Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Film_Fatale

Oliver Stone's "W."

Recommended Posts

Well, you, Cinesage, jr show your level of intelligence by picking at things I said and making smart remarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, for you all, you are beneath me and your worldly problems do not concern me anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Matt wrote...I'm not against green (only hate that term), but people have to realize that the green technology that we have now is either less effective and/or extremely expensive. There is no realistic alternative to oil right now. I wish there were, but it just isn't so. Ethanol cost more to produce, and uses more energy to create it, than gasoline. Not to mention the rise in costs of corn-related products and the fact that third-world countries who depend on corn and corn-based products from us, are being hurt by it. Farmers bought into this craze and some stopped producing corn for our food supply thinking that they'll cash in big time. You'd need land the size of India to produce enough corn to fuel the worlds' cars and other modes of transportation. And it's not even green!

 

I agree with you 100 percent...

 

My only point was if someone can find a way to have cars and business run using whatever might work then let the market forces work that out.

 

People have to realize, as you state, government does not bring products and services to market--only entrepreneurs, small businesses and corporations do that.

 

I, like you, believe oil is our best way to go with the government out of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only point was if someone can find a way to have cars and business run using whatever might work then let the market forces work that out.

 

Yessuh. If the market forces smell money in it, they'll jump right on it. It's like the phony baloney with with embryonic stem cell research and people claiming that it's illegal. It's totally legal but the feds are only allowing a certain amount of fed funded embryos to be used. The private sector pharmaceutical companies are free to buy embryos and spend as much money as they want to find cures with them. The fact that they're not after 28 years of research and experimenting on embryonic stem cells with no results except causing cancer in lab rats, shows that they don't smell money in that dead end street. But some people fall for the science fiction that is being peddled. Would Christopher Reeve have got out of his wheelchair and walked if Kerry/Edwards were elected in '06 like they claimed? Don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a question for you two happy "free market solves all" folks.

I'm quite disgusted with "Uncle Sams" privatization of the US Military.

Now lets skip the ideology and all that BS. It gives me a headache anyway.

How exactly are "no bid" contracts to the military cheaper(ie, less taxes, smaller govt)?, and, since there are "no bids", exactly HOW is that the free market at work?

I'm not kidding, and I'm not trolling.

No bid. How does cutting taxes, spending more, and paying no attention to the budget work in our favor?

Be honest now. Simple "liberals suck" talking points don't work for me, and wouldn't be accurate anyway.

Exactly how does taxing less and spending more make sense, because it's what we are doing militarily, quite like Mr. Helm so accurately pointed out about China.

Think about it, forget what you've been told, just think about it.

It makes NO SENSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, as a Lance Coolie in the USMC back in 1980 I got paid about $600. something a month, OK, plus chow and roof.......when we "required" one.

They pay a blackwater guy(supposedly, don't know all the figures) about $300 something a day (deserved, I suppose) plus housing.

So, where does this obscene differential come from?

Oil companies will profit the most from a free market (not democratic, 2 different things) in the Middle East.

Yeah, try to tell me I'm wrong.

Skip the BS.

WHO pays for the opening up of free markets in the Middle East?

Actually I don't want or expect answers.

There is no easy answer.

You guy are not RIGHT about everything, neither are the Dems.

 

Message was edited by: mickeeteeze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mickeeteeze,

 

Think of it this way ... Do your stores around you bid you to shop there or do you look at the flyers and see who's selling the product that you want the cheapest, and base your decision on that? We live in an age where we don't need to bid contracts for anything, that's a thing of the past. They know what they need and who makes it best, and maybe cheapest, if possible. That's the spirit of the modern free market, not a contradiction. Just because the government doesn't allow bidding for a contract, doesn't mean they're not utilizing the free market.

 

The Big Dig in Boston bid for contracts and took the cheapest one. Only, the contractors and construction crews are ran by the mob and they milked the project far longer than the deadline and made millions more than they bid. So bidding contracts and politics ain't so good. It only breeds corruption. Not to play politics, but fact, Kerry and Kennedy lobbied and successfully got federal funding for the Big Dig, so that wherever you live, you're paying for a tunnel you'll most likely never use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I hear you. But there was a military in place already. AND, just to prove my complete non partisan ship on this issue, it started during Bush I (earliest I know of, and got healthy under a Dem, Bill Clinton.

