It's Fixed!!!Follow

Varus, you've stopped being a troll, and moved on to being a raving lunatic. Booooring!

So you're saying Obama did NOT say that, if that's the best quote you had. Cool beans.

In other news, I think Obama had a facepalm moment when he said:


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/obama-fox-news-is-destructive-to-america/?hpt=T2

Complain less about your critics, listen if they offer anything valid or useful, and do what you're gonna do without striking back, Pres. Be the bigger man. Oh well.

Locked,

Now back on topic;


What happened when the Democrats loosened lending practices for banks?


What's going to happen now that the Democrats are loosening pre-qualifying restrictions in the healthcare industry?


You don't have to be a genius to see where this is going. Govn forces health ins companies to assume risks that lead to mass losses. Insurance companies raise rates to recoup the losses. Govn screams about how the health ins industry is taking advantage of the poor and disadvantaged. Govn completely takes over health insurance industry.

Huh? He wouldn't be "behind enemy lines" if he were spying from a location he was spying for. Folks working at Langley don't think of themselves as being behind enemy lines (unless they're working secretly for a foreign power of course!). The reference pretty clearly makes the company he worked or "the enemy" in his mind. How relevant that is to a broader context is unclear from the excerpt, but let's not completely twist the words around.

Edited, Sep 28th 2010 3:35pm by gbaji

You're kidding, right? Do you have any clue how closely connected those subsidies are to government mandates on the industry? When the government pays farmers to produce more grain than the market can support, this is not done to benefit the farmers, but to benefit the government, which then uses that as a massive bargaining chip in foreign trade. Absent the subsidies, the farmers would produce less, but make more money for any given volume. Farmers would be much better off if they weren't intruded on by the government at all. The rest of us (and much of the rest of the world) would be vastly worse off though.

You could not have picked a worse example.

Where do you think most of the food in the world food bank comes from? Do you think farmers in the US would grow an amount of grain and corn 5 times the US demand if there weren't subsidies encouraging them to do this? It's not done to benefit the farmers.

Unbelievably massive amounts of that subsidised grain that US farmers grow is used to feed cows (who are unable to naturally digest grain btw) in feed lots so that people can eat cheap meat. That subsidised corn is mixed with pig and fish protein and chicken manure to produce cheap protein. The cows produce nutritionally dysfunctional meat, toxic run-off from their waste and encourage massive moncultures throughout the agricultural areas of the US which have decimated the local ecology and turned once thriving communities into ghost towns.

The fertilizers used to reinvigorate the land after the corn is harvested is made using massive amounts of petrochemicals which come from...ummmm....oh yeah, the Middle east mostly. Cheap meat is being produced using cheap oil. Cheap oil is supplied from....well you know where from.

Just pointing out that subsidised corn growing is a disaster for the land, the farmer, the environment generally, and probably has more than a small influence on the state of world peace. So just maybe the 'rest of us' would actually be far better off if the corn farmers wern't subsidised.

I love how you talked about every single thing except cheap food for poor people living/starving in undeveloped and developing nations. Gotta keep your liberal blinders on, I suppose! Don't take your eye off that target...



Then by all means, make the argument that the cost of providing cheap and abundant food to the world is too high, and that we should allow hundreds of millions of people to starve in order to satisfy your own obsessive concerns about the environmental impact of making so much food. Heck. I'm sure you could also argue that the environment would be better off if we did just let them all die, right? So how about you be honest, follow your position to its logical conclusion, and get right on designing that environmentally friendly gas chamber to get rid of all those extra people just polluting the world?

Because that's what your argument really boils down to, doesn't it?


EDIT: And since I forgot to bring this back to the original point. If you agree that it's "bad for the farmer", then surely we shouldn't be blaming the farmers for apparently lobbying the US government to force them into doing this, right? That was the point I started with, right? Or did you not follow what I was saying. It's not the farmers who created this problem, it was the actions of the US government, who saw massive foreign trade benefits in being able to be the worlds food supplier. Absent government intervention, US farmers would grow just enough crops to provide for domestic demand and marketable foreign demand. It is *not* in their interests to grow more. They do so only because the government twists their arms to make them do so.


That's *not* an example of an industry controlling the government in order to maximize their own profits. It is a great example of an industry being manipulated and controlled by big government in order to fulfill its own needs.

Edited, Sep 28th 2010 6:19pm by gbaji

Your understanding of the system that is in place is woeful. As always.

Your corn is not keeping millions of people safe from starvation. It is being used to make people fat and unhealthy on a massive scale in your own country. Purely for profit. Nothing to do with anyones health. Your excess corn is being turned into biofuels, feed for livestock, high-fructose corn syrup and innumerable other 'products' many of which have nothing to do with food.

The price we are ALL paying is negative environmental impact on local and global levels. Negative health effects of epidemic proportions, and destruction of ecosystems that have taken thousands of years to establish and mere decades to destroy.

Don't blah on to me about starving africans. The only reason they are starving in the first place is because their resources are being, and have been pillaged, for ever by the same corporations that then sell them those self same resources back to them in a more processed and expensive state. And if they can't afford them, never mind! The IMF will loan them some money (via their inept and corrupt and tame leaders)so they can afford to buy your GM'd seeds, and grain, and sugar and God knows what. Its amazing that those brown fellas managed to survive for thousands of years without starving to death en masse before the European and US food Industry showed up in the same 4X4 as the IMF consultant to show them how to feed themselves out of plastic bottles and cans of processed shIt that is more chemical concoction that nutritional 'food'.

Christ your so blinkered that I think that your just trolling sometimes. But no one can maintain your level of idocy for this long with out it being genuine...

Someone hacked gbaji's account. He doesn't make posts this short.