Stupid is as Stupid spouts off on the radioFollow

To receive a pat-down, you've already set off an alarm in the other systems or else refuse to be examined via other systems. Either of those seems like a good logical reason to me for checking someone out.

Except that this part doesn't make any sense at all. Small government policy doesn't result in more regulations on industry. It results in less. You can't just swap the words around, they also kinda have to make sense.




Yes. They realize that the Dems are "big government" advocates, and thus they'd better make sure that when the winners and losers are picked by government regulations, that they're in the "winners" group.




Yes. Exactly. It's amazing that you managed to type something while not even remotely comprehending what you were typing.



Yup. The Dems follow a policy of using government regulation and legislation to control industry and to pick winners and losers. Thus, when companies lobby the Dems they are doing so to prevent the Dems from doing bad things to them and to try to get them to do good things for them instead. When companies lobby the GOP, they don't need any strings or deals attached since the GOP is largely going to by nature just leave them alone to their business.



Fail utterly to grasp that the different political ideologies absolutely affects the *why* of lobbying?


EDIT: Let me put this in terms you might just be able to grasp.

Let's say you're a student. Now, there's two cliques of students fighting each other to run the school. One group believes that students should be left alone. The other is a group of bullies who run around taking the lunch money from students they don't like and sharing it with their friends. They use the lunch money they steal to buy the support of other students. Some years, the first group wins. Other years, the second group wins. Well, a smart student might support the first group in the hope that they'll win, knowing that things under their "rule" will be better for them and for everyone. However, if he thinks the second group might come to power, he might just pony up to them so that he'll be one of the people rewarded with free lunches instead of getting his lunch stolen.


That's pretty much the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties with regard to how they approach the market and especially domestic industry. Again, it's not just that companies lobby the Dems (duh), but why they do so. The Dems offer a far less "honest" rationale. They're basically shaking people down. They're the political equivalent of a protection racket. What's amazing to me is how many people refuse to see it.

Edited, Nov 29th 2010 1:23pm by gbaji

The more focus we put on profiling one ethnic or cultural group the more likely terrorists are to attempt attacks with people that don't full under that profile. It's how the terrorist cat and mouse game works. Everyone is suspect and should be held to the same standards whether your narrow, backwards worldview likes it or not.

Edited, Nov 29th 2010 5:28pm by shintasama

The best part about watching you frantically backpedal is when you're frantically denying that you're backpedaling.

Oh, I know you think you're super cute and clever when you think you're turning something around... but saying "Republicans get donations because people love them and Democrats get donations because they're scary thugs who shake you down!" just makes you look like a tool when you say "Excluded middle!"; all proud of yourself that you learned a new term from me.

Edited, Nov 29th 2010 5:51pm by Jophiel

Almost as amusing as watching someone who has to have the obvious explained to him claim that said explanation is really backpedaling. Nothing I'm saying now contradicts what I said earlier Joph. I'm not sure what you are going on about.



I'm not "turning something around". I'm clarifying something which I thought was so obvious that I didn't need to mention it the first time once it became clear that you hadn't grasped it. A corporation buying government influence kinda requires another party operating on the government's part, doesn't it? It's hardly backpedaling to point this out.




Er? I have for years used the more proper fallacy name "False Dilemma", when someone insists that something must either be one or the other and nothing else. I used your own phrase (and made note of it) just in case you somehow got confused that the two are the same thing and might not realize that you're doing exactly what you always ***** and moan about.


You do realize they are the same thing, right?

*this*

They just shift the direction government expansion towards different sectors and say they support limited gov. because they didn't shift it towards others.

hypocrites


also on the note of limited gov: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/326629/gop_pledges_to_cut_programs_that_don%27t_actually_exist/

Are you seriously trying to equate the kind of government growth (in both economic footprint and domestic influence) of the last couple of years under the Dems to anything that has ever happened under the GOP?

Where the hell have you been? It's a relative comparison. Which of the two parties keeps the government "smaller"? It's not even a tough question either.



Because they don't always succeed? Because often government grows in size anyway? Because sometimes, the reality of public demands and pressures requires them to compromise with the Dems and this often results in government growth? That's somewhat irrelevant, isn't it? It's like blaming the guy who fails to prevent the bully from stealing your lunch money, instead of blaming the bully.


Anyone who's been paying any attention over the last couple years should be pining away for the relatively low deficits and small government of George W Bush. Because compared to what we've seen under Obama so far, his growth was tiny. I just don't think some of you really grasp the sheer volume of cost ballooning that has gone on in the last couple years. It's not just that we had an economic downturn that reduced revenues, but that we added massive spending on top of that. Spending not aimed at fixing the existing problems (although it was largely sold to the people as though it was), but rather spending designed to create long term programs that we will never be able to get rid of.


That's how you create big government. You're seeing it right now. What's amazing to me is that most of you have not seen spending increases like this in your entire lives, and yet even when it's going on right in front of you, you still refuse to acknowledge it. What has happened in the last two years is *not* government business as usual. It's government run amok.

Well, I don't know. Lots of complicated things make sense to me, but gbaji sense hasn't made sense to me after all these years.

For the record, you said:



I simply pointed out that 1) the GOP also creates inefficient big government regulations (as others point out, they do a horrible job of sticking to their own party platform), and 2) not all legislation is less efficient than NO legislation (not even close), so blocking efficient legislation is hardly an accomplishment to trumpet. By proxy of "2", the GOP are just as able, guilty, and culpable of creating and blocking regulation and legislation with less regards to efficiency than to "rewarding said funds."

Does that make gbaji sense?

Techno,

Why don't you look at that graph and tell me which party controlled congress during the biggest drop in debt. And consequently which party was in power during the greatest increases.

Jophed,



You're on this thing at night?

So, you're saying that those Republican presidents couldn't veto legislation they disagreed with? Man, they must have been real pussies.

Varrus doesn't have a computer. He can only post from work.