|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 26, 6:48*pm, ST wrote:
On 1/26/08 6:42 PM, in article , "KG" wrote: On Jan 26, 6:19*pm, ST wrote: On 1/26/08 3:01 PM, in article , "Kurgan Gringioni" wrote: On Jan 26, 2:52*pm, ST wrote: On 1/26/08 2:48 PM, in article , "Kurgan Gringioni" wrote: On Jan 26, 11:17*am, Michael Press wrote: In article , *Howard Kveck wrote: In article , " wrote: On Jan 25, 6:50*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote: In article , *Michael Press wrote: ObBike: why have the Germans never acquired a reputation for making serious road bikes? Is there some boutique make I'm missing? Warning: Gratuitous Ethnic Stereotyping. Hide the kiddies. http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_Leopard2A6,,0... That's not UCI-legal. Some kind of recumbent? I'm pretty sure "Economical Uberpanzer" was an late-80s early-90s industrial band. *I might have seen then opening for The Fall once. *Howard probably remembers them better than I do. * *I wasn't so much into KrautRock then... * *That actually would be a great name for a band, though I still believe that the best and most accurate name for a band is "Negative Cash Cow." I always wanted a band called Bad Pork. Dumbass - One of the most successful live music venues in San Diego is called The Belly Up. The founder bestowed that moniker because everyone told him not to do it because he'd go bankrupt. It's been around since the mid '70s. It's definitely possible to make a profit in the music industry. The worldwide gross recepts for music sales and live shows is mid-eleven figures. Starting a garage band is a tough one though. Way too much competition. It's sorta like Cat 1s in the US fighting for their table scraps. As my friend @ one of the music stores that caters to gigging musicians says, "you gotta pay to play". thanks, K. Gringioni. It's definitely possible to make a profit in the music industry. The Belly Up is a bar............. Do you know what the mark-up is on liquor at these places?? That is where most of their gross comes from. The musical acts are used to bring in the alcohol drinkers.... Dumbass - Did you read the entire post? Read the 2nd paragraph. The entire paragraph. Jesus Christ. thanks, K. Gringioni. You did not read my point... Dumbass - And your point is? thanks, K. Gringioni. What an Assbag......... IF they did not serve alcohol it would not be successful! Dumbass - What does that have to do with the conversation we were having about band names and bands being money sinks? I never claimed that bars/nightclubs don't make money. It was just an anecdote that's related to the band name topic ("Negative Cash Cow", "Bad Pork", "Belly Up"). Also, in the first line of my post, I wrote that the Belly Up is a live music venue which implies that it sells alcohol. What exactly is it that you are trying to refute? I don't disagree w/ anything that you wrote - the weird thing is you just wrote it in your usual confrontational tone in a subthread where the others are being lighthearted. I don't get what your deal is. thanks, K. Gringioni. |
Ads |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
Dans le message de
, KG a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : On Jan 25, 5:37 am, "Sandy" wrote: Dans le message , Kurgan Gringioni a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : It takes a generation or more, once a nation starts going down that path, to develop an independent judiciary. Without a tradition of an independent judiciary a democracy cannot succeed. Democracy need not be a goal. It's just the current fad, given a long history of mankind. There have been independent judges throughout history, and it is not the office, but the wisdom, that sustains itself. snip Dumbass - (I felt miffed, as your earlier reply omitted this salutation) I agree, democracy need not be a goal, but the W. Bush Administration has declared that is the goal, hence my assertion of the need for the independent judiciary. First, there is no coherent version of vanilla democracy anywhere extant, even in dictionaries, political tracts, and certainly no exemplars. So when W rides his MTB and I my road bike, he and I are orders of magnitude of orders of magintude closer to thinking "bike", than sharing a common view about the form, process or nature of a democracy. [A desperate attempt to reel this OT to the forum.] Second, a judiciary is tolerated so long as they perform like trained monkeys within their own closed loop systems. If you recall, executive privilege has nullified potential judicial intrusion into political questions; specifically, the Iran-Contra affair. Funny how things seem to repeat (or is that regurgitate?). W/out checks upon the leader's power, the leader almost inevitably becomes addicted to power and becomes the tyrant. As any lawyer or jurist knows, the bailiffs at the disposal of the judiciary are not especially likely to rise up against the might of fully equipped armies. It takes the executive's power to direct such a force to ensure that the ink and paper of judges is respected. History again, noting a certain governor who barred the doors some years past. Which leads me to the speculation, totally unconnected that we ought to nickname that lady senator-presidential-candidate-maybe from New York "Lurleen" in honor of her formal predecessor in an effete dynasty. With regards to Iraq, there is also the amount of time needed to develop a professional, non-sectarian military and a professional, non-sectarian police force. Not a judicial function, is it? Actually, one could look to Pakistan for a model of an in-control peacekeeping force for a good 20 years and more to date. Well, not last week, but better weather is coming. It's all doomed to failure. The American public will not have the patience necessary for the 20+ year commitment needed to develop those institutions. You seem unable to question the need to establish systems parallel to ones in the US. Is that unconscious or conscious ideology on your part? Did you know that lobbying is currently being touted in France as the provision of essential expertise to the development of legislation and policy? Look closer - it's just the word, not the form, that is being imported. |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 26, 7:53*pm, "Sandy" wrote:
