low esteem.

Aaron wrote:If you can't trust government then why do you want to give more and more control to the government?

Hell man, I am an anarchist. Haven't you figured that out yet?

But if the government is in the business of creating institutions, "artificial persons" called corporations, and giving those corporations and the people running them exemption from the responsibilities to society and to the law to which real people must adhere, then government has a duty to regulate those corporations to the benefit of all of society.

Ziggy,

How does anarchists go about redistribution of wealth and environmental protection? It appears to me you favor many social programs and strict environmental protections. I'm curious how anarchy achieves these goals. Have I been wrong about you all this time?

Zig,

But an individual district is always going to have a particularly high opinion of it's own member of Congress. A district is going to be much less socio-economically diverse than a state or the entire country. As such, it is fair to judge the institution as opposed to the individuals.

Consider the promises of Bush verses the promises of the Democrats. Bush promised tax cuts and conservative judges. Do what you will with that, but he delivered. Fiscally he has been a disaster, certainly, and I'm not wild about big brother either, but pound for pound, he's done what he said he would do.

The Democrats were going to change course--remember that? Still in Iraq, are we? And how has the economy "turned around" since 2006?

How's that trade deficit going for us? Real wages up?

SheikBen wrote:Zig,

But an individual district is always going to have a particularly high opinion of it's own member of Congress. A district is going to be much less socio-economically diverse than a state or the entire country. As such, it is fair to judge the institution as opposed to the individuals.

Consider the promises of Bush verses the promises of the Democrats. Bush promised tax cuts and conservative judges. Do what you will with that, but he delivered. Fiscally he has been a disaster, certainly, and I'm not wild about big brother either, but pound for pound, he's done what he said he would do.

The Democrats were going to change course--remember that? Still in Iraq, are we? And how has the economy "turned around" since 2006?

How's that trade deficit going for us? Real wages up?

No, there was no Bush "tax cut". There was only a tax shift- from this generation to the next, and the next. It's is not a tax cut unless there is a commensurate spending cut.

I agree with you about the Democrats.

And I agree with whoever said something like: "The business of Conservatives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Progressives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

Democrats seem to think, mistakenly I believe, that having the Iraq war as an issue in 2008 is good for them. Such political hypocrits they are.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:If you can't trust government then why do you want to give more and more control to the government?

Hell man, I am an anarchist. Haven't you figured that out yet?

If you're an anarchrist then I'm the King of England.

Stephanie wrote:Calling Bush a moron monkey boy isn't racist. Calling him a cracker would be racist. If a person calls all neocons moron monkey boys or girls, then that's bigotted.

Nope, its not bigoted, it demostrates two things. First, ignorance and secondly, a lack of ideas to discuss.

As far as racism and begin called a racist goes, that is a bunch of hype over a word. I have been called a racists for even suggesting that people are responsible for their actions. I have been labeled a racist for stating that the blamman's worst enemy is the presetn black leadership. The word racists doesn't scare, I waer it with pride. When folks are refering to me as a racist, i know that I have hit them where they have absolutely no arguement. All they have is a label to hurle at me.

ziggy wrote:
No, there was no Bush "tax cut". There was only a tax shift- from this generation to the next, and the next. It's is not a tax cut unless there is a commensurate spending cut.

YEAH, YEAH, we know, ........ and it is not a "wage increase" ..... unless there is a commensurate "cost of goods and services" cut, ....... right?

Where did you learn all that brilliant "business accounting", ......... via years n' years of "night classes" conducted at your garage?

.

I'd still like to see an answer to Stephanie's question. Seems she has Zig pegged the same way I do.

If Stephanie and you would read the entire post re: my anarchism, her question would answer itself.

But if the government is in the business of creating institutions, "artificial persons" called corporations, and giving those corporations and the people running them exemption from the responsibilities to society and to the law to which real people must adhere, then government has a duty to regulate those corporations to the benefit of all of society.

Is this the post you mean, Ziggy?

Is that anarchy? Is my dictionary not working? Has the prefix "a" lost it's meaning?

Aaron wrote:I'd still like to see an answer to Stephanie's question. Seems she has Zig pegged the same way I do.

I'm not trying to "peg" Ziggy. I'm just trying to understand him.

So as long as there are corporations (capitalism) that due business then the government must regulate them. But if there are no corporations then we don't need the government to regulate them, right Zig!!!

So what do you want to do, go back to the days of the wild, wild west!!!

Aaron wrote:So as long as there are corporations (capitalism) that due business then the government must regulate them. But if there are no corporations then we don't need the government to regulate them, right Zig!!!!

Corporations are not natural beings. Corporations with their exemption from personal responsibilities are a creation of government. And in America today corporations are more and more becoming the government. That creates what is effectively becoming a corporate fascist government- with real people their victims.

But if we're going to have fascism, I'd prefer that the masses of real people be the fascists / anarchists, and that the corporations be their victims.

So what do you want to do, go back to the days of the wild, wild west!!

You mean to the days when the companies (i.e.- railroad companies) virtually owned the U.S. Congress and state and local government? To the days when the "company police" had more authority than local police?

Were there, guy. Just look around. It's corporate anarchy out there.

LOL...yeah, right.




But if that were the case, I'd rather be under corporate anarchy whose focus is to make money then to be under the government socialism whose single goal is to take money.

I know truck drivers that have worked for haliburton that have made $120,000 to $150,000 dollars per year. I know guys that worked for Brown and Root as general labors/maintenance people for $15 to $35 per hour.

You keep your socialism, I'll stick to corporate anarchy if thats what you want to call it.

So your an anarchist, too.

Why am I not surprised?

ziggy wrote:So your an anarchist, too.

Why am I not surprised?

Nope. Not at all. I'm a constitutionalist and I'm all for law and order.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:So your an anarchist, too.

Why am I not surprised?

Nope. Not at all. I'm a constitutionalist and I'm all for law and order.

Yeah sure, especially if it's the corporations that get to both make and enforce the laws.

That's not "law and order". That's just one more kind of fascism. And when you read up on fascism and anarchism you'll see that they are virtually the same things.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:So your an anarchist, too.

Why am I not surprised?

Nope. Not at all. I'm a constitutionalist and I'm all for law and order.

Yeah sure, especially if it's the corporations that get to both make and enforce the laws.

That's not "law and order". That's just one more kind of fascism. And when you read up on fascism and anarchism you'll see that they are virtually the same things.

You see Zig, that's a damn lie and you know it. You can't find one instance in where I support corporations making or breaking laws and you know it but you've made that statement over and over again. I guess when your arguments are as bankrupt as yours is and all you have is a pack of lies, it's easy to go there.