mojeaux131

The problem is that the Republicans get away with it. They just have a better attack machine than Democrats. Plus, they have the Limbaugh's and Hannity's of the world, who have no problem repeating lies and propaganda until their brain-damaged followers take it as gospel.

And that's why some people like yours truly don't particularly have a problem with the presence of Keith Olbermann and his ilk. They provide balance in the media. Fight fire with fire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business...amp;oref=slogin

Delicious.

Well, in my own defense, I was TRYING to be funny. Just like the sophisticated New Yorkers were trying to be funny. But if I contributed in any way to stopping a former New Yorker from giving his completely worthless opinion of Houston then my unfunny joke was well worth posting.

For the record, for me it isn't a north vs south thing. I have nothing against New Yorkers in general. It is more like a 'people who don't have a clue of what they are talking about and are trashing my hometown for no reason are acting like ignorant assholes' thing - and shouldn't be taken too seriously. After all, how many of those posters were still hung up about Houstonians being fat? How many other cities have been called the fattest city in America since Houston was named fattest city back in 2003 or whenever? And what has MY weight (I'm slim and trim by the way) got to do with the quality of life of my fellow Houstonians, anyway? Try and keep up please, it's 2008 already. Plus, I always find it funny (in a sad kind of way) whenever people call themselves sophisticated as several of those posters did. If you have to tell or imply to people that you are sophisticated or intelligent, then you aren't - and you're not fooling anyone.

And...maybe...it would be a waste of money to destroy it...and build something different...but...it's so FUUUUGLY...

Yeah, it ain't going anywhere. Whatevs. Also, if it spurs development on downtown's east side, that's good too. Yeah. Way to go, you ugly, ugly building. You do have a purpose. Bless your heart.

You've never, ever agreed with me before? You must be getting wiser.

I grow in wisdom as you grow in modesty.

Edit: Ha ha, I totally didn't mean for this to start off the new page. Whoopsie.

Yeah, but so many people believe (wrongly) that THEY have the answer for ALL Americans. As if there is a lock on what it means to know what's best for ALL America.

It's kinda like religion. Many religious people feel their religion is better than others or those with no religion.

In some folks' minds there can be no compromise because it would mean the foundation on which they think is ultimately wrong (or at least cracked).

If I start to sound like that, let me know. I'll check myself.

Compromise is key to success. No one has a monopoly on the truth. I think depending on the time and place, policies should be adjusted either more to the "left" or more to the "right". For now, I believe policy at the federal level should go more to the "left" while in a state like California they could afford to be more conservative at this point. And there can even be variations within different types of policy in a single place. For example, a place could become more fiscally conservative and socially liberal at the same time, Eisenhower Republican style.

It's all about balance.

I know, I just found it incongruous for TheNiche to advocate getting rid of a regulation that discourages density in a thread about an article on the down-side of density.

Whoa, that is incongruous. You're right. I think this is the first time I've agreed with you. Nice.

I dont like the GRB from 59. Its horrible from the back. It does look decent from the park though. I would tear it down and put a better looking and larger one esle where and expand the park.

And I would gleefully help you.

Ah, I see. If we get rid of that regulation, Houston can become more dense and then we'll be more like New York! But didn't I just read something about why that's bad?

Taken to the level they have in New York, it's bad. Development doesn't have to follow one extreme or the other, you know.

Those pictures are nice. Even a turd like like GRB will sparkle with enough glitter on it (that would be the park).

Agreed, it is great to hear this positive spin on Houston. But let's not be simplistic and lump all kinds of planning or zoning in together as a form of stultifying regulation. A little planning would go a long way here, without hindering the kind of growth the article talks about. You're all smart enough to know the difference.

Exactly right.

Pissing matches.

Sorry, didn't mean for it to go that way. I prefer to stick to the issues and straight-up debate.

Pretty much, I used to be a diehard democrat until I realized that some views presented by some of my (then) party conflicted with how I think some things should be done. The same can be said about the Republican party. Most people simply pick a party because they feel like they NEED a party and rarely look past their ideological ideals about it. I want a pres that is willing to look past his own party for solutions and I think McCain has done quite a bit to do it (though I disagree with his Immigration policies).

Yes. Actually, in that regard, McCain's record is much more impressive than Obama's.

How do you calculate feelings into a capitalist economy? I don't mean to denigrate people who choose to serve in the military by any means. I have a very high level of respect for them, but they all choose to serve knowing the compensation that they are going to receive. On economic principle, a Republican candidate should oppose the GI Bill because it's government intervention into the free market.

Shouldn't you make the same argument for police and fire that are injured or killed in the line of duty?