It's all doomed to failure. The American public will not have the patience necessary for the 20+ year commitment needed to develop those institutions. You seem unable to question the need to establish systems parallel to ones in the US. *Is that unconscious or conscious ideology on your part? *Did you know that lobbying is currently being touted in France as the provision of essential expertise to the development of legislation and policy? *Look closer - it's just the word, not the form, that is being imported. Dumbass - Without a non-sectarian military, they're gonna have a civil war in Iraq whenever the US military leaves. thanks, K. Gringioni. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 26, 1:54*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bret" wrote in message ... I'm not quite done with you yet. If it's evil to use public funding money for altruism, what would you call it if public funding is used for evil purposes? Evil squared? How do they rank as relative evils? Is the former a misdemeanor and the latter a felony? Both felonies? Here's the bottom line Bret - you fund police and fire agencies and others, such as emergency rescue because you might need them yourself and NOT because someone else might need them. That isn't altruistic - it's called self-interest. Stealing my money on pain of imprisonment, seizure of my property and completely ruining my life so that you can hand that money over to people whom you chose to believe deserve it more than those who work for it is evil incarnate. Whether you care to admit it or not. You are subject to the same tax laws as the rest of us, so why are you feeling so sorry for yourself? Talk about evil, my tax money has been used to start an unnecessary war and perpetrate torture. I don't blame the tax system for that. Bret - votes for open space initiatives |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
ST wrote:
You did not read my point... Face it Henry......... You are not the gay intellectual mensa boy you portray yourself to be. Kurgan Gringioni wrote: I don't get what your deal is. Maybe he's got a crush on you. |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article ,
Bill C wrote: On Jan 26, 3:08*am, Howard Kveck wrote: In article , *Bill C wrote: * Bill, please. Media has a short attention span, particularly on issues like this. They move on. It really isn't because the media is (or was) all happy because a Marxist was gaining power. "The Liberal Media" is a myth. Howard that's your opinion. I think it's totally wrong, but it depends on your position as an observer what you consider "liberal". I'd say that you are far enough out that way that what most people would consider either moderate, or slightly liberal you see as right wing. There've been numerous examples of this. So let's talk about the media. The "Liberal Media" meme kicked into high gear during the times of Watergate. A time when the media actually did its job. Since then, we've seen a jillion examples of the media doing the scut work for the right. Things like the way they breathlessly and dutifully published every leak out of Ken Starr's office, as he attempted to crucify Clinton with unfounded allegations. Or the way they have taken stenography from GOP sources "on background" (aka "anonymous tips"), publish the stuff and soon after, it turns out that the story was an outright fabrication. They never name their lying source, though. Just lather, rinse, repeat. Or when they catch the Bush admin. in a highly illegal act (the bank spying caper), and then sit on the story because the admin. asks them to. They only published it when others threatened to scoop them on it. How about the way the NYT just hired Bill Kristol as a weekly columnist? Unlike every other columnist, he gets to keep his regular gig (editor of the right wing Weekly Standard). For years, he's complained about the leftward leanings of the NYT. But in the runup to the war, he cranked up that up to indicate he felt they were a possible enemy. When the bank spying story broke, he screamed loud and long theat they should be prosecuted for treason. So they hired a guy who obviously hates the Times, and, more importantly, a guy who is against press freeddom. When he was hired, there were a lot of letters to the editor complaining. Not because he was a war supporter, but because he was a war supporter who was *wrong about every ****ing thing he'd said about the war*. Yes, that's a real liberal bias on the part of the Times for you. I can cite examples until your eyes bleed, Bill. You seem to think that the media is a bunch of cheerleaders for any old Marxist but I find that to be without merit. * *You're trying an Overton Window maneuver here, Bill. Just because you've said I'm so far out doesn't make it true. Just because you deny it doen't make it untrue. You know, Bill, I find your attempts to characterize me as the MOST! RADICAL! LEFTIST! EVAH! to be kind of amusing. I'm not saying that I'm laughing at you for it, but I have a hard time seeing how you've made the leap from the things that I've posted in here to me being a Stalinist, Maoist or fan of FARC (that one is most peculiar, as I've never mentioned them in any post, especially not positively). I'm sure that Tom and Stevie think I'm the MRLE but I think that you're way too smart to jump to that conclusion. But as long as I'm at it, in your recent challenge for me to talk about positions. That comes across as you wanting me to write you an essay explaining why I'm not a traitor to