oops, forgot one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

You do not have to be a rep here.  The bullies on the site need to stop stifling the free speech of others and encouraging a closed non-democratic society on this site.  You don't control the site (as much as you'd like to.)  The media has now been alerted to your antics.

You need to learn a lesson:  you can't get away with really bad behavior just because you think you will remain anonymous on the Internet.  There are "ways" of finding out who you are.

Have a nice day!

That was the false choice

But that wasn't the choice you responded to nor the choice you went on to describe. As I said, you got yourself twisted into knots.

The “context of the discussion” was the risk of someone like Hillary using the pretext of SSI shareholder status to begin a series of “activist shareholder” moves on behalf of some constituency.

No, that was what you twisted your responses around.

If only it was that simple to define “the people” and “the corporation”. The corporation is the golden goose, too many in politics fail to remember that. “The people” is a term often used by thugs in political office to do little more than shake down the very organizations that employ <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />America.

Ok, here we go again, I'm sorry, I forgot my English Mikebutler222/Mikebutler222 English  dictionary... well ... at the city dump, where it belongs!

Regulating chemical waste wasn’t the sort of “good for America” issue I was considering. I’ve yet to hear anyone argue otherwise. Those interactions are at the governmental level, not the sort of thing that happens when activists descend on a boardroom

Maybe then that ought to give you a clue that you aren't talking about the sme thing as I am. The reason for this is that you have injected so much of yourunmitigatedBULLsh*t into this discussion that you can't find your way back.

Let's try again some other day, alright? Today ain't your day. 

Oh, “lost opportunities” like lessening our dependence on foreign oil by building nuclear plants in this country wouldn’t count?

Let's for a moment say that it would (count). In order for this to be of "Far More Harm"  there would have to have an no concombinent benefit to your social engineering. As it is, there has been tremendous benefit to the nation in terms of jobs produced. I'm quite sure that makers of on workers on oil rigs are very happy with the status quo. Might they have found meaningful employment in the nuclear industry? Maybe. But the nuclear industry requires dramatically less man hourly labor per kilowatt produced, so they probably wouldn't.

Like stopping wind plants because they interfere with Ted Kennedy’s views wouldn’t count?

No, because it doesn't come remotely close to satisfying the "Far More Harm" stipulation.

Like stopping us from building more refinery capacity don’t count?

It's much more a matter of "Where?" with refineries. Should they be allowed to build a refinery in midtown Manhattan (NYor KS)? Should they be allowed to build one in Yellowstone National Park?  There are plenty of places that would take more refineries, but the investment might prove prohibitive. On the other hand, there are also lots of other countries that would love to have you come build several refineries there, and yet... For some reason, we don't. So maybe the fault doesn't lie entirely at the feet of US "environmentalists".

Oh, “lost opportunities” like lessening our dependence on foreign oil by building nuclear plants in this country wouldn’t count?

Let's for a moment say that it would (count). In order for this to be of "Far More Harm" there would have to have an no concombinent benefit to your social engineering.

Whomit back to moving the goal posts….The fact is there’s a SINGLE reason we don’t have them and that’s politicians NOT acting in the “public good” in order to placate some constituency group…

Like stopping wind plants because they interfere with Ted Kennedy’s views wouldn’t count?

No, because it doesn't come remotely close to satisfying the "Far More Harm" stipulation.

Of course not....the "harm" being done to Teddy's view and all....and Teddy’s view being redefined as “the public good”…

Like stopping us from building more refinery capacity don’t count?

There are plenty of places that would take more refineries, but the investment might prove prohibitive.

"Investment"? You figure it's "investment" costs and not politicos working against the public good to please some constituency? Really?

On the other hand, there are also lots of other countries that would love to have you come build several refineries there, and yet... For some reason, we don't. So maybe the fault doesn't lie entirely at the feet of US "environmentalists".

Perhaps we don’t seek you increase US refining capacity buy building refineries IN OTHER COUNTRIES because it would make no sense and we don’t build them HERE due to the perversion of the term “the public good” by politicians…

That was the false choice

But that wasn't the choice you responded to nor the choice you went on to describe. As I said, you got yourself twisted into knots.

