Benghazi!!!

[CAA Flagship]

I asked for details, not soundbites or platitudes.

I'm the visionary big picture guy here. I delegate the details to people like you.

It's the architect-engineer discussion all over again.

[GannonFan]

I asked for details, not soundbites or platitudes.

I'm the visionary big picture guy here. I delegate the details to people like you.

It's the architect-engineer discussion all over again.

Spoken like a true Progressive - full of ideas and absolutely no way of knowing how to turn it into reality.

It's a tragedy (well, tiny tragedy, not a huge one) of history that today's Progressives have chosen to use the same moniker that TR, Wilson, and many others used as true Progressives. The biggest difference being that those folks were loaded with ideas that actually went into practice and we still benefit from today, where today's Progressives like to rail against things they don't like, demand that they be changed, and not have the faintest idea of how to do it or even if it should be done. That's where the far left and the far right have common ground - a lot of anger and not a lot of solutions for how to assuage their anger.

[kalm]

I'm the visionary big picture guy here. I delegate the details to people like you.

It's the architect-engineer discussion all over again.

Spoken like a true Progressive - full of ideas and absolutely no way of knowing how to turn it into reality.

It's a tragedy (well, tiny tragedy, not a huge one) of history that today's Progressives have chosen to use the same moniker that TR, Wilson, and many others used as true Progressives. The biggest difference being that those folks were loaded with ideas that actually went into practice and we still benefit from today, where today's Progressives like to rail against things they don't like, demand that they be changed, and not have the faintest idea of how to do it or even if it should be done. That's where the far left and the far right have common ground - a lot of anger and not a lot of solutions for how to assuage their anger.

Oh...you want to get down with it I see...

Progressive ideas and ability to act have been marginalized by the establishment. Of course you wouldn't understand this as you don't think money influences politics and you think we've economically swung to the left.



Here's a detail. Write stronger environmental and labor laws into trade agreements.

[GannonFan]

Spoken like a true Progressive - full of ideas and absolutely no way of knowing how to turn it into reality.

It's a tragedy (well, tiny tragedy, not a huge one) of history that today's Progressives have chosen to use the same moniker that TR, Wilson, and many others used as true Progressives. The biggest difference being that those folks were loaded with ideas that actually went into practice and we still benefit from today, where today's Progressives like to rail against things they don't like, demand that they be changed, and not have the faintest idea of how to do it or even if it should be done. That's where the far left and the far right have common ground - a lot of anger and not a lot of solutions for how to assuage their anger.

Oh...you want to get down with it I see...

Progressive ideas and ability to act have been marginalized by the establishment. Of course you wouldn't understand this as you don't think money influences politics and you think we've economically swung to the left.



Here's a detail. Write stronger environmental and labor laws into trade agreements.

Huh, where did I say that we've economically swung to the left? I don't see how anyone could really make that argument, so I doubt that I ever said it, but I'm sure when you point me to the post where I did I'll shake my head at my prior self.

As for your detail, what does that mean "stronger"? How "strong" do you make it? If the parties you are negotiating this trade deal with rebuff you what do you do? Are there any examples of trade agreements that you think have "strong" enough environmental and labor laws built in? Are there any that are close? Of course you're not going to be able to include environmental and labor laws into the agreement that completely match or exceed the laws we have here, at least not with a good swath of countries around the world. How much are you willing to bend? At all?

[GannonFan]

Spoken like a true Progressive - full of ideas and absolutely no way of knowing how to turn it into reality.

It's a tragedy (well, tiny tragedy, not a huge one) of history that today's Progressives have chosen to use the same moniker that TR, Wilson, and many others used as true Progressives. The biggest difference being that those folks were loaded with ideas that actually went into practice and we still benefit from today, where today's Progressives like to rail against things they don't like, demand that they be changed, and not have the faintest idea of how to do it or even if it should be done. That's where the far left and the far right have common ground - a lot of anger and not a lot of solutions for how to assuage their anger.

Oh...you want to get down with it I see...

Progressive ideas and ability to act have been marginalized by the establishment. Of course you wouldn't understand this as you don't think money influences politics and you think we've economically swung to the left.



Here's a detail. Write stronger environmental and labor laws into trade agreements.

Oh, and I forgot to add, so now you can't act on these wonderful Progressive ideas because the "establishment" is blocking you?? How droll. Tell me, how were we able to institute quite a many real Progressive ideas about 100 years ago when arguably the "establishment" was even more set in place and at the controls of so much of our political and economic systems? The deck was stacked against the Progressives then but somehow, the strenth of their arguments and ideas won the day.

