2
   

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:26 pm
plainoldme wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
BUT LIBERALISM HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Then why is it that liberals seem to want to increase the number of people on welfare?
Why do they oppose any attempt to limit welfare and force people to take responsibility for themselves?





Who says they do? This exists in your imagination. Why do you believe stereotypes? Are you naive?



How many people do you know -- well educated people -- who can not find work? Who have looked for years and years and years for self-supporting work.

The ability to find work is out there.
There are several thousand good paying jobs in my area.
What you actually mean is not the inability to find a job,but the inability to find the job you think you are worth.

No matter what you think you are worth,you are not going to start as the CEO of a company.
Sometimes you have to start at the bottom and work your way up,or take a job you dont like till another job comes along.

If anybody you describe cannot find work,its because they dont want to work.
There are always jobs,even if that means digging a ditch or being a trashman.


Limiting welfare may or may not answer anything. There are certain disabilities -- blindness in one eye; degenerative muscle diseases -- that can and do keep able-minded people permanently unemployed.

Oh,you mean like Dr Stephen Hawking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

"Despite enduring severe disability and, of late, being rendered quadriplegic by motor neuron disease (specifically, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), he has had a successful career for many years, and has achieved status as an academic celebrity."

You are absolutely right,people with disabilities just cannot work or contribute to society.
Of course,that ignores the works of Helen Keller,Beethoven,and every other person with disabilities that has contributed to society.

I admit,there are disabilities that make it almost impossible to work,and those people deserve help.
But,people that are physically able to work do not need welfare,and should not receive it.



What about companies that limit or refuse to consider shared- and/or flex- time positions, leaving single parents to part-time work?

Why are those companies obligated to change their schedule for you?
That goes back to "personal responsibility" that you claim the liberals support.
You claim to support personal responsibility,but you want a company to change their work schedule for you.



What about all the jobs that pay less than welfare? Or the jobs that do not come with benefits?


Name one job that pays less then welfare.

Why are companies required to offer benefits?
They are in business to make a profit,not offer social services.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:32 pm
plainoldme wrote:
mysteryman wrote:



DO CONSERVATIVES WORK TO MAKE ALL MEN EQUAL?

Yes,by removing any and all racial quota systems,such as affirmative action.
Conservatives want everyone to be judged strictly on their merits and abilities,not their skin color,sex,or any other reason.


Sure,let's return to if-you're-black-stay-back. Having dark skin is a demerit. Always was. Let's take a look at Calvinism. In the 19th C., Blacks were slaves because they weren't worthy not to be slaves.


That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen.
If having dark skin is a detriment,then please explain how Clarence Thomas became the first black SC justice?
How did Colin Powell become a four star general,head of the Joint Chiefs,AND SecState?
How about Booker T Washington?
How about Mae Jemison?
How about Guion S. Bluford Jr. ?
Major Robert Lawrence?


The list is endless,yet none of these people suffered by being "dark skinned",as you put it.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 11:08 pm
The cow doesn't know what she is talking about!!!

As Dinesh D'Sousa has demostrated with pages of documentation in his book-"The End of Racism", there is no "defacto" racism anymore and all the "dejure" racism has been removed from the system.

There may be lingering prejudice against stupidity but then the "cow" was probably born that way and we must be compassionate!!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 04:29 am
blatham wrote:
Would you have or see some other rationale for the AG's activity here other than eating away at whistleblower protections?

On the face of it, I would have thought that environmental law is for protecting the environment, whistleblower protection laws are for protecting whistleblowers, and the two have nothing to do with each other. Thus, I see nothing wrong per se when the executive proclaims that the Clean Water Act does not protect whistleblowers. For analogy, you wouldn't be alarmed if the Bush administration said that the Copyright Act does not apply to your mortage payments. Instead you would ask: What aspects of mortage payment does the Copyright Act regulate that contract law and housing ordinances do not? For the same reason, I fail to be alarmed by your article without further information that I should be. That's why I'm asking: What aspects of whistleblower protection does the Clean Water Act regulate that the Whistleblower Protection Act doesn't?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 05:27 am
thomas

Don't know enough about such acts as regards how common it may be for "peripheral" issues, such as what we are talking about, to be included. And I don't know that an argument against duplication of effort (similar laws in multiple bills) would be necessarily compelling.