Not in the least. Your “public good” as has been proved many times now is a slippery term and simply can’t be entrusted to politicians to describe.

The “context of the discussion” was the risk of someone like Hillary using the pretext of SSI shareholder status to begin a series of “activist shareholder” moves on behalf of some constituency.

No, that was what you twisted your responses around.

You’re really off your game today….

If only it was that simple to define “the people” and “the corporation”. The corporation is the golden goose, too many in politics fail to remember that. “The people” is a term often used by thugs in political office to do little more than shake down the very organizations that employ America.

Ok, here we go again, I'm sorry, I forgot my English Mikebutler222/Mikebutler222 English dictionary... well ... at the city dump, where it belongs!

Only the simplest of minds would assert that defining “the public” and “the public good” was easy and should be entrusted to politicians to determine…it also includes the foolish concept that there are defenders and opponents to something universally defined as "public good".

Regulating chemical waste wasn’t the sort of “good for America“ ” issue I was considering. I’ve yet to hear anyone argue otherwise. Those interactions are at the governmental level, not the sort of thing that happens when activists descend on a boardroom

Maybe then that ought to give you a clue that you aren't talking about the sme thing as I am.

I’ve been trying to explain THAT fact to you for a while. The SSI “shareholder advocacy” in the hands of some like Hillary WAS the issue.

[quote=FreedomAdvocate]

Hmmm, I see.  Mike Butler, I see what you are promoting here:[/quote]

I'm promoting nothing other than the idea that you should get the help you obviously need. Your obsession with this board is clinical in its nature as is your persecution complex ......

A good start might be to raise property taxes by an order of magnitude on

residences in Chappaqua that are valued over $2 million.

I’ve been trying to explain THAT fact to you for a while. The SSI “shareholder advocacy” in the hands of some like Hillary WAS the issue

No, Mikebutler222, that was not the original issue. Nor is it the issue that you have pursued with you"Union Thug" remarks and "Agitators in the boardroom" imagery.

The issue was "how to create a system wherein nobody now or in the futurse could not abuse the power that they would have as a decisionmaker for the fund and/or the index."

If I have a choice over who would put together such a plan, I'd rather have someone who is not going to lean in favor of a Laissez Faire mindset.

Perhaps we don’t seek you increase US refining capacity buy building refineries IN OTHER COUNTRIES because it would make no sense and we don’t build them HERE due to the perversion of the term “the public good” by politicians…

So... we're in a global economy..except when it comes to refinery capacity???

I see, usual "everybodies fault but my own" mentality.

As to moving goal pots. I kept the goal posts exactly where YOU put them. It's not my fault that your myopia has robbed you of any sense of depth perception.

Not in the least. Your “public good” as has been proved many times now is a slippery term and simply can’t be entrusted to politicians to describe.

Why don't you just come out and say it Mikebutler222? " Say "Democracy doesn't work!" because that is what your statement above means.

The issue was "how to create a system wherein nobody now or in the futurse could not abuse the power that they would have as a decisionmaker for the fund and/or the index."

Shoud be:

The issue was "how to create a system wherein nobody now or in the futurse could abuse the power that they would have as a decisionmaker for the fund and/or the index."

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Not in the least. Your “public good” as has been proved many times now is a slippery term and simply can’t be entrusted to politicians to describe.

Why don't you just come out and say it Mikebutler222? " Say "Democracy doesn't work!" because that is what your statement above means.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, so I have to support the sort of lunacy of Henry Waxman defining “public good” as holding “tobacco hearings” or  Hillarycare I’m anti-democratic? Are you serious?

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

I wish I could share your tidy belief that politician’s motives are pure as the driven snow and that “public good” is an easily defined and universally accepted position, (therefore there are “good guys” working for this widely accepted definition of “public good” and “bad guys” working against it. but I stopped believing that sort of thing when I stopped believing in the Eastern Bunny.

Hey, here's on for you; what don't you come out and say it? Business is evil and the source of all wisdom, light and goodness in America in politicians....

An O'Henry bar is a candy bar, but not every candy bar is an O'Henry bar.