So the question is, what Progressive ideas are on the cusp of reality, if not for the obstruction of the "establishment"?

[houndawg]

Under Obama and the Democrats, the middle class has lost purchasing power while the 1% has gained more wealth. Perhaps we should pay more attention to the party's records than their rhetoric.

This is why Hillary has a bigger problem with Bernie than everybody thinks. Her new found populism isn't fooling very many.

[kalm]

Oh...you want to get down with it I see...

Progressive ideas and ability to act have been marginalized by the establishment. Of course you wouldn't understand this as you don't think money influences politics and you think we've economically swung to the left.



Here's a detail. Write stronger environmental and labor laws into trade agreements.

Oh, and I forgot to add, so now you can't act on these wonderful Progressive ideas because the "establishment" is blocking you?? How droll. Tell me, how were we able to institute quite a many real Progressive ideas about 100 years ago when arguably the "establishment" was even more set in place and at the controls of so much of our political and economic systems? The deck was stacked against the Progressives then but somehow, the strenth of their arguments and ideas won the day.

So the question is, what Progressive ideas are on the cusp of reality, if not for the obstruction of the "establishment"?

1). Roosevelts don't grow on trees.

2). We had no safety nets - you know the things that economic conks such as yourself gnash your teeth about but which actually prevent the hoi poloi from taking up pitchforks because they no longer have a 16 hour workday and can retire with dignity.

3). There just might be a chance, if ever so slightly, that the establishment has learned a few things in those hundred years and is more subtle if not a little better at manipulating the system.

[JohnStOnge]

Roosevelts don't grow on trees.

Thank heavens. FDR was possibly the worst thing to happen to this country in terms of its long term sustainability.

[houndawg]

Roosevelts don't grow on trees.

Thank heavens. FDR was possibly the worst thing to happen to this country in terms of its long term sustainability.

[Skjellyfetti]

Spoken like a true Progressive - full of ideas and absolutely no way of knowing how to turn it into reality.

Meh. Doesn't this sound like the early post where you listed off some ideas... but, didn't discuss anything about implementation?

Start with immigration.

Please give us a detailed plan to both eliminate and prevent illegal immigration.

[kalm]

Oh...you want to get down with it I see...

Progressive ideas and ability to act have been marginalized by the establishment. Of course you wouldn't understand this as you don't think money influences politics and you think we've economically swung to the left.



Here's a detail. Write stronger environmental and labor laws into trade agreements.

Huh, where did I say that we've economically swung to the left? I don't see how anyone could really make that argument, so I doubt that I ever said it, but I'm sure when you point me to the post where I did I'll shake my head at my prior self.

As for your detail, what does that mean "stronger"? How "strong" do you make it? If the parties you are negotiating this trade deal with rebuff you what do you do? Are there any examples of trade agreements that you think have "strong" enough environmental and labor laws built in? Are there any that are close? Of course you're not going to be able to include environmental and labor laws into the agreement that completely match or exceed the laws we have here, at least not with a good swath of countries around the world. How much are you willing to bend? At all?

Oops. Missed this one.

1) Don't sign agreements that force regulatory disputes to go to investor state arbitration instead of sovereign courts.

2) Give labor and environmental groups a seat at the table.

Just because we've chosen to externalize labor costs and pollution in the past doesn't make it right. Long term, even the asians are going to have to start paying their workers better, improve worker safety, stop shitting in their own environmental bed, etc. It's simply a matter of how long it takes to get there. We, yielding massive influence through our markets and natural resources could CHOOSE to speed up the progress if we wanted to. Unfortunately there's too many short term dollars to be made and too much multinational capture of our political system to make it happen.

Again...big picture, long game versus your love affair with the status quo. That's what makes you a conk.

[houndawg]

Spoken like a true Progressive - full of ideas and absolutely no way of knowing how to turn it into reality.

Meh. Doesn't this sound like the early post where you listed off some ideas... but, didn't discuss anything about implementation?

Start with immigration.

Please give us a detailed plan to both eliminate and prevent illegal immigration.

Throw their employers in jail. Works overnight.

[Ivytalk]

Spoken like a true Progressive - full of ideas and absolutely no way of knowing how to turn it into reality.

Meh. Doesn't this sound like the early post where you listed off some ideas... but, didn't discuss anything about implementation?

Start with immigration.

Please give us a detailed plan to both eliminate and prevent illegal immigration.

Electrified border fences and machine gun nests every hundred yards should do the trick.

[GannonFan]

Huh, where did I say that we've economically swung to the left? I don't see how anyone could really make that argument, so I doubt that I ever said it, but I'm sure when you point me to the post where I did I'll shake my head at my prior self.