On the other hand, it is clear that this administration has sought to reduce or remove legislation written with the intention of protecting the environment (and it's inhabitants) pretty much across the boards. Not too surprising in that so many of the government posts responsible for managing such issues have been handed to appointees who have been previously employed by the industries at issue and who will certainly be employed by them again in many cases.

And it certainly is the case that this administration has sought to silence criticism of its policies, and of those who support its policies, again, pretty much across the boards.

And of course, if the assertion is accurate that some unknown number of existing suits will simply evaporate as a consequence of this legal tactic, then that is not unimportant as regards us understanding possible/likely intent. We don't know what impediments, financial or legal, might apply to whoever has launched those suits if a new legal regimen is put in place.

You don't have to be alarmed. I don't insist upon it. You do have the option of trusting to this AG's benign intentions.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 06:02 am
blatham wrote:
You don't have to be alarmed. I don't insist upon it. You do have the option of trusting to this AG's benign intentions.

I do not trust this AG's benign intentions, have not trusted his predecessor's benign intentions, and have never trusted their boss's benign intentions. If anybody asked me: "Are you, or have you ever been, a supporter of the Bush administration?", I can honestly answer: "Never since January 20, 1993". This has been true even when it was fashionable among some libertarians to support Bush II. You, of course, know all of this full well. Naive faith in Bush is not my problem, and quite frankly I find it rather lame of you to insinuate that it is.

Instead, my problem is that you offered this article as independent evidence of the Bush administration's Orwellian governance. Yet on a second look, the article turns out to contain no condemning evidence for all you and I know. Considering this, your fallback is that Bush can't be trusted and that we should thus give the few hints we do have the most paranoid possible interpretation. That's spurious -- almost as spurious as Dan Rathers reaction to the falsification of his draft dodging claim: 'come on, just because the documents I presented were counterfeit, that doesn't mean Bush didn't dodge the draft. We all know that he did, anyway'.

It's the spuriosity of this particular exhibit, not the conclusion you're trying to support with it, that I have a problem with.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 06:21 am
thomas

Slow down, my good man. I'm fully aware of your lack of support for this administration and its AG. If I've pulled up lame, it's only because I couldn't find a better (funnier) way to tease you re your distaste for governance and legislation beyond "thou shalt not kill".

As regards the piece...there may be a pattern of this AG's office seeking to make legislation merely more efficient through cancelling duplication of effort or some such. If such a pattern exists, I don't know about it. That could be because of a lack of familiarity or a lack of address to such in the media I tend to read.

On the other hand, there are clear patterns of the sort I just mentioned above and they are ubiquitous.

I've made the assumption, it falls under "probable" to me, that the legal maneuvers noted in the piece are likely to be instances of this pattern. I can't insist that this assumption is correct because I just don't know enough to be that certain. But because I think it probable, and because it has a clear component of dissuading the means and acts related to whistleblowing, there is, at the very least, an entirely relevant component of information control here.

And your nose is too big.

Are we fine?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 06:24 am
blatham wrote:
Are we fine?

Sure. And I know full well that I have my share of lameness to answer for as well. Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 06:26 am
LOL. Yup, words alone can sometimes make a pancake look ever so much like a tomato.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 08:59 am
spendius -- Do you believe what you wrote or are you trying to bait me?
What nonsense!
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 09:02 am
MM -- Did not read your red letters. Try to post in a more readily readable manner.

As for naming one job that pays less than welfare, there are many. Substitute teaching. Taking orders at McDonalds.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 10:13 am
mysteryman wrote:




The ability to find work is out there.
There are several thousand good paying jobs in my area.
What you actually mean is not the inability to find a job,but the inability to find the job you think you are worth.