I honestly don't know when providing veterans with benefits became about "feelings". We do it because it's the right thing to do. Period. And for police and firefighters, if they are injured in the line of duty, all their medical expenses should be covered. All of them.

And "on economic principle", a Republican shouldn't mind at all. How is providing educational and medical benefits an "intrusion into the free market"? By that logic, anything the government spends money on is an intrusion into the free market.

Republicans support government intervention into the supposedly "free" market all the time, usually to help out private companies.

Nope, just so inextricably wed to his ideology that he cannot rationalize for fear he'll compromise his ideology. Exactly the problem with the country today...two competing ideologies unwilling to yield to the other.

You mean hardwired, right?

Ideology=Programming

Okay, I'll stop now. Well, I'll try to.

Hasn't anybody ever heard of charity? If you feel bad about something, give to one. That's how you do your part. But don't confuse your part with my own. They are not the same.

Different things that are naturally occuring in a world with or without feeling-based public policy are going make unique individual people feel bad and in different ways. No mix of policies can accomodate everybody. Our resources are finite. Even if the objective is to accomodate everybody's feelings optimally, having the starting point be an economic policy based upon objective emotion-less policy and allowing free markets and charities to allocate our scarce resources will inexorably lead to a socially and emotionally optimal economic condition.

Yep, robot.

This isn't about my feelings. My feelings shouldn't translate to public policy. Neither should yours.

Feelings are a private matter. They should not be institutionalized, forced upon others.

Thanks, Lockmat.

Ah, but your "feeling" seems to be that the work soldiers do is little different in effect from the work that Chinese factories do in providing us with cheap goods. And this is completely incorrect.

Feelings (or the lack thereof, IMHO) like yours are in fact institutionalized and forced on others when a soldier loses an appendage in Iraq and can't get the proper benefits upon returning to the States, because of an uncooperative bureaucracy or policies that don't think losing an appendage is "enough" to warrant decent benefits.

I am far from the only one who feels this way. And my original point was simply that it was ludicrous for the Republican candidate to oppose the 21st Century G.I. Bill.

Feelings and empathy constitute a large part of human reason, anyhow.

Seems like China is responsible for a lot of that lately, what with such low prices and an artificially low exchange rate. Heck, they're probably the reason that a lot of people can afford cable TV. Maybe we ought to pay annual tribute to them as thanks for the lifestyle that they afford us (among whom are our honored veterans).

Wow....

(twilight zone theme)

Equating the service of veterans with a foreign nation with whom we happen to trade a lot, because someone said the soldiers contribute to our ability to live in comfort and prosperity.

Niche, you are very, very smart, but are you a robot? Do you have...feelings? Do you know what that word means?

ERROR...ERROR....DOES NOT COMPUTE....ECONOMY...PRODUCTIVITY....MONEY...AGGREGATE....GROSS....REVENUE....Fe

ELinGs? WHAT WHAT WHAT.....

INITIATING SHUTDOWN.....

Michelle was never ever proud of her country until now. What McCain seems to be saying is that he never really appreciated America until then.

Hypothetically, based on their statements, if someone was slamming America, I could see Michelle saying she didn't care since she was never proud of America anyway. Mccains comments leave plenty of room for affinity and pride in his country.

Come on, man, it's nitpicky. Let's focus on issues. Sheesh.

There's an interesting new skyscraper in Nagoya. I don't care for the lettering on it, but otherwise it's really interesting and beautiful. There are also some pics from around the front of Nagoya Station and around Nagoya Castle, and a couple in Sakae.

The new skyscraper is called the Mode Gakuen Spiral Towers.

I think you missed my point. Soldiers and military people make our our wimpy, cushy, gentrified whiney, what's on cable tonight, civilian lives possible.

That deserves a lot in my book and certainly more than what they get when they get out.

Exactamente.

And TJones, are you aware of McCain's statement that was quite similar to Michelle Obama's?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/19/w...a_n_108191.html

""I really didn't love America until I was deprived of her company," McCain said in an interview with Fox News earlier this year. The remark raised the eyebrows of critics who complained that McCain was being treated differently from Senator Barack Obama's wife Michelle, who earlier this year said she was "really proud" of her country for the first time in her adult lifetime."

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/06/joh...-lov-000779.php

I don't think either statement is particularly horrifying or bad, but I think McCain saying something quite similar takes the wind out of what a lot of people are saying.

I got in trouble at work for using the word "picnic" in an ad for Juneteenth. http://www.snopes.com/language/offense/picnic.asp

I read the link. (sigh.......................)

Not to sound like a jerk (I honestly try not to on the forum, ha ha) but to me, there is nothing more serious or important at this time than the fate and future course of the greatest country in the history of the world. If we continue to elect poor leaders, there is little guarantee that our country will continue to enjoy such high standards of living or power. We are so powerful and wealthy and strong, yet so young as a country.

We have to make the right choices. We have to take more responsibility for who we choose to represent us in office. For all his failings, the presidency of George W. Bush with all its repercussions and historical echoes is ultimately the responsibility of the American people. We have to do better. Until we do, we'll continue to get politicians that disappoint us. If the system is inherently flawed, we must change it. If American politics is inherently corrupt, we must make it better. Those who believe we have no chance of doing these things have no business participating in political discourse of any kind. Just my humble opinion, of course.

God has blessed America, but that's not enough. It's up to the people to ensure the continued success, prosperity and progress of this great nation.

I am not upst that he may have flip-flopped. That is a lame Republican term that means zero to me. I am not offended that someone changes their mind. The REASON for the change may be a problem, but not necessarily changing one's mind in and of itself.

No, the problem here is that he changed his mind IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. His FISA vote is inexcusable. The old FISA rules were still in effect and protected us and the gov't agents just fine. And we need less religion in government, not more.

Now, if you are suggesting that he may not mean what he is saying, well, that puts him in the same boat with McCain. We don't know which McCain would take office, and we don't know which Obama would take office. And that is very depressing.

You have a fair point here. I truly believe he might not mean what he's saying. But I'm actually fine with that, because I believe his intended course of action will benefit the country more than McCain's would. Yes, it's unfortunate that for whatever reason he chose to embrace the faith-baseds and vote in support of the FISA, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and I wouldn't mind a candidate being slightly disingenuous in order to get elected if I thought that person's policies would truly benefit the country. Unfortunately I think politics and common American mindsets have degenerated to the point to where he feels actions like this are necessary in order to secure his ascension to office. Nobody wants to do their homework anymore. Nobody wants to find out what the issues are. The vast majority of voters are "low information" voters and they get most of their information from soundbites and it's a damn shame. Crap like that is what necessitates shameful politics. If Americans took more responsibility for educating themselves about the issues and policy, we wouldn't be so pissed off by politicians all the time. In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. And while I think Obama has strayed a bit from his original greatness, I've no doubt his presidency would be more beneficial for our country than McCain's. That is my only point and the only reason I continue to post in this thread, regardless of how fed up with politicians many HAIFers seem to be.

Not saying much. Kinda like saying he can't be any worse than Bush. Well, duh, nobody could be worse than Bush!

Honestly, watching CNBC the last couple of weeks (my attempt at non-drug induced sleep aid), I am growing more convinced that the economy is going to get much worse before it gets better. Afghanistan is going to get much worse. Oil is going to stay where it's at. And, banks are going to fail. Whoever is president will get the blame, but neither of these two can stop it. Since Obama wants to play footsie with the fundies and neo-cons, I'd really just as soon see McCain take the fall for an unavoidable and painful correction. In fact, since he has Phil Gramm advising him, he'll probably make it worse. Then maybe a Democrat can come in in 2012 and do what needs to be done. Americans...and these two clowns...still aren't ready to admit that we're ruining the country with our insane policies. I think another 4 years of Bush oughta do it.

I think you're oversimplifying things. He was bound to do something sooner or later that a lot of his base didn't agree with. I'm not saying I know the whole picture, but for whatever reason this junior senator from Illinois was able to tear up the primaries and become the presumptive nominee. I don't think all those votes and all that trust will turn out to be completely misplaced just because he flip-flopped. I know it's easy to expect the worst (especially in the world of politics) but let's see what happens before we forecast doom and gloom. Maybe an Obama presidency is just what this country needs to cure its PBTSD (post Bush trauma stress disorder).

I'm not naive enough to believe he could stop the economic downturn, but I think what he's planning to do will turn things around much more quickly and be better for the country long-term than if McCain were elected. He's just the better candidate. So he'll get my vote.

sigh. Count me in with Red. Was all excited, then the typical Dem move to center is leaving me unfulfilled. The FISA vote, and then the faith based stuff? Ugh.

It's still a flip-flop, but it made me feel a little better that the faith-baseds would only receive funding for secular services.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/...gail&st=cse

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't still abolish them or that the FISA thing wasn't terrible, either. He'll still be better than McCain. At least Obama didn't oppose the New G.I. Bill. He'll still make a better president than McCain would.

Ooh, weird. Especially the latter. I love it. Isn't there something in France similar? Two towers that merge at the top?