As for your detail, what does that mean "stronger"? How "strong" do you make it? If the parties you are negotiating this trade deal with rebuff you what do you do? Are there any examples of trade agreements that you think have "strong" enough environmental and labor laws built in? Are there any that are close? Of course you're not going to be able to include environmental and labor laws into the agreement that completely match or exceed the laws we have here, at least not with a good swath of countries around the world. How much are you willing to bend? At all?

Oops. Missed this one.

1) Don't sign agreements that force regulatory disputes to go to investor state arbitration instead of sovereign courts.

2) Give labor and environmental groups a seat at the table.

Just because we've chosen to externalize labor costs and pollution in the past doesn't make it right. Long term, even the asians are going to have to start paying their workers better, improve worker safety, stop shitting in their own environmental bed, etc. It's simply a matter of how long it takes to get there. We, yielding massive influence through our markets and natural resources could CHOOSE to speed up the progress if we wanted to. Unfortunately there's too many short term dollars to be made and too much multinational capture of our political system to make it happen.

Again...big picture, long game versus your love affair with the status quo. That's what makes you a conk.

Please, your idea of the big picture is to go back to the way things were in the '50s. You're more regressive than what you complain about.

As for "speeding up the process", I don't think you actually understand much of the rest of the world. When you are mired in knee deep poverty, your first concern is finding enough food to feed you and your own and to live through the day. Those are immediate concerns that are real for too many people in this world. You don't talk about speeding up the process for that, you are more concerned about dropping your economic hammer on them to make sure that you, in this case the US, stays economically dominant. Talk of conk, geez man, you couldn't be more conk-like in that approach to the rest of the world. You've been an isolationist before, and it seems your isolationist streak is still strong.

If you want these other countries to give a crap about the environment, then you need to have them go through the same progressions we did. People start to care about the environment and sustainability and all the other good things once they don't have to care about the basic things, like food and shelter. Once they're comfortable with those things, then they have the time and the ability to care about polluting their grounds and rivers and air. When we expect people who are where we were 50-100 years ago to simply adopt our concerns and lifestyles then we set the system up for failure, and we perversely keep those people in the state where they will keep on polluting, which is exactly what we don't want. But that's what happens when people pat themselves on the back for being "big picture" thinkers while actually being nothing of the sort. Enjoy your self-congratulatory view of the world, I'm sure you won't be worried that it differs so much with reality.

[houndawg]

Meh. Doesn't this sound like the early post where you listed off some ideas... but, didn't discuss anything about implementation?

Start with immigration.

Please give us a detailed plan to both eliminate and prevent illegal immigration.

Electrified border fences and machine gun nests every hundred yards should do the trick.

Typical big spending conk.

[AZGrizFan]

Electrified border fences and machine gun nests every hundred yards should do the trick.

Typical big spending conk.

Nah. Machine gun nests imply the need to be manned. Let's just build two fences and place land mines between them.

[kalm]

Oops. Missed this one.

1) Don't sign agreements that force regulatory disputes to go to investor state arbitration instead of sovereign courts.

2) Give labor and environmental groups a seat at the table.

Just because we've chosen to externalize labor costs and pollution in the past doesn't make it right. Long term, even the asians are going to have to start paying their workers better, improve worker safety, stop shitting in their own environmental bed, etc. It's simply a matter of how long it takes to get there. We, yielding massive influence through our markets and natural resources could CHOOSE to speed up the progress if we wanted to. Unfortunately there's too many short term dollars to be made and too much multinational capture of our political system to make it happen.

Again...big picture, long game versus your love affair with the status quo. That's what makes you a conk.

Please, your idea of the big picture is to go back to the way things were in the '50s. You're more regressive than what you complain about.

As for "speeding up the process", I don't think you actually understand much of the rest of the world. When you are mired in knee deep poverty, your first concern is finding enough food to feed you and your own and to live through the day. Those are immediate concerns that are real for too many people in this world. You don't talk about speeding up the process for that, you are more concerned about dropping your economic hammer on them to make sure that you, in this case the US, stays economically dominant. Talk of conk, geez man, you couldn't be more conk-like in that approach to the rest of the world. You've been an isolationist before, and it seems your isolationist streak is still strong.