We are losing our **** in Iraq, and I don't mean the fight. I mean MONEY. Lots of it. Probably enough to load welfare for the next ten years, which I WOULD NOT AGREE WITH, btw.

Caps are not for anger, for emphasis.

I appreciate you taking the time.

I'm pretty convinced I'm right about this, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually started under Reagan because Carter gutted the military numbers and spending. A Reagan aide wrote a book recently, and remarked in it that while Reagan was campaigning in '79, they visited an Air Force field and the aide was amazed at the number of fighter jets. When he excitedly passed this on to a military official, the official whispered to him something like, "Only a quarter of them can get off the ground."

 

Bill Clinton reduced the military again because the Cold War was over and saw no reason to keep the military spending and troop level.?When we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, that's why we were so under equipped. I'm not blaming Clinton here, but that was just the rationale after we thought we got rid of our biggest enemy of 40+ years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last paragraph was cut from my last reply.

 

I said that Clinton also gutted the military because the Cold War was over and we thought we were safe. That's why we were so under equipped for Afghanistan and Iraq when we went to war. We were also under equipped in WWII up to Vietnam because of our peacetime years in between. We should never let our military dwindle or become stuck on decade's old technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*"Talk about Wild Kingdom. I feel like Marlon Perkins in class."* - MttHelm

 

Well then. All this must seem like a holiday for you then.

 

BTW - I've never asked before and you don't have to answer but...

(Terrible of me to post it that way.)

Are you a member of the teacher's union?

 

And, going back a few pages, are you certain federal gas taxes amount to 60 cents on a gallon? I thought it turned about to be less and that was why the recent idea of "gas tax holiday" was quickly shelved. Many people thought it was something akin to 37 cents (or less even) of every dollar - when it was 37 cents on every gallon sold. And at $4.50/gallon, the "savings" turned out to be negligible - even on a "fill-up".

 

Which leads me to add this to discuss - should the price of a barrel of crude oil be subject to the kind of financial market trading that say gold is subject to? Record-high prices for a barrel of oil was all too reminiscent (to me) of the trader's manipulation of electricity here in California a few years ago.

 

But even if the price was not being affected by "manipulation", it still seems wrong that "oil" can be traded solely for investment puposes just like "gold".

 

Kyle In Hollywood

--------------------------

"Oohh, I bought a goat and his name was Jack. But he got homesick

so I had to give him ba-a-a-ack"

*F.McGee.*

 

Message was edited by: hlywdkjk because I mis-spelled "reminiscent"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*"...wherever you live, you're paying for a tunnel you'll most likely never use."* - MattHelm

 

"Thank You" everyone for my subway that I ride to work everyday and has allowed me to "function" in the sprawling mega-suburb that is known as Los Angeles. If you come to town, I'll pay the fare.

 

I'd thank you for Yosemite too - but I never go there.

 

And about "no-bid contracts", be sure to catch *The Great McGinty* next month on TCM. I have a feeling that defense dept. contracts were handed out in the same manner that McGinty hands out "bus franchises".

 

Kyle In Hollywood

--------------------------

"Oohh, I bought a goat and his name was Jack. But he got homesick

so I had to give him ba-a-a-ack"

*F.McGee.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's not that simple.

First off, I've noticed in this conversation, Republicans do the right thing militarily, Democrats weaken us. Thats just the tone. I would disagree with that as a generalization.

JFK was an unbridled hawk, no matter what the media darlings say.

But it is irrelevant. A privatized military is BAD.

PERIOD.

Why? Because it answers to who pays them. And I don't mean the public, I mean those that collect the dough, and write the check. Furthermore, my payscale analogy stands. We are paying more for less.

I kind of like a draft. It evens out the playing field a little bit. Forces people to be a little more aware. It forces folks to take a responsibility to understand their, yes their part in world affairs.

Private military.

