Wednesday, November 07, 2007


I like the honesty of the writers' strike. There's no talk of opposing oppression or improving work conditions.

They just keep their focus. This is about MONEY


At 7:32 AM, November 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Name a recent strike that has been about anything but money.

At 7:49 AM, November 07, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Read the caption. This is about how they stated their purpose.

The GM strike, oh, two months ago, was advertised by the union as being about universal health care and keeping jobs in America. All of that was obvious horseflop but their public information was dishonest. The Writers are just laying it out.

With a little luck and study, you will now be able to comment on the topic instead of some obvious proposition that hasn't really been debatable since the late 1920's.

TYFCB. Keep trying.

At 7:53 AM, November 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My point exactly, it's always about money.

At 8:42 AM, November 07, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Universal Topic. Now could we talk about the topic of this particular thread?


At 9:04 AM, November 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, admiring people for telling the truth, a characteristic often absent in union circles. Next.

At 9:55 AM, November 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

UMRblob wrote:

"That does not mean that, if the HRC campaign does something stupid, it will be free from blog analysis here."

Any thoughts on the recent missteps by your guy?

At 10:25 AM, November 07, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Very Cute Intro. I supposed I oughta give you the same respect you give me but I'll answer your question.

You already know how I feel about the driver's license thing. It was disappointing that she tap-danced around the question and then got it wrong anyhow.

As far as the campaign underperforming or malperforming, I adopt Jonathan Alter's position from this weeks Newsweek and NW.Com. Campaign's too lawyerly and too directed toward the General. As he says, it's still pretty good.

The other thing I think we all need to consider is that this may not, after all, become the Iraq War Election. If the economy trumps, her competition is not Obama but Edwards. She can probably stay where she is on every position stated and still beat him to the nomination.

Oh, one clear mistake....about 48 hours of staff putting out "These guys are picking on me because I'm a woman...." Very bad decision, but scotched fairly quickly. (One imagines WJC said "this is not only stupid but corrosive!")

In the meantime, Pat Robertson endorses Gay and Abortion Rights advocate Rudy. Interesting that he should take his time away from plotting the assassination of Hugo Chavez to do such a thing.


At 11:20 AM, November 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intro was a typo

At 12:13 PM, November 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you miss WJC on Monday, in defense of his wife against political critics, when he cited the "swift boat" television ads of the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned John Kerry's patriotism and the campaign commercials in 2002 that suggested Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia was soft on terrorism.

That didnt seem too helpful.

At 1:16 PM, November 07, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...


You say so, OK wif me.


At 1:22 PM, November 07, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...


No, I didn't miss it and I have two problems with it.

First, I think he's best when he stays presidential. His shelf life for stump advocacy is not over but it is not as effective for his wife as it is for some guy running for Congress in the pine timber of South Arkansas. This was not a good use of his skills.

Second, I think he's wrong on the Swift Boat/Clelland thing. There's a very good point to be made here on the press' obsession with the horse race and the overanalysis of the one of dozens of debates. Still, to liken it to attacking Max' patriotism dilutes what was done to Max.

So, at the risk of annoying my friend, I thought WJC should either have kept his powder dry or gone to like Charlie Rose for a deep analysis of the infirmities of campaign coverage.

That's probably more answer than you wanted but there it is.

At 5:26 PM, November 07, 2007, Blogger THE ORACLE... said...

You anonymous friend is a humorous case of irony. He calls us socialists, then condemns us for wanting money. Typical deluded right wing fool...

At 6:00 AM, November 08, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...


The word socialist does not appear in this thread, until now.

At 6:03 AM, November 08, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Guess what? You are a socialist. Wanting someone else's money that you haven't earned makes you just that.
Karl Marx says welcome home.

At 1:42 PM, November 08, 2007, Blogger TOOKIE said...

I want my leaf blower back before Ed Husar bans it .........

So please oracle bring my damn blower back !

( even though Jaun from Beardstown does a nicer job and for less with Gas being so much per gallon )

At 2:22 PM, November 08, 2007, Blogger THE ORACLE... said...

Hey stupid 6:03. Wanting money makes me a Capitalist. The say day you see me "redistributing" my wealth to envious chumps like yourself you can talk to me about socialism.

At 3:27 PM, November 08, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the oracle