the United States and the human race at large. Frankly, after all the **** people gave those of us who were against the war in Iraq before it happened (and have since been proven to have been correct) that portrayed us as traitors, I find the idea of that to be rather offensive. Howard, here it was both the situation, and the Cult of Personality. The Heroes of The Revolution! Folks here still have their posters of Marx, Castro, Gueverra, Ortega, etc...up. They are STILL perfect heroes to lots of people here. * *I don't deny that there are some people who have stuff that's supportive of those guys around, but I'd say they're a drop in the ocean. You know, if you wanted to, you could try to find me some articles that are pro-Mugabe from someone here in the US. * *By the way, did you just now tell me that it's "the Left" who are driven by "Cult of Personality?" Two words: Ronald Reagan. As for Reagan it's a mixed lagacy. I'm on the things were better during and after his Presidency than Carter's bandwagon. I'm not talking about legacies, Bill. I'm talking about people fawning over RR. They still do: if you've been paying attention to the GOP primaries, you'd think they were running to replace RR, not Bush. I have yet to see people on the right marching with posters of Somoza, or Baby Doc. I do see Gueverra. Two things: Firstly, right leaning people don't seem to be as big on advertising their affiliations to the same degree as those on the left (there are notable exceptions, of course: http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.html ). It's rare to see a big pro-war demonstration, isn't it? Secondly, it's a marketing issue. Is it easier to make a point about, say, right wing domination in South or Central America by making a shirt that talks about it, or one that has an iconic image of a guy associated with that cause? -- tanx, Howard Now it's raining pitchforks and women, But I've already got a pitchfork... remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article ,
Kurgan Gringioni wrote: It's definitely possible to make a profit in the music industry. The worldwide gross recepts for music sales and live shows is mid-eleven figures. Starting a garage band is a tough one though. Way too much competition. It's sorta like Cat 1s in the US fighting for their table scraps. As my friend @ one of the music stores that caters to gigging musicians says, "you gotta pay to play". Yeah, my point is that is very hard to make money as a band. You have to buy a ton of equipment, rig a place to practice, then spend hours doing it. It adds up fast. Clubs aren't that interested in paying all that much, but they need to make money too. Being in a band is a labor of love (or something). -- tanx, Howard Now it's raining pitchforks and women, But I've already got a pitchfork... remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 26, 9:35*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article , *Kurgan Gringioni wrote: It's definitely possible to make a profit in the music industry. The worldwide gross recepts for music sales and live shows is mid-eleven figures. Starting a garage band is a tough one though. Way too much competition. It's sorta like Cat 1s in the US fighting for their table scraps. As my friend @ one of the music stores that caters to gigging musicians says, "you gotta pay to play". * *Yeah, my point is that is very hard to make money as a band. You have to buy a ton of equipment, rig a place to practice, then spend hours doing it. It adds up fast. Clubs aren't that interested in paying all that much, but they need to make money too. Being in a band is a labor of love (or something). Dumbass - Any profession that is "fun" is going to have way too much competition, simply because too many people want to do it, so there's much more of a supply of labor than there is demand. Music, sports, acting, anything of those entertainment industries have way too many applicants. You've gotta be in the top tier (top 1%? hundreth of a percent?) to make a decent living. Contrast it to plumbing. You can be an average plumber and make a good living. BTW, another band name along those lines: Led Zeppelin. They named it that because everyone thought they'd fail. thanks, K. Gringioni. |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 27, 12:51 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jan 26, 9:35 pm, Howard Kveck wrote: In article , Kurgan Gringioni wrote: It's definitely possible to make a profit in the music industry. The worldwide gross recepts for music sales and live shows is mid-eleven figures. Starting a garage band is a tough one though. Way too much competition. It's sorta like Cat 1s in the US fighting for their table scraps. As my friend @ one of the music stores that caters to gigging musicians says, "you gotta pay to play". Yeah, my point is that is very hard to make money as a band. You have to buy a ton of equipment, rig a place to practice, then spend hours doing it. It adds up fast. Clubs aren't that interested in paying all that much, but they need to make money too. Being in a band is a labor of love (or something). Dumbass - Any profession that is "fun" is going to have way too much competition, simply because too many people want to do it, so there's much more of a supply of labor than there is demand. Music, sports, acting, anything of those entertainment industries have way too many applicants. You've gotta be in the top tier (top 1%? hundreth of a percent?) to make a decent living. Contrast it to plumbing. You can be an average plumber and make a good living. dumbass, where i live all the real work is done by immigrants and sometimes kids of immigrants. everyone else is a wannabe writer, musician, actor, artist etc. |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 25, 3:36 pm, Bret wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:09 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: On Jan 25, 2:49 pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 25, 3:34 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: On Jan 25, 1:30 pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 25, 1:26 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: On Jan 24, 10:41 pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 24, 10:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Bret" wrote in message ... I never mentioned my beliefs on this subject. How about the fire department? Are they evil too? Ahh yes, the old saw that if something bad is bad than anything else is equally bad. I didn't say anything was bad. You made an absolute statement that state funded altruism is evil. Tell me why the fire department doesn't fit that statement. Or are you not committed to the absolute truth of your statement? Imagine that. People are so altruistic, they must be coerced into being altruistic. If people were altruistic, they'd do those things without a state. There is no "kind and gentle" way to take people's property and basically threaten them with death if they insist on defending it. The state is wholly unnecessary to perform these altruistic acts if people are indeed altruistic and value these things. What it amounts to is a ruler class denoting value to all others. The word for that is tyranny. What the statist -- the petty tyrant -- cannot stand is the idea that not everyone agrees with him/her. It is basic obfuscation of simple language. You've been had. You have (intentionally?) confused/conflated means and ends. Tyranny is altruism Coercion is defense Destruction is creation Stealing is giving Violence is kindness "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." --- George Orwell, "1984" I hate to put words in your mouth, but I take from this and your many previous postings on the subject that you consider all taxation to be evil. A necessary evil? You never say what we should do instead. To put it in a sentence, if "we" must have government, then that government must be (and stay that way) chained by severe restraints on what it may do. This doctrinal position is sourced from certain facts of human nature. In principle, that was exactly the type of general (federal) government that was formed -- a "constrained via enumerated powers" entity. That written constitution has not been amended in a way that allows the general government to do the breadth of things it does today. No honest debater could say such a thing. Thus the current US government is not legitimate /on its own terms/. (Leaving aside the more general question if a given government is legitimate even if it did obey its own laws.) I'm a philosophical dumbass but the one thing I took away from the stupid humanities elective in engineering school is that philosophy is the study of questions that have no one perfect answer. You and Tom are so certain you have that answer, but you both sidestep the fire department question. If you are saying I believe there is "perfection" to be had in the rules of conduct of a given society (and duty-based requirements in an authoritarian societal structure), then you are indeed putting words in my mouth. I know of no such grand unifying social theory. I think you do not understand the weakness of your "fire department question." Do you believe or not that there is an absolute answer to the question of state funded altruism being evil? If so, why wouldn't the fire department be a valid example?- You think coincidence means identical. You confuse means with ends. The frame of your question is defective. Of course I would not ever say in a general sense that saving a dwelling from destruction by fire is wrong. This is another of those "well then, you must hate children" questions. A fire department is not a valid example of state funded altruism because the frame of my question is defective. Got it. We need to choose our guiding philosophies without reference to real world situations. Otherwise we'll be led astray by defective framing. For the second time today I'm reminded of Dilbert. As you speak of "real world philosophies," you think at the level of a cartoon. (You live Dilbert.) It reminds me of the Samual Johnson quote: "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." A state funded ______ is not prima facie altruistic or evil. Sanctioned actions are mere legality according to the authority's powers. The State has a legal duty to act. The phoney syllogism you imply goes a bit like this: Murder is bad. The State has a law against murder. Therefore, The State is good. The law is indeed coincident with common/prevalent values, at least at the superficial level. But the conclusion is not valid. The State's law is simple legality. Moreover, The State itself is not a requisite for punishment of, and retribution for, intrusions upon liberty. Individuals can perform altruistic acts. A State cannot do such a thing -- it seizes assets with the threat of (or actual) violence without individual value of altruism considered. Aside from actions performed in a /state of nature/, taking property by threat of violence is "evil." The means are evil. I don't know the context of the Rand quote, nor can I speak for Tom. If you had some imagination, you could probably guess. Typically, the "burn them at the stake such that their souls may be saved" character of altruism is the context regarding these kind of statements. For example: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who's Surprised? | [email protected] | Racing | 39 | October 22nd 07 05:38 PM |
I'm surprised... | MagillaGorilla | Racing | 3 | September 5th 06 03:50 AM |
Surprised it hasnt been said but... | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | February 20th 06 12:07 AM |
Surprised, not surprised | db. | Recumbent Biking | 0 | January 23rd 06 11:48 PM |
Surprised you people aren't talking about this | Lame Acer | Racing | 1 | August 20th 04 06:53 PM |