BAD THING. Economically as well as politically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle,

 

Excellent questions, as always.

 

I did join the teacher's union eventually because I was scared into it. They approach you with no positive benefits for joining, but they tell you that even if the child perceives you as striking or bullying them, the union will be at your beck and call with lawyers and have a million bucks to pay for your defense. Nice. But that's the way of the education world. I'm surprised that my union rep's name isn't Tony Soprano. If a student doesn't like their reprimand or punishment, they're smart enough, or the parents are, to target the teacher. I feel dirty for submitting to the union because I hate them, but?kids and parents just aren't the same when we were kids. Everyone sees themselves as a victim these days.

 

As to your question about the price of crude oil, I would also add that the problem with gas prices are the speculators that buy and trade oil contracts. But I think the government's taxes are far worse. I actually wrote (or thought I did) that the combined fed and state taxes were around 60 cents for some states. The federal taxes are around 18 cents and state taxes can range from 7 to 50 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez, how many words is TCM allowing us to write in one post? Here's the rest of my reply:

 

As to your question about the price of crude oil, I would also add that the problem with gas prices are the speculators that buy and trade oil contracts. But I think the government's taxes are far worse. I actually wrote (or thought I did) that the combined fed and state taxes were around 60 cents for some states. The federal taxes are around 18 cents and state taxes can range from 7 to 50 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that the military was privatized. I thought the president was still commander in chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Yessuh. If the market forces smell money in it, they'll jump right on it. It's like the phony baloney with with embryonic stem cell research and people claiming that it's illegal. It's totally legal but the feds are only allowing a certain amount of fed funded embryos to be used. The private sector pharmaceutical companies are free to buy embryos and spend as much money as they want to find cures with them. The fact that they're not after 28 years of research and experimenting on embryonic stem cells with no results except causing cancer in lab rats, shows that they don't smell money in that dead end street. But some people fall for the science fiction that is being peddled. Would Christopher Reeve have got out of his wheelchair and walked if Kerry/Edwards were elected in '06 like they claimed? Don't think so.

 

Matt,

 

Did you write this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yessuh. Embryonic stem research reached a dead end long ago, but some people are afraid that admitting it will put abortion in jeopardy. But the govermin shouldn't fund research that the private sector will make money on. We're the ones footing that bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yessuh. Embryonic stem research reached a dead end long ago, but some people are afraid that admitting it will put abortion in jeopardy. But the govermin shouldn't fund research that the private sector will make money on. We're the ones footing that bill.

 

If stem-cell research has reached any kind of "dead-end," it's because Lord Bush decreed that federal funding would only go to research using the few cell lines that had already been isolated when he got to put his "scientific training" to good use.

 

What's amazing is that you write this utter b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t, expecting somebody to actually believe it (and when your doctor tells you that you've got some fatal disease that might've been alleviated by the products of stem-cell research, I'd love to hear your tune then).

 

It actually started under Reagan because Carter gutted the military numbers and spending. A Reagan aide wrote a book recently, and remarked in it that while Reagan was campaigning in '79, they visited an Air Force field and the aide was amazed at the number of fighter jets. When he excitedly passed this on to a military official, the official whispered to him something like, "Only a quarter of them can get off the ground."

 

Except that the Soviets were able to get about one-tenth of theirs into the air at the time, so we were way ahead. Reagan came in and, in concert with tax-cuts for the wealthy, practically bankrupted the country, handing the Pentagon weapons systems they didn't ask for, and for which they had no use. Ships and planes -- many of them alread obsolete -- were mothballed the second they came off the assembly lines, not just because the brass had no missions for them, but because there were also no crews to man them. Reagan spent hundreds of billions on the hardware, and next to nothing on manpower, because defense contractors -- Republican cronies, all -- can't make much profit on supplying the basid needs of enlisted men and lower-grade officers. More b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t from you, Matty boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cinesage, you are on the mark on this one! You should hear the enlisted's speak about sitting around with nothing to do, because even the funds needed to bring equiptment for maintenence isn't there! 12 Billion a month currently to Iraq; and the Iraq govt. has a surplus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...