No matter what you think you are worth,you are not going to start as the CEO of a company.
Sometimes you have to start at the bottom and work your way up,or take a job you dont like till another job comes along.

If anybody you describe cannot find work,its because they dont want to work.
There are always jobs,even if that means digging a ditch or being a trashman.




Last week, I met a woman with two master's degrees who finally has a job after 12 years of looking. She worked all that time, but in part-time positions, which is all she was offered. Her new post is teaching senior English at the Ecole Bilingue, a prep school that offers its curriculum in the French language. She's at least 52 but not more than 60.

A woman who is more than 45 years old, particularly if she spent time at home raising her children (something you might think is a conservative value but is actually something more often done by liberal women than by right-wing women), will not be able to find any work.

Dig ditches? Where does anyone physically dig ditches these days, other than in a Trappist monastery?

How arrogant of you to say that these people can not find jobs because the jobs are below what they think they are worth!

People like you -- arrogant and unaware, and, ultimately, unsophisticated -- suggest to people like the woman with two master's degrees are unable to find work because they think working in a big box store is beneath them are so off base, it is disgusting. If a woman who is more than 40 is any sort of retail, it is most likely because it is the only job she can get. She earns between $6 and $9 per hour and is scheduled for less than 35 hours per week. Those hours are irregular and, if business is slow as it is these days, she will be sent home before her scheduled shift is over. She works another job as well. She can not pay for transportation, utilities, rent, etc on retail wages.

People like you might advise women like that to "just get a job as an administrative assistant." Right, the sort of work where age discrimination is most rampant. A friend, who worked for 15 years as a secretary while taking college classes at night through Johns Hopkins finished her junior year when she met her husband and began travelling the country with him, following his career. They ended up in Paris for two years, where she became fluent in French. Now, as the divorced mother of two, she has tried for "AA" work. She speaks French. She attended a prestigious university and the fact that she doesn't have a degree shouldn't matter for AA work. She has 15 years experience. She's told things like, "Older women can't be trusted to answer phones because they lack patience."

Get off your unrealistic high horse about jobs! You are clueless.

Would you dig those imaginary ditches or collect trash?

Last night, after a meeting, a friend whose husband had been partner in an engineering firm told me that the firm collapsed with the bush administration's policies. This man is neither retired nor working. At 63, he is struggling to earn an income. His wife, a landscape architect, has hip problems and can not work in her profession. she took a job at Target and remained there for several years until the scheduled promotions put her at $12/hour. she was let go and replaced with a new worker who was paid the starting salary of $8.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 10:17 am
mysteryman wrote:





No matter what you think you are worth,you are not going to start as the CEO of a company.
Sometimes you have to start at the bottom and work your way up,or take a job you dont like till another job comes along.



See what I wrote above about attaining work as an administrative assistant, something commonly labeled entry level.

BTW, the last thing I would want to be is a CEO. The private sector is a miserable place to work.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 10:20 am
mysteryman wrote:




Oh,you mean like Dr Stephen Hawking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

"Despite enduring severe disability and, of late, being rendered quadriplegic by motor neuron disease (specifically, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), he has had a successful career for many years, and has achieved status as an academic celebrity."

You are absolutely right,people with disabilities just cannot work or contribute to society.
Of course,that ignores the works of Helen Keller,Beethoven,and every other person with disabilities that has contributed to society.

I admit,there are disabilities that make it almost impossible to work,and those people deserve help.
But,people that are physically able to work do not need welfare,and should not receive it.





A wonderful example of a specious argument.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 10:23 am
mysteryman wrote:



What about companies that limit or refuse to consider shared- and/or flex- time positions, leaving single parents to part-time work?

Why are those companies obligated to change their schedule for you?
That goes back to "personal responsibility" that you claim the liberals support.
You claim to support personal responsibility,but you want a company to change their work schedule for you.



Why are companies required to offer benefits?
They are in business to make a profit,not offer social services.[/color]



Why should companies allow their CEOs and CFOs to have company cars and apartments and expense accounts and salaries up to 400 times more than the wages of their lowest level employees? What about personal responsibility there? What about changing a company's schedule for them?

How often have you taken jobs without benefits, hypocrite?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 04:30 pm
POM said...

Quote:
Last week, I met a woman with two master's degrees who finally has a job after 12 years of looking. She worked all that time, but in part-time positions, which is all she was offered. Her new post is teaching senior English at the Ecole Bilingue, a prep school that offers its curriculum in the French language. She's at least 52 but not more than 60.


So,she was working.
Yet,you claimed that she couldnt find a job.
You are contradicting yourself.
If one part time job isnt enough,get a second job.
If you have any self respect,you do whatever you need to do to pay your bills and support yourself.
Its called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (theres that phrase again,the one POM claims the left supports).

Quote:
A woman who is more than 45 years old, particularly if she spent time at home raising her children (something you might think is a conservative value but is actually something more often done by liberal women than by right-wing women), will not be able to find any work.


Wanna bet?
I can think of several women that fit that description,and have found work with no problem.
Maybe you cant,but that doesnt mean that others cant.

Quote:
Dig ditches? Where does anyone physically dig ditches these days, other than in a Trappist monastery?


Construction work,landscaping work,farm work,running underground electrical lines,and many other forms of manual labor.
The fact that you would even ask that question shows how out of touch you are with real life.

Quote:
People like you -- arrogant and unaware, and, ultimately, unsophisticated -- suggest to people like the woman with two master's degrees are unable to find work because they think working in a big box store is beneath them are so off base, it is disgusting. If a woman who is more than 40 is any sort of retail, it is most likely because it is the only job she can get. She earns between $6 and $9 per hour and is scheduled for less than 35 hours per week. Those hours are irregular and, if business is slow as it is these days, she will be sent home before her scheduled shift is over. She works another job as well. She can not pay for transportation, utilities, rent, etc on retail wages.


You are absolutely correct,I am unsophisticated.
If by that you mean looking down my nose at those who actually work for a living,those that sweat and get dirty at work.
Then I am glad to be unsophisticated,especially if you are an example of what being "sophisticated" means.
If someone cant survive on the wages they are getting,they always have options.
They can MOVE to an area with higher wages,move out of a state that has such a high tax rate,or get a different job.

I can turn you on to a job right now that will start you at $35,000 and has no upper limit on your wages,they are based entirely on how hard you want to work.
That profession requires about 15,000 new workers every year.
Are you interested,or is manual labor beneath you?
For many "sophisticated" people,it is.
If you doubt that,how many "sophisticated" people do you know that do their own yardwork,or wash their own cars,or do their own laundry instead of going to a dry cleaners?

Quote:
People like you might advise women like that to "just get a job as an administrative assistant." Right, the sort of work where age discrimination is most rampant. A friend, who worked for 15 years as a secretary while taking college classes at night through Johns Hopkins finished her junior year when she met her husband and began travelling the country with him, following his career. They ended up in Paris for two years, where she became fluent in French. Now, as the divorced mother of two, she has tried for "AA" work. She speaks French. She attended a prestigious university and the fact that she doesn't have a degree shouldn't matter for AA work. She has 15 years experience. She's told things like, "Older women can't be trusted to answer phones because they lack patience."


So,by your own admission,she dropped out of school?
Many places do want their AA's to have a degree.
Why doesnt she finish school?

Quote:
Get off your unrealistic high horse about jobs! You are clueless.

Would you dig those imaginary ditches or collect trash?


I would and I have.
I was taught that if I want something I have to work for it.
Its called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
I know,there's that phrase again.

Quote:
Last night, after a meeting, a friend whose husband had been partner in an engineering firm told me that the firm collapsed with the bush administration's policies. This man is neither retired nor working. At 63, he is struggling to earn an income. His wife, a landscape architect, has hip problems and can not work in her profession. she took a job at Target and remained there for several years until the scheduled promotions put her at $12/hour. she was let go and replaced with a new worker who was paid the starting salary of $8


At that age,why isnt he collecting his SS benefits?
Why didnt he take responsibility for himself and have a pension plan?
Why didnt he save for his retirement?
Again,its called PERSONAL ERESPONSIBILITY.
REmember,you said that liberals support that idea,so why are you defending a man that apparently didnt take responsibility for his own future?

As for her,if she has hip problems,could she do the job she was required to do?
Was she physically able?
If not,they had every right to let her go.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 04:33 pm
plainoldme wrote:
mysteryman wrote:




Oh,you mean like Dr Stephen Hawking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

"Despite enduring severe disability and, of late, being rendered quadriplegic by motor neuron disease (specifically, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), he has had a successful career for many years, and has achieved status as an academic celebrity."

You are absolutely right,people with disabilities just cannot work or contribute to society.
Of course,that ignores the works of Helen Keller,Beethoven,and every other person with disabilities that has contributed to society.

I admit,there are disabilities that make it almost impossible to work,and those people deserve help.
But,people that are physically able to work do not need welfare,and should not receive it.





A wonderful example of a specious argument.


Why?
You are the one that said...

Quote:
There are certain disabilities -- blindness in one eye; degenerative muscle diseases -- that can and do keep able-minded people permanently unemployed


All I did was show you one example of where you are wrong.
If you dont like that,thats not my problem.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 04:37 pm
plainoldme wrote:
mysteryman wrote:



What about companies that limit or refuse to consider shared- and/or flex- time positions, leaving single parents to part-time work?

Why are those companies obligated to change their schedule for you?
That goes back to "personal responsibility" that you claim the liberals support.
You claim to support personal responsibility,but you want a company to change their work schedule for you.



Why are companies required to offer benefits?
They are in business to make a profit,not offer social services.[/color]



Why should companies allow their CEOs and CFOs to have company cars and apartments and expense accounts and salaries up to 400 times more than the wages of their lowest level employees? What about personal responsibility there? What about changing a company's schedule for them?

How often have you taken jobs without benefits, hypocrite?


Companies are allowed to pay their top execs whatever they want.
Its not your decision to make what other people get paid.

Are you truly advocating that there be a limit placed on salaries?

I have taken several jobs without benefits,and in those instances I have done something apparently foreign to you.
I have paid my own medical bills,my own insurance,etc.
I have saved money on my own towards my retirement,without expecting anybody else to do that for me.

Again,I have taken PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for my actions,and not relied on anyone else to do it for me.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 11:46 pm
Mysterman- You destroyed the "cow" Good job!!

I think you must realize that she is probably a superannuated Hippie. She claims she is a teacher. If so, I pity the poor children she is hectoring!!

You recognize, of course, Mysteryman, that her examples are the WORST KIND OF EVIDENCE--Anecdotal Reports. They remind me of another poster who would say things like:

I heard it on the radio

or

My neighbor has three sons in Iraq


This may be interesting to the weak minded but it is not evidence.

What the "cow" does not understand is that, despite all of the BILLIONS of people in the USA who are suffering in poverty and the BILLIONS of children who are starving daily, TRILLIONS of people fight and almost die to try to get into the USA.

She can't rebut that, Mysteryman. All she can do is to state that the poor should have more of the money of the rich-REDISTRIBUTE--

She does not know that it was tried and the Soviet Union IMPLODED!!!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2006 06:20 am
Just how phuking predictable was this?

Quote:
Panel Set to Release Just Part of Report On Run-Up to War
Full Disclosure May Come Post-Election

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 7, 2006; Page A11

A long-awaited Senate analysis comparing the Bush administration's public statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein with the evidence senior officials reviewed in private remains mired in partisan recrimination and will not be released before the November elections, key senators said yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601920.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 05:54:02