If you want these other countries to give a crap about the environment, then you need to have them go through the same progressions we did. People start to care about the environment and sustainability and all the other good things once they don't have to care about the basic things, like food and shelter. Once they're comfortable with those things, then they have the time and the ability to care about polluting their grounds and rivers and air. When we expect people who are where we were 50-100 years ago to simply adopt our concerns and lifestyles then we set the system up for failure, and we perversely keep those people in the state where they will keep on polluting, which is exactly what we don't want. But that's what happens when people pat themselves on the back for being "big picture" thinkers while actually being nothing of the sort. Enjoy your self-congratulatory view of the world, I'm sure you won't be worried that it differs so much with reality.

Trickle down theory writ large.

[houndawg]

Typical big spending conk.

Nah. Machine gun nests imply the need to be manned. Let's just build two fences and place land mines between them.

Shoot one employer and you won't have to spend money on fences because we won't be hiring. You do get that the reason they're here is because we're hiring, yes?

[GannonFan]

Please, your idea of the big picture is to go back to the way things were in the '50s. You're more regressive than what you complain about.

As for "speeding up the process", I don't think you actually understand much of the rest of the world. When you are mired in knee deep poverty, your first concern is finding enough food to feed you and your own and to live through the day. Those are immediate concerns that are real for too many people in this world. You don't talk about speeding up the process for that, you are more concerned about dropping your economic hammer on them to make sure that you, in this case the US, stays economically dominant. Talk of conk, geez man, you couldn't be more conk-like in that approach to the rest of the world. You've been an isolationist before, and it seems your isolationist streak is still strong.

If you want these other countries to give a crap about the environment, then you need to have them go through the same progressions we did. People start to care about the environment and sustainability and all the other good things once they don't have to care about the basic things, like food and shelter. Once they're comfortable with those things, then they have the time and the ability to care about polluting their grounds and rivers and air. When we expect people who are where we were 50-100 years ago to simply adopt our concerns and lifestyles then we set the system up for failure, and we perversely keep those people in the state where they will keep on polluting, which is exactly what we don't want. But that's what happens when people pat themselves on the back for being "big picture" thinkers while actually being nothing of the sort. Enjoy your self-congratulatory view of the world, I'm sure you won't be worried that it differs so much with reality.

Trickle down theory writ large.

Nonsense, it's called reality, no matter what soundbite you try to use to trivialize it. China's a good example. Do you think they cared 30-40 years ago about pollution? No, they cared about how to stop 1 billion people from starving. Fast forward 40 years, and they are still way behind us in terms of environmental record and concern, but spots in China now are infinitely better than they were then and the people living in the areas that are still crappy are clammoring loudly to fix the environmental damage around them. Imagine that, progress on the ground rather than living in the make believe world you've created in your own head.

[GannonFan]

Nah. Machine gun nests imply the need to be manned. Let's just build two fences and place land mines between them.

Shoot one employer and you won't have to spend money on fences because we won't be hiring. You do get that the reason they're here is because we're hiring, yes?

Houndawg and I are seldom in agreement on many things, but on this one he's absolutely right. Illegals wouldn't be coming here in the large numbers that they have if they weren't finding good (for them) paying jobs here. We do need to be very strict and very diligent when it comes to regulating companies and businesses and individuals that are provding the paying jobs for these illegals. We don't need a fence, we need to be clear that if you employ illegals, you will be caught, you will be fined tremendously, and if it's a repeat offense or so significant in terms of scope or brazeness, your executive is going to do time. That won't stop the illegal immigration completely, but it wil take a good chunk of it out.

And while we're doing that we should widen the gates for the number of legal immigrants we allow in each year, and make familial relations less of a driver for this. I want to bring in the entrepeneurs and the educated as much as possible, and less the uncles and cousins of a person who's already here. Yeah, that's a little harsh, but if we get to pick and choose who to bring in I want more of the top draft picks, the blue chippers, not a bunch of undrafted free agents.

[HI54UNI]

Typical big spending conk.

Nah. Machine gun nests imply the need to be manned. Let's just build two fences and place land mines between them.

Bring the troops home from Europe to man them. No new personnel needed, the dollars being spent for housing, support, beer, hookers, etc. would be spent in the US instead of in Europe to help boost our own economy.

Added bonus - all those European socialist paradises can start paying for their own defense. Or learn to speak Russian.

[kalm]

Trickle down theory writ large.

Nonsense, it's called reality, no matter what soundbite you try to use to trivialize it. China's a good example. Do you think they cared 30-40 years ago about pollution? No, they cared about how to stop 1 billion people from starving. Fast forward 40 years, and they are still way behind us in terms of environmental record and concern, but spots in China now are infinitely better than they were then and the people living in the areas that are still crappy are clammoring loudly to fix the environmental damage around them. Imagine that, progress on the ground rather than living in the make believe world you've created in your own head.

