[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While I will agree with the circle jerk society that this is no a viable answer because the market has no way to make a profit on this model . But it does point out a terrible reality and something will be done some day and if we have the foresight it may be easier to swallow rather than wait until it is a necessity
Just remove the subsidies to all farming initiatives and the type of farming that this person is describing as the problem wouldn’t be profitable. Conversely removing these subsidies would mean capital is freed up for exactly the alternative(natural) food production he is describing.
Further there’s the impediment of EPA regulations preventing thee development of these ecosystems that he describes which serve as a further incentive to develop the farming practices he describes. There’s also the FDA and it’s mandates on school lunches based on grain which create artificial demand for it and consequently squeeze out other calorie sources also.
There’s no reason to have a third-party to intervene to “create ecosystems”. You just have to remove the dislocation of resources in the first place and people will do the right thing locally and reclaim the market from large agribusiness that are partnered with federal and state governments to squeeze out competitors.
Just remove the subsidies to all farming initiatives and the type of farming that this person is describing as the problem wouldn’t be profitable. Conversely removing these subsidies would mean capital is freed up for exactly the alternative(natural) food production he is describing.
Further there’s the impediment of EPA regulations preventing thee development of these ecosystems that he describes which serve as a further incentive to develop the farming practices he describes. There’s also the FDA and it’s mandates on school lunches based on grain which create artificial demand for it and consequently squeeze out other calorie sources also.
There’s no reason to have a third-party to intervene to “create ecosystems”. You just have to remove the dislocation of resources in the first place and people will do the right thing locally and reclaim the market from large agribusiness that are partnered with federal and state governments to squeeze out competitors.[/quote]
I would be for removing our farm subsidies but I doubt it would do much to make a more sustainable food source. As long as it is more profitable to create these environmental disasters than to have more harmony with nature , profit will win
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I can’t wait till he gets reelected. The popping noise will either be ZEB offing himself or his head spontaneously combusting.
Either way I’m cool with it.[/quote]And the son of perdition peeks his head in to remind us of the galactic wisdom we’ve been deprived of in his absence. Where ya been man? Only seen a glimpse here and there. Shining Micheal Moore’s shoes or something?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I can’t wait till he gets reelected. The popping noise will either be ZEB offing himself or his head spontaneously combusting.
Either way I’m cool with it.[/quote]And the son of perdition peeks his head in to remind us of the galactic wisdom we’ve been deprived of in his absence. Where ya been man? Only seen a glimpse here and there. Shining Micheal Moore’s shoes or something?
[/quote]
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I can’t wait till he gets reelected. The popping noise will either be ZEB offing himself or his head spontaneously combusting.
Either way I’m cool with it.[/quote]
As usual you’re not even close Irish. In fact, I was the one who said that Romney has slightly less than 50/50 chance of beating obama. And here’s what will happen if Obama is reelected. I will continue to make a lot of money in business as I’ve been doing now for over 20 years. And you will continue to work like a dog for somewhere around minimum wage. And the moral of the story is that the President, no matter who he or she may be, is far less important to ones personal success than what the specific individual brings to the game.
And I am cool with that!
Edit: And that’s why liberal politicians who hand out money as if it’s their own, (like Obama), never really help anyone in the long run.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I can’t wait till he gets reelected. The popping noise will either be ZEB offing himself or his head spontaneously combusting.
Either way I’m cool with it.[/quote]
As usual you’re not even close Irish. In fact, I was the one who said that Romney has slightly less than 50/50 chance of beating obama. And here’s what will happen if Obama is reelected. I will continue to make a lot of money in business as I’ve been doing now for over 20 years. And you will continue to work like a dog for somewhere around minimum wage. And the moral of the story is that the President, no matter who he or she may be, is far less important to ones personal success than what the specific individual brings to the game.
And I am cool with that!
Edit: And that’s why liberal politicians who hand out money as if it’s their own, (like Obama), never really help anyone in the long run.[/quote]
Do you fail to see the Republicans hand out money to the wealthy and the Democrats hand out money to Wealthy and the Poor
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I can’t wait till he gets reelected. The popping noise will either be ZEB offing himself or his head spontaneously combusting.