Ironic isn't it?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

The issue was "how to create a system wherein nobody now or in the futurse could not abuse the power that they would have as a decisionmaker for the fund and/or the index." [/quote]

That's simply not an issue. If the S&P process (which holds the SAME dangers NOW that you claim the SSI would bring to it, and which the gov't employees TSP uses as we speak) bothers you a purely mechanical one can be used.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]If I have a choice over who would put together such a plan, I'd rather have someone who is not going to lean in favor of a Laissez Faire mindset.

[/quote]

If my choice is "Laissez Faire" versus Hillary's "we're the gov't and we know better" I'm headed for the former, as it's proven its worth and effectiveness.

If my choice is "Laissez Faire" versus Hillary's "we're the gov't and we know better" I'm headed for the former, as it's proven its worth and effectiveness.

Proven by those "... dozens of other examples where misguided government intervention has done far more harm"

That you never produced.

I give up Mikebutler222. You don't even konw THAT you don't know, then you don't know WHAT you don't know and then you just DON"T KNOW. I don't have the patience to walk you through it all.

I'll use this opportunity to bid the forums adieu. I'll check in here and there, but I'm going to pretty much stop posting. Wish me luck. I wish you all the best.

Ok, so at the end of the season Thompson looked at Waterston and said "You know this chair might be open soon."

"Oh I'm not into politics."

"Don't speak too soon, you never know..."

Thompson is sort of running, and yet... Apparently the Republicans are still looking.

Bloomberg switched again, this time from Republican to Independent, and now there is a "Centerist" movement afoot by the name of Unity 2008. Who is the spokesman for this "party"?

Sam Waterston. The TDAmeritrade dude!

What seems to me to be interesting is the notion that in order to win the nomination this cycle the candidate seems to see the need run to the center! (I could swear this is what I said oh so long ago on this forum.)

Of course, the center has a long and colorful history of forgetting to show up on primary day so it has yet to be seen if center fielding is the position to play.

Odd turn of events though.

Ed Koch said of Gulianni on Meet The Press again what has been said here before, that Rudy will wear out his welcome because he is a caustic substance that will eat through the crucible of the primary process (He'll remind people what they thought of NYC and NYers on September 10th!)

Biden makes shoulderlines (still not good enough for headlines) by calling Prex "Brain Dead".

He is referring to Bush's commutation of Scooter's jail time (30 months is too tough for Treason!) Paris Hilton makes notes (BTW what oh what will happen to poor Paris if the Blackstone group buys Hilton Hotels? Is America ready for lily white and Black Stone to intermingle?)

Me I think that it was another Rovian masterstroke! This, along with the Cheney assertion that the Vice Presidency is not part of the Executive Branch gives even the rightest rightist room to run from the rantings of the raving ridiculed!

No one has the right to be shocked that GW stood beside his buddy, "Right or Wrong". You knew that this is who he is from day one. He is Frat boy extraordinaire, you stand by your frat brothers no matter what! Right Wrong or somewhere in the middle, it doesn't matter, who he is is who he is, so you don't get to be surprised when he demonstrates who he is.

But everyone gets to say "I disagree with the president on this one!" and build "indy cred" with the constituency (which is what they absolutely need because of the widespread dissatisfaction with the admin's performance). But, BTW if you are in an area where there are triple digit poll numbs for GWB, then you just say "With this man, you know where he stands!"

Is it just me or has Obama seemed to have fallen off the face of the Earth? I don't claim Newsjunky status, not by any stretch, but I don't see this guy building an new mo and getting much face time anymore. I've seen more about the candidates' wives (and husband) with one of them getting into Ann Coulter's grill and another doing something and then Mc Cain's missus just narrowly escaping the massive layoffs over in the McCain camp!

rightest rightist room to run from the rantings of the raving ridiculed!

Nice usage of alliteration.

I'm still waiting and hoping that Thompson will announce soon.  If he doesn't run, this will be the first time that I will not have voted in an election.  None of these clowns even remotely interests me and I don't feel like even half heartedly holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. 

[quote=Dust Bunny]I'm still waiting and hoping that Thompson will announce soon.  [/quote]

Won't be long now.