You're right. That would have been a great response. But he didn't do that, did he? He did exactly what Henning said he did -- knee jerk rejection of anything Obama does or did, without using critical thinking or judgment.

And Cain didn't answer the reporter's follow up question -- there wasn't anybody in charge of the opposition. That is known. So what would you have done then, different than Obama?

As someone who has hung around business people some, I hear "business speak" -- what do managers do in business? They gather information and make decisions. Good managers gather good information. Herman Cain was talking boiler plate biz talk, with attempts at sounding In Charge and Manly. POTUS is not a fricking fracking business manager. He/she has a much bigger job than that.

Cain hasn't a clue. And he doesn't even know he doesn't have a clue.

>> ^My_design:

I don't see it that way at all. He is merely stating that he doesn't feel Obama spent enough time assessing Qaddafi's opposition. However he also states that he is not privy to what assessment Obama may have done, if any. Especially since Obama is getting the praise for it all when it was supposed to be a United Nations operation. But that is a whole different thread...
I think it's a pretty fair answer in all. You ask a question about how someone may do something differently, knowing full well there is no way they could have all the information about it. He's not in the government...yet.
The response I would have liked to have seen would have been:
"How the hell can I question what the President did or didn't do? I don't have top secret clearance yet. But I would have hoped that he spent plenty of time researching and understanding Qaddafi's opposition so we don't wind up with some puppet government like all the other failed puppet governments we've put in place before. Only time will tell if the United Nations and Obama screwed the pooch on this or not."

At least he knew where Libya is and who was in charge. Better than some of the politicians we've had in the past. Looking your way there Bushy boy...
>> ^HenningKO:
"Even tho I know nothing of the situation now or how it was assessed by Obama at the time and I approve of the results, I would have done a better job."
Pure obstructionist stream of consciousness.

Not true. Venture capital is not necessary for businesses to exist. How do I know? Many businesses began without investments of the size that require venture capitalists. Parents give their children money to start businesses, or people find work to do that others want done and save and re-invest. Before capitalism, just about every business started without capital investment.

And yes I do believe that. I'm not at all in favour of redistribution of wealth. I'm in favour of fair distribution of wealth. To me, that means people earning whatever they can within the law, and not using their wealth to create legal conditions that favour their making money at the expense of those without as much money. Such a system keeps the rich rich, and makes it nearly impossible for the lower and middle classes to become rich. In fact, it erodes the middle class because doing more work than before only keeps you level, not going higher. It used to be that a household only needed one breadwinner. You'd think with all our new time-saving technology we'd need even less labour, but no, it now takes two breadwinners.>> ^quantumushroom:

Without investors (and capital) laborers have nothing to build or create. Without biz leaders, laborers build products no one wants and go out of business.
And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.
You don't really believe this.

>> ^messenger:
You mean that all profits should go to the labourers (literally, the productive), and that those who have lived off the riches created by labour merely by being investors should die?
That's a startling new stance for you QM, and I'm starting to warm to your philosophy, but I don't think lazy rich should die. And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.>> ^quantumushroom:
Death to parasites, wealth to the productive who created it.

Without investors (and capital) laborers have nothing to build or create. Without biz leaders, laborers build products no one wants and go out of business.

And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.

You don't really believe this.


>> ^messenger:

You mean that all profits should go to the labourers (literally, the productive), and that those who have lived off the riches created by labour merely by being investors should die?
That's a startling new stance for you QM, and I'm starting to warm to your philosophy, but I don't think lazy rich should die. And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.>> ^quantumushroom:
Death to parasites, wealth to the productive who created it.

thanks!

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
*promote

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh, I don't know. He usually is so fakey show biz. I felt like I actually got to see HIM for a change.
He is ambitious, yes, and willing to do what he needs to do to feed that monster. But his mother loves him. He isn't just that.
>> ^shuac:
Cheaply-bought platitudes, BB. Don't fall for it. Jay's still a dickhead.



You want to see him, you should watch a Car show with him in it. Thats jay. Jay the car guy.

Oh, I don't know. He usually is so fakey show biz. I felt like I actually got to see HIM for a change.

He is ambitious, yes, and willing to do what he needs to do to feed that monster. But his mother loves him. He isn't just that.

>> ^shuac:

Cheaply-bought platitudes, BB. Don't fall for it. Jay's still a dickhead.

Thanks! I also like the second half, but musically the lo-fi vocals of the first get to me more

In reply to this comment by laura:
*promote!
...the second half is equally as awesome, btw...in a completely different vibe nonetheless. :

For the uninformed, I present:

1) The Breaks - Kurtis Blow
2) The Message - Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five
3) Express Yourself - NWA
4) Bring Tha Noise - Public Enemy
5) It Takes Two - Rob Bass & DJ Easy Rock
6) Push It - Salt N Pepa
7) Ice Ice Baby - Vanilla Ice
8 ) The Choice Is Yours - Black Sheep
9) Insane in the Brain - Cypress Hill
10) Let Me Clear My Throat - DJ Kool
11) Up In Here - DMX
12) It's Getting Hot in Here - Nelly
13) Go Shorty - 50 Cent
14) Hey Ya - Outkast
15) Crap That Made Me Stop Listening to Hip Hop
16) " "
17) " "
18) " "
19) Just A Friend - Biz Markie
20) The Breaks - Kurtis Blow

Since I'm a teacher and I use FB as an outlet for my political views shared with family and friends I keep the privacy settings up to max (to keep students out of my biz).

If I can make an individual post public im not sure how, if not, just dont put em in the pot for the prize, no biggie. At least my friends can see it though :-D

The brilliance of the US government/big bizness is that they realize that humans are still psychologically more primal than cognitive. And they use that fact to control the workforce. Politics is theater designed to create emotional reactions, not thought.

Sarah Palin might be a bad candidate, but she's a media darling, and a wonderful distraction to the simple fact that you're going to get fucked in the ass no matter who's in office.

They tried skinny bitch burgers first but it didn't bring in the biz.

of course he's right, and he makes sense, and Gervais is a two-bit c*nt. just look at his half-educated show-biz ass, looking so smug and superior. This guy has no right calling other people morons. Yeah, and making an entire show about ridiculing someone who hasn't made a career out of his averagely paced wit is morally grotesque.

This biz is owned by one of the Glass Tiger members:
http://www.skyshedpod.com/

and the answer is: because i work in the field, somewhere in the middle of alt treatment and mainstream treatment. i'm quite mainstream in many parts of the world, alt in others. it's really pretty stupid.
i work mostly with fairly severe spinal issues. i'm particularly fond of somatic theory, from a structural perspective, and i practice and teach manual therapy utilizing a neurological approach focusing on rotational distortion. On the whole, what is often dismissed as alternative in treatment turns out to be the most innovative, that pushes mainstream treatments into new and more effective territory. "Touching" a person was pretty out of style in the accepted medical practice until late, -- PT's are actually starting to get a clue.

i'm quite aware of the fluff that is out there, the weird, the barbaric, the hippy dippy, the downright stupid. both the alt side of things, as you might define it, and the mainstream side of things, often fall into these categories. There are however, powerful lobbies that make one form of treatment more acceptable than others.... Big pharma is insanely powerful, and insanely profitable... we're drugging our kids for fucks sake.
and lets put it this way, the profit margin is very small in what i do. it's just too time consuming and labor intensive.

And while the business side of things has thoroughly poisoned mainstream medicine, there tends to be more, but not necessarily all, of "alt" providers, who purposely shy away from it. we'd all be better off in a socialist medicine system that was not for profit. In every socialist system, some form of what i do is commonplace, mainstream, accepted science...goddamn common sense.
anyhoo..., would you like some figures on iatrogenic death?

I worked in an acupuncture clinic for a bit, mostly treating cancer and HIV. The acupuncture was most effective for treating nausea, pain, and other symptoms that came with the chemo.
In china it is combined with herbs to treat the cancer. I don't know the success rates. i know they take their acupuncture very seriously, and very scientifically... and western docs are starting to wake up to it.
For chronic pain issues (back, neck, pain) etc...i probably bat somewhere in 80-90%. That destroys mainstream. I'm an anomaly, but i shouldn't be. more talented people should be in this field. and being able to spot and work with spinal issues at young ages would save billions of dollars in lost labor, workers comp, SSI, medical expenses, drugs...a shit ton of pain and suffering.

foresight. preventative medicine.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm arguing because you seem to think "alternative medicine" is superior to medicine. What point are you trying to make about chemotherapy, exactly? In many cases it's a very effective treatment. Do you know what the success rate of, say, acupuncture is for treating cancer? How about therapeutic touch? Or chakra realignment? Or ground turtle shell? Or homeopathy? Or vitamin megadosing? Or evening primrose oil supplements? Or magnetic wristbands? Nil. Nothing. No demonstrable effect. And there's a reason for that. There is no alternative to medicine. There's medicine, and there's "crap that doesn't work".
You're right that the major difference between scientific medicine and "alternative medicine" is the degree that it is run purely as profit generating business. Except that you have it completely the wrong way round. "Alternative medicine" has no chance of curing you, and costs money. Medicine has a chance of curing you, using products and medicines backed up by science, and costs money. I know which I'd rather go for. "Western medicine" (as you call it, though you should note that the practice of science-based medicine isn't limited to the Western world, thank goodness) is interested in cures because the effective interventions are the ones that get used, thereby generating income. It's only in the field of "alternative medicine" that "crap that doesn't work" can be sold for a profit without anyone ever questioning it. If a medical intervention or treatment doesn't work, the scientific method roots it out eventually, but tellingly there is no such self-regulatory framework in place when it comes to "alternative medicine", and the practitioners don't care.
Put it this way: if it were true that science-based medicine didn't "know their ass from a hole in the ground" when it comes to chronic pain then what the hell would make you think that the pseudoscientific bullshitfest that is "alternative medicine" would stand a chance at solving the problem?
>> ^criticalthud:
alright there. not really getting the gist of the statement, are you?
you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
do you know what the success rate of chemo is for curing cancer? pretty much the same as not having it
back surgery? the same
there's plenty of crap out there, and no "medicine" is immune from it. the one major difference between what is labeled as alt and what isn't is the degree that it is run purely as profit generating business. Do you get it? western medicine isn't necessarily interested in cures. doctors might be, but the biz side of it ain't. it's quick fix, in and out, write the latest scrip that has been peddled to you by big pharma, and do the treatments and tests that you are allowed to do by the insurance company.
western medicine doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to chronic pain, because treating something that typically has it's roots in the structure of the body isn't profitable.