Either way I’m cool with it.[/quote]
As usual you’re not even close Irish. In fact, I was the one who said that Romney has slightly less than 50/50 chance of beating obama. And here’s what will happen if Obama is reelected. I will continue to make a lot of money in business as I’ve been doing now for over 20 years. And you will continue to work like a dog for somewhere around minimum wage. And the moral of the story is that the President, no matter who he or she may be, is far less important to ones personal success than what the specific individual brings to the game.
And I am cool with that!
Edit: And that’s why liberal politicians who hand out money as if it’s their own, (like Obama), never really help anyone in the long run.[/quote]
Do you fail to see the Republicans hand out money to the wealthy and the Democrats hand out money to Wealthy and the Poor
[/quote]
This isn’t true. Republicans only publicly seem to appose “entitlements” because of the media presence of a limited number of vocal members and officials. For the most part they vote for an expansion in various social programs as often as democrats. However, having a democratic president to antagonize has elevated Republican opposition at least publicly.
“…This isn’t true. Republicans only publicly seem to appose “entitlements” because of the media presence of a limited number of vocal members and officials. For the most part they vote for an expansion in various social programs as often as democrats. However, having a democratic president to antagonize has elevated Republican opposition at least publicly…”
THANK YOU, TooHuman!
SOMEBODY else seems to get that our Goverment has a SYSTEMIC, deeply INTRINSIC problem!
Sifu should stick to posting in the Combat forum, where he seems to know something, rather than doing the equivalent of flailing his arms around wildly here, and looking pretty foolish.
Your posts are all over the place, you can’t even express a coherent train of thought. You’re just ranting in general, basically.
This brings your other posts into question as well.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Romney’s record at Bain in the mid-90s is being and will be scrutinized as part of his candidacy - and that is perfectly fair; it’s relevant, it speaks to his experience in business and politics.[/quote]
Look at that! You’ll just say anything, I guess, and hope nobody is paying close attention.
So, you say scrutinizing Romney’s Bain experience is ‘perfectly fair’… as long as nobody looks at his tax returns? How can anyone ‘scrutinize’ his ‘mid-90s’ business record, without seeing what his income was?
Are you even honest enough to acknowledge what a glaring contradiction you made? I’m betting no, you’re not.
Here in New York we have the Working Families party (WFP). It’s pro-union, progressive in general. Many Democrats get endorsed by WFP, and agree to run on two party lines (Democratic and WFP) The Working Family Party are more upfront about being progressives (Liberal, whatever label you like) than the Democrats (Democrat is a bigger more inclusive tent, based on it’s national profile and wider national demographic). I’ve got a hunch that the New Party was something similar. A way to get more support for real liberal candidates, rather than just Democrats.
Is this supposed to be a surprising news flash… young Barack Obama was a liberal (or is still a liberal, whatever)?
Glenn Beck basically tries to scare gullible people, and the results range from comical to sad. I would call this one sad.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Here’s the Wikipedia entry for the New Party (I’ve never heard of it before this thread):
[/quote]
If you’ve never heard of it before, what makes you feel qualified to speculate on it after reading a wikipedia entry? There are lots of posters here who have heard of it before.
"The New Party was a political organization founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor and Joel Rogers, with the objective of electing leftist or socialist individuals to public office in several states; the goal was to move the Democratic Party further to the left, with the ultimate objective of creating a major third party whose platform is Marxism.
Daniel Cantor, a former staffer with Jesse Jackson during his 1988 presidential campaign, and sociology/law professor Joel Rogers from the University of Wisconsin (Madison) created the New party, drawing many members from the Democratic Socialists of America and the civil organization group ACORN; the chapter in Chicago included former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members who had gathered together under the group name “Committees of Correspondence”. Among their most prominent members was Barack Obama, first picked to succeed Illinois state senator Alice Palmer while in the home of Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in 1995."
Founding party members include the radical anarchist Noam Chomksy, former SDS terrorist Carl Davidson, Communist Party member Raphael Pizzaro, black racialist Cornel West, Socialist Columbia University professor Manning Marable and Marxist welfare terrorist Francis Fox Piven.
'The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”
The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system â?? including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”
Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.’
