Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2014, 02:54:21 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 583
12201  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Is overzealous adherence to "inflation targeting" ruining European economies on: June 01, 2005, 08:45:54 pm
I think 'ruining' is far too strong a word, but yes, they certainly ought to loosen monetary policy a bit. 

Why is ruining far too strong?
12202  General Discussion / History / Re: Presidential Survivor (ROUND 38) on: June 01, 2005, 08:37:57 pm
Lincoln
12203  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Maine: Favorable ratings for Governor, Senator, President on: June 01, 2005, 08:15:41 pm
The results of this poll were terrible for the states. Only tiny states had popular governors. Almost all the big states had very unpopular governors.

Why does that mean they were terrible? Controversy is less likely for small-state Governors, I suppose.

It means most people are unhappy with their governors.
12204  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: African American "culture" on: June 01, 2005, 08:08:36 pm
I gave the definition from Dictionary.com.
*shrug* I use Webster's, or even better, the best authority on the English dictionary: the Oxford English Dictionary.

Quote
Here is how Wikipedia describes it:

African Americans, also known as Afro-Americans or Black Americans, are an ethnic group in the United States of America whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to West and sub-Saharan Africa. Many African Americans also have European and/or Native American ancestors. ... Despite its literal meaning, the term properly does not include whites, Asians or Semites of African origin. (emphasis mine)

I really couldn't give a flying f**ck what someone wrote on Wikipedia.  I can go and change it if I want to.  *shrug*  The fact of tha matter is, according to the English dictionary, I am an African American.

Can you give me a link to your definition?  The one on dictionary.com, which unequivocally refers only to black Americans, is also the American Heritage Dictionary definition.

Perhaps Richius wants to be the white Michael Jackson Wink
12205  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Maine: Favorable ratings for Governor, Senator, President on: June 01, 2005, 07:32:48 pm
The results of this poll were terrible for the states. Only tiny states had popular governors. Almost all the big states had very unpopular governors.
12206  General Politics / International General Discussion / Is overzealous adherence to "inflation targeting" ruining European economies? on: June 01, 2005, 07:15:07 pm
Forget labor market regulations. Something far more basic-- the EU's monetary policy, is being handled out of kilter. Perhaps the real blame with Europe's slow economy lies with the ECB-

(from the Economist online):
IN MANY ways, the OECD's twice-yearly Economic Outlook, published on May 24th, is entirely predictable. The OECD worries loudly about America's current-account deficit—on course, it thinks, for $900 billion next year—and offers the usual list of antidotes: more saving in America, faster demand growth in Europe and Japan. Less predictably, given the normally guarded tone of such official reports, it takes aim at the unwillingness of the European Central Bank (ECB) to cut the euro area's short-term interest rates.

In so doing, the OECD highlights an important transatlantic curiosity. In the euro area, the ECB has kept short-term interest rates constant, despite ever gloomier economic news. Long-term rates, though, are responding to the misery. In America, where the Federal Reserve has been increasing short-term rates amid economic strength and signs of inflation, long-term rates have stubbornly refused to climb (see chart).

Like every other forecaster, the OECD has slashed its growth projection for the euro area, to a mere 1.2% this year. This conceals wide variations: France and Spain look fairly resilient, Germany and (especially) Italy ever sicklier. The zone's mediocre performance, the OECD says, is not just bad luck, “circumstantial arguments”—the Iraq war, oil and commodity price shocks and the stronger euro—being no excuse for a “string of aborted recoveries”. Although structural reforms, a favourite drum of the ECB, are part of the answer, stronger demand growth requires lower interest rates. Much lower, indeed: Jean-Philippe Cotis, the OECD's chief economist, spoke of the need to cut rates by half a percentage point “between now and the end of spring”.

The OECD's call was echoed the same day by the head of Ifo, a respected German research institute, who said that the ECB should put its “foot on it”. The central bank, however, is in no mood to heed such calls. Jean-Claude Trichet, its president, ruled out a rate cut at the ECB's most recent press conference on May 4th. He repeated the message to members of the European Parliament at the start of this week. The central bank's main concern is inflation, which has been hovering above the ECB's target of 2% or less. The bank also fears that lower short-term rates would do little to repair Europe's economic problems, because they would raise inflationary expectations and thus long-term interest rates.

All this seems overblown. As a special study in the OECD report makes clear, core inflation (for example, leaving out the relatively volatile prices of food and energy) in the euro zone is not only low, but on a downward trend. And Europe's long-term rates are at record lows.

