Russ Feingold

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Shapley:

Lots of them speak their minds, most of them would be better served not to...

Yeah, like Bill Frist? Tom Delay? Duke Cunningham?

Also spake Shap:
Corporations are part of her consituency, just as they are a part of every other Senators. Corporations are just people who have organized under the laws of this nation to lawfuly engage in commerce, and as such have the right to petition their government. They are no different than people who organize to protect the environement, protect gun owners' rights, protect property owners' rights, or demand that the governemnt buy their drugs.

Predictably, you show your support of corporatism. Corporations, as entities, have more rights and are subject to less punishment than individual American citizens, not to mention the relatively nonexsistent tax contribution they make. You're gonna need to justify that for me, because I don't understand why that should be. Last time I checked, the U.S Constitution was written for people, not companies.

As for Boxer, I didn't say she was perfect, just my favorite. All I know is these days she appears to act on what she says, and every time I've made a comment or query in her direction I've gotten a personal and direct response, which is 100% more than I can say for any other national politician I've ever contacted. She's pretty good about volunteering information, on top of that.

She doesn't seem to be inordinately beholden to coporations over citizens, so it's at least a better balance than most. If you have proof to the contrary, cough it up, without using the usual right wing propaganda sources.

[BigJon@Work]

Where to start . . .

Once again your shallow understanding of economics rears its ugly head. Corporations are the greatest contributors of taxes through their employment of people and the wage taxes that are taken from the employees. Compare the tax income in the US from the self employed vs. the corporately employed and the balance is strongly in favor of the corporations. Someday I’ll publish my rant on taxation when I have a time to polish it up. The current system is actually pretty fair and sound in its fundamental structure. It is the gerrymandering of the tax code that has skewed it into the twisted beast that it is today.

I do agree with you that corporation have some rights that should be reserved solely for the individual.

Boxer

Whenever a major national issue comes up, you can count on Ms. Boxster to make an emotional, illogical or unscientific statement about it that panders to the base emotions in her followers. I want my senators to be cold-eyed and deliberative. I want them to be above pandering. You seem to be saying that she brings home the bacon. That is not a net positive in my estimation. She has espoused wacky conspiracy theories. That makes her unqualified to govern. She continues to espouse the precautionary principle. That alone makes her unqualified to govern, for down that path is the end of civilization as we know it. Sorry, I don’t have time to do your research for you, but I’m guessing that your rose colored glasses wouldn’t allow you to see things my way anyhow.

[OperaTenor]

Prove it all. Show me numbers.

[Shapley]

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barbara_Boxer.htm

[Shapley]

Here OT, It's an opinion piece, but the numbers are valid:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/darda200603240746.asp


Here's more, from a more 'mainstream' source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?ei=5090&en=a410f8c74d4700a5&ex=1278907200&pagewanted=print

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Wow, who knew *igJon and Shap were the same person!

Shap, the last time I posted an opinion piece, which incidentally was chock full of incontravertible facts, you arbitrarily chose to ignore it, so why should I bother? That's even aside from the fact it's from the National Propaganda Review.

You guys have been waving that one single statistic around like it was complete proof that trickle up works.

Speaking of weak...

<small>[ 04-11-2006, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[piqaboo]

[quote[originally posted by bigjon:
She continues to espouse the precautionary principle.[/quote]

What's that?

[Shapley]

OT,

I posted the links because you posted this:

Predictably, you show your support of corporatism. Corporations, as entities, have more rights and are subject to less punishment than individual American citizens, not to mention the relatively nonexsistent tax contribution they make. You're gonna need to justify that for me, because I don't understand why that should be.

The second link was not an opinion piece, but a news article from the NYT, which I posted to show that the Corporate tax contribution is far from non-existent. To the best of my knowledge, I've not posted this tired statistic before.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by BigJon@Work:

Boxer

Whenever a major national issue comes up, you can count on Ms. Boxster to make an emotional, illogical or unscientific statement about it that panders to the base emotions in her followers. I want my senators to be cold-eyed and deliberative. I want them to be above pandering. You seem to be saying that she brings home the bacon. That is not a net positive in my estimation. She has espoused wacky conspiracy theories. That makes her unqualified to govern. She continues to espouse the precautionary principle. That alone makes her unqualified to govern, for down that path is the end of civilization as we know it. Sorry, I don’t have time to do your research for you, but I’m guessing that your rose colored glasses wouldn’t allow you to see things my way anyhow.

I have seen proof directly from Senator Boxer that runs completely counter to your WAC's(which you persist in making broad, totally subjective generalities with no information to back it up), claiming no time to do my research for me. I'm not the one making the WAC's, you are. If I make a claim, I try to be consistent and at least have something to back it up ready, if not already posted. As for trying to substantiate your WAC's, I'm not going to embark on a snipe hunt for things that don't exsist. If you choose to be comfortably numb with your unsupported biases and disconnect from reality, that's totally up to you.

As for rose-colored glasses, maybe you ought to look in the mirror, I'm not the one who thinks everything's peachy with GWB, Iraq, the economy, and our current [lack of] social structure.

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
If I make a claim, I try to be consistent and at least have something to back it up ready, if not already posted.

Pardon me while I laugh.

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
As for rose-colored glasses, maybe you ought to look in the mirror, I'm not the one who thinks everything's peachy with GWB, Iraq, the economy, and our current [lack of] social structure.

You're saying I am? :confused:

[GreatCarouser]

Originally posted by BigJon@Work:


... That alone makes her unqualified to govern, for down that path is the end of civilization as we know it...

Do you equate this with the end of the world? Religious fundamentalists of all stripes seem to feel the end of civilization 'as we know it' to be a goal worth attaining, in some cases going to radical lengths to insure it. You would seem to prefer the 'status quo' and I wonder what lengths you would go to maintain it.

A small point on something else you posted. Politics is pandering by its very nature. Even 'absolute' rulers find they must pander...often in order to maintain the 'status quo'. Unfortunately for those who prefer whatever the status quo may be, the only thing certain about this life other than death is change, and change abhors and redefines 'staus quo'.
Wacky conspiracy theories, you mean like WMDS in Iraq? Communists/Terrorists under every bed?
Convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein was our greatest threat and we had to use 'deadly force' to eliminate him?

<small>[ 04-12-2006, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Great Carouser ]</small>

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Yikes. Gettin' testy in here!

Here, guys. Midol for everyone.

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by Great Carouser:
Do you equate this with the end of the world? Religious fundamentalists of all stripes seem to feel the end of civilization 'as we know it' to be a goal worth attaining, in some cases going to radical lengths to insure it. You would seem to prefer the 'status quo' and I wonder what lengths you would go to maintain it.

No, not the end of the world, just the end of the very successful civilization we have built. Where science and logic are viewed with suspicion, fear and outright hatred. I may be religious, but I don't believe we are anywhere close to an end of the world and I strongly don't believe that we can do anything to hasten that time.

Originally posted by Great Carouser:
A small point on something else you posted. Politics is pandering by its very nature. Even 'absolute' rulers find they must pander...often in order to maintain the 'status quo'. Unfortunately for those who prefer whatever the status quo may be, the only thing certain about this life other than death is change, and change abhors and redefines 'status quo'.

Point taken. But on the continuum of pandering, I find her egregious.

<small>[ 04-12-2006, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: BigJon@Work ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by BigJon@Work:

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
[b] If I make a claim, I try to be consistent and at least have something to back it up ready, if not already posted.

Pardon me while I laugh. [/b]

Show me where I haven't, and show me how consistently that's happened.

Also:

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
[b] As for rose-colored glasses, maybe you ought to look in the mirror, I'm not the one who thinks everything's peachy with GWB, Iraq, the economy, and our current [lack of] social structure.

You're saying I am? :confused: [/b]

Yes. GWB has lied on so many fronts, and is doing so much to dismantle the foundation of liberty, freedom and democracy for the people this country was founded on and evolved to become, that if you subscribe even in part to his agenda, and you do, you buy into the whole parcel. Every aspect of this adminstration is tied together by lies, secrecy and lust for totalitarian power. It's an absolute.

<small>[ 04-12-2006, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by BigJon@Work:
But on the continuum of pandering, I find her egregious.

Yet another broad, subjective generalization, with no comparison or backup.

[Shapley]

OT,

re:Yes. GWB has lied on so many fronts, and is doing so much to dismantle the foundation of liberty, freedom and democracy for the people this country was founded on and evolved to become, that if you subscribe even in part to his agenda, and you do, you buy into the whole parcel. Every aspect of this adminstration is tied together by lies, secrecy and lust for totalitarian power. It's an absolute.

So, you're saying we're either with you or against you????

[shostakovich]

Just mentioning that I corrected the spelling of Feingold at the head of the topic. I couldn't stand looking at my incorrect spelling any longer.

Also, a comment on "democracy". The US is NOT one. In a democracy all people have a chance to express themselves (as I define it). We have a near democracy one day in four years, and that's only on one topic: President + vice president. We don't have any national referenda, although it would be possible. And even that one day in over 1400 the democratic process can be canceled by the electoral college. As far as I'm concerned, democracy doesn't work anyway for large numbers (say over 10,000).

Our form of government is a republic, so people think. That is only theoretical. In a republic the voters elect "representatives" to represent THEM. Thanks to natural abuse of power by the powerful, encouraged by lobbyists (some corrupt, others merely unethical), the voters are largely ignored except when a campaign is heating up.

Them's my thoughts.
Shos

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Shapley:

So, you're saying we're either with you or against you????

;)

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
that if you subscribe even in part to his agenda, and you do, you buy into the whole parcel.

May I now judge your writings by the same standard?

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by BigJon@Work:
May I now judge your writings by the same standard?

Now you're motivated to do some research?!!