Bullshit.

You may not like it Ganny and I don't expect you to admit because you never do, but you know it's a spot on description.

Externalizing wages and pollution is morally wrong if you subscribe to your own "it's a big world" theory. We keep people down and soil their landscape for the sake of cheap trinkets and corporate profits. We do it because we're selfish and greedy. That's a part of human nature. But we also do it because we have consented to a system that prioritizes those values. That's a choice we've made. That's also reality.

China now has a middle class voice, that's true. They're still polluting at what might be unsustainable levels. That also is true.

I think we can do better all around. That's progressivism.

[houndawg]

Shoot one employer and you won't have to spend money on fences because we won't be hiring. You do get that the reason they're here is because we're hiring, yes?

Houndawg and I are seldom in agreement on many things, but on this one he's absolutely right. Illegals wouldn't be coming here in the large numbers that they have if they weren't finding good (for them) paying jobs here. We do need to be very strict and very diligent when it comes to regulating companies and businesses and individuals that are provding the paying jobs for these illegals. We don't need a fence, we need to be clear that if you employ illegals, you will be caught, you will be fined tremendously, and if it's a repeat offense or so significant in terms of scope or brazeness, your executive is going to do time. That won't stop the illegal immigration completely, but it wil take a good chunk of it out.

And while we're doing that we should widen the gates for the number of legal immigrants we allow in each year, and make familial relations less of a driver for this. I want to bring in the entrepeneurs and the educated as much as possible, and less the uncles and cousins of a person who's already here. Yeah, that's a little harsh, but if we get to pick and choose who to bring in I want more of the top draft picks, the blue chippers, not a bunch of undrafted free agents.

I don't think its harsh. The uncles and cousins in the old country will enjoy an increased standard of living from the money sent back and the money being sent back helps promote goodwill for the US.

[GannonFan]

Nonsense, it's called reality, no matter what soundbite you try to use to trivialize it. China's a good example. Do you think they cared 30-40 years ago about pollution? No, they cared about how to stop 1 billion people from starving. Fast forward 40 years, and they are still way behind us in terms of environmental record and concern, but spots in China now are infinitely better than they were then and the people living in the areas that are still crappy are clammoring loudly to fix the environmental damage around them. Imagine that, progress on the ground rather than living in the make believe world you've created in your own head.

Bullshit.

You may not like it Ganny and I don't expect you to admit because you never do, but you know it's a spot on description.

Externalizing wages and pollution is morally wrong if you subscribe to your own "it's a big world" theory. We keep people down and soil their landscape for the sake of cheap trinkets and corporate profits. We do it because we're selfish and greedy. That's a part of human nature. But we also do it because we have consented to a system that prioritizes those values. That's a choice we've made. That's also reality.

China now has a middle class voice, that's true. They're still polluting at what might be unsustainable levels. That also is true.

I think we can do better all around. That's progressivism.

And in your system, where America drops it's economic hammer on people, you're doing that because you want to keep things exactly as they are, or maybe even worse. Your system doesn't hold any chance for improvement in the future. You say that we can do better all around (soundbite again), and then you propose a system that only benefits America and ends at our shoreline. That's what Progressivism is today - pointing out problems and providing no answers to fix those problems. And you're a classic Progressive under that definition.

[CID1990]

Shoot one employer and you won't have to spend money on fences because we won't be hiring. You do get that the reason they're here is because we're hiring, yes?

Houndawg and I are seldom in agreement on many things, but on this one he's absolutely right. Illegals wouldn't be coming here in the large numbers that they have if they weren't finding good (for them) paying jobs here. We do need to be very strict and very diligent when it comes to regulating companies and businesses and individuals that are provding the paying jobs for these illegals. We don't need a fence, we need to be clear that if you employ illegals, you will be caught, you will be fined tremendously, and if it's a repeat offense or so significant in terms of scope or brazeness, your executive is going to do time. That won't stop the illegal immigration completely, but it wil take a good chunk of it out.

And while we're doing that we should widen the gates for the number of legal immigrants we allow in each year, and make familial relations less of a driver for this. I want to bring in the entrepeneurs and the educated as much as possible, and less the uncles and cousins of a person who's already here. Yeah, that's a little harsh, but if we get to pick and choose who to bring in I want more of the top draft picks, the blue chippers, not a bunch of undrafted free agents.

I'm on record as being in agreement on this.

However, there are a couple additional draws. Jus soli is one and our need based benefits are another, but the biggest draw by far is economic. Make it unprofitable to hire illegals and a fence wont be necessary.