Would they rise by much if monetary policy were loosened? Maybe not, if America is any guide. American conditions—a strong economy, gathering inflation and rising short rates—seem to favour higher long-term rates. Yet yields on ten-year Treasury bonds are not much more than 4%. Last June, when the Fed began tightening, they were 4.6%.
12207  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: America's Best President (Round 1: Bracket 2) on: June 01, 2005, 06:06:16 pm
1. Andrew Jackson
4. John Tyler
3. Martin Van Buren
2. John Quincy Adams
5. William Henry Harrison
12208  General Discussion / History / Re: Pearl Harbor doesn't happen on: May 31, 2005, 07:59:04 pm
Under option 1 the axis would win

Stalin may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid.  There was no way he would risk signing a seperate peace with Hitler. and the Germans would not have been able to mount a successful 1943 offensive.  The German 6th Army, while not destroyed, would still be pinned down and unable to effectively maneuver thanks to Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad.  Basically this gives the Allies time to launch a 1945 Balkans invasion that keeps the Soviets from controlling Albania and Bulgaria.  Also the Czech Republic and Austria get to escape the Soviets.  We also have a chance to avoid a DPRK.  That's all to the good.  To the bad, we've probably seen at least five A-bombs used in Germany and US war dead are at least a quarter million  higher than OTL. (Berlin, Nuremburg, Hamburg, Munich, and Vienna make a good list of A-Bomb targets.)

I don't know, my theory was much simpler. Firstly, the USSR was on the verge of collapse at the end of 1941, using troops from the eastern theater to replace those lost in the west, including for the December 7 counterattack near Moscow. Secondly, the "America First" movement was much stronger in the U.S. than during World War I, with most Americans firmly against direct participation in the war. The collapse of the USSR would not have changed that. Caught between the Axis powers, and achieving only minimal aid from the British, the USSR would eventually have lost the war. Not necessarily surrendered, but just defeated.
12209  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: "October Surprise" 1980 on: May 31, 2005, 07:40:51 pm
Yeah but lets be honest, it was only after serving two terms as President that he finally shook off his reputation as a "B rated Movie Star".

The fact that he was once governor of California wouldn't have held much sway in peoples minds, outside of California of course.

 

What the hell? Most people didn't see him as a B rated movie star

What about his appearances in "The Anal Girls of Tobacco Road 2: Vagina Slimes" and "Dude, Where's my Dildo"?
12210  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / President Donald Rumsfeld? on: May 31, 2005, 06:08:47 pm
The aged defense secretary has served under 4 administrations as well as having been elected in his own right. In 2008, with more experience than some potential challengers combined, having transformed the military into a 21st-century fighting force, executed two successful wars, and initiated his own doctrine, could the self-deprecating Rumsfeld be plotting to succeed the throne?
12211  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: MD: Steele Likely to Form Exploratory Committee on: May 31, 2005, 04:26:55 pm
Van Hollen!
12212  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: North Carolina or South Carolina on: May 31, 2005, 04:24:11 pm
South Carolina is particularly bad
12213  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Future of France on: May 31, 2005, 04:21:55 pm
Define Far Left.

To the left of the Socialist party's current leaders.
12214  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Are primary challenges a bad sign for an incumbent president? on: May 31, 2005, 04:09:36 pm
Nxion was challenged in 1972
By whom? How successful was that challenge?

John Ashbrook (R-OH). He campaigned actively in New Hampshire, Florida and California, but received less than 10% of the vote.
12215  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Future of France on: May 31, 2005, 04:05:13 pm
I say, 40% far left, 35% far right, 25% centrist resurgence.
12216  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Are primary challenges a bad sign for an incumbent president? on: May 31, 2005, 04:01:03 pm
Nxion was challenged in 1972
12217  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Will Russia ever join the EU ? on: May 31, 2005, 03:54:23 pm
We don't want to lose the distinction between a European[/b] Union and the beginning of World Federalism.
12218  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Dems Can't Keep Losing Dixie on: May 31, 2005, 03:42:38 pm
That the encroaching "liberal" culture disdains organized religion is not the only explanation for the failure of the national Democratic party to make any inroads in the South.

The lack of support on the left for the the men and women in uniform who serve their country, the failure by every Democratic presidential candidate to articulate when and how they would project military force to defeat our enemies (the failure to articulate that we even have enemies!), the failure to articulate when freedom from tyranny is worth fighting for - all of this lack of allegiance to the founding values of this country - sits very poorly with Southern (and Midwest) culture.

The last great "liberal" issue (as in post-Vietnam "liberal", not to be confused with Truman/JFK liberal), was the civil rights movement. In the last 40 or so years, as the movement claimed victory by becoming mainstream in America, the left has had no positive agenda to promote, only carping, whining, and wistful recollections of the "glory" years, when people could actually be persuaded to vote based on anti-war and anti-power rhetoric.

Very true. The baby boomer generation's liberalism was very different from the generation of liberalism that preceded it. But the break did not start then.

I think it was the late 1940s that the traditional Western left, associated almost exclusively with economic issues, was confronted with two problems, one deep, and one immediate, which broke it apart. The deep issue was the emergence of the welfare state as a viable alternative to communism and socialism. The immediate issue was the need to stand with national governments against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Together these two things split the left, and then caused the withering and dying of the communist/socialist element.

The part of the left that survived (20th century liberalism, or as Mort says Truman/JFK liberalism) for a brief moment in the 1950s and early 1960s was the unchallenged consensus in Western political thought. Leftists recognized it as a way to fulfill their goals without communist strictures, and Rightists recognized it as the necessary compromise to prevent communist spread. However, two forces would combine to break apart this left as well.

The first was that liberalism's emphasis shifted towards social goals once economic victory was achieved. At first this shift was noble and had success, such as the early years of the civil rights movement and campus free speech movements under the "New Left". But in later years, with the arrival of baby boomers en mass, the self-indulgent zeitgeist of the postwar consumerist boom began to permeate this social strand with drugs, nihilism, esoteric spirituality, and even apparent dementia. If you spoke out against this, then you were a conservative, as the neoconservatives became. But if you spoke out defending it you gave yourself into its self-destruction. 20th century social liberals were caught between a rock and a hard place and quickly disappeared as a political force; they have not re-emerged to this day. Camile Pagila was referring to this when she said that liberalism was dead and "we" (baby boomers) killed it.

The second was the collapse of the economic basis of the welfare state in the 1970s. This undermined the foundation of the consensus and finished the transition rightward in political thought that the welfare state itself had helped to bridge.

From this perspective, the totality of leftist intellectual collapse, both economically and socially, by the end of the 1970s was so complete, with hindsight, that the Reagan/Thatcher/Deng/Gorbachev/Kohl revolutions are little surprise.

It is really up to present and future generations to rebuild the left from scratch. In the beginning there is nothing, my friends, but a sense that something is not right in the world, and a passion for doing something about it in an organized fashion.
12219  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you happy with the state of your party? on: May 30, 2005, 10:00:57 pm
Not happy at all.  We need to get back to our populist roots.  We are no longer the party of the working class, and the American people know it.  We've sold them out.

Totally agree.

I am happy with people like Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Brian Schweitzer, Elliot Spitzer, and Dick Durbin, but upset with many other Washington Democrats (like all those who voted for the bankruptcy bill) and those who are scared to stand up to the extremist Republican agenda.

I am also not happy about having Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh as our top two nominees for 2008, since both represent the corporate wing of the Democratic party.

How does Bayh represent the "corporate wing"?
12220  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you happy with the state of your party? on: May 30, 2005, 09:51:03 pm
I personally am not happy with my party. It is too controlled by people unwilling to compromise

There's no need to compromise as the GOP already controls everything. Who would we compromise with, ourselves?

By compromise, I mean compromise with the moderate part of our party. That is, the party increasingly is controlled by people who believe that we are losing because we aren't being "pure enough."

If Dean had won the nomination and given up 300+ electoral votes, that wing would be silenced by now. Unfortunately, having Kerry has the nominee decided nothing.
12221  General Discussion / History / Re: Pearl Harbor doesn't happen on: May 30, 2005, 09:48:49 pm
Under option 1 the axis would win
12222  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you happy with the state of your party? on: May 30, 2005, 09:45:05 pm
I personally am not happy with my party. It is too controlled by people unwilling to compromise

There's no need to compromise as the GOP already controls everything. Who would we compromise with, ourselves?
12223  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: French referendum: analysis and consequences on: May 30, 2005, 09:37:13 pm
Interestingly, those leaders that supported Bush in the leadup to the war in Iraq have all withstood challenges and succeeded, though Italy is hanging by a thread.  The Paris-Berlin Axis, on the other hand, is in danger of collapse. 

This has nothing to do with the EU referendum, per se, just an interesting side note.

Putin, Chirac, and Schroeder are all still very much alive, and the only one in danger of being ousted before the end of the year is Schroeder, and that's only because of his own suicidal choice.

Aznar on the other hand is already out, and Berlusconi, despite trying his damndest to hang on to every last moment of power, is looking at uphill in early 2006.
12224  General Discussion / History / Re: Presidential Survivor (ROUND 36) on: May 30, 2005, 09:30:35 pm
Cleveland
12225  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Deportation? on: May 30, 2005, 07:20:54 pm
A18 and you, StatesRights...  You are both to the right

Really? No kidding?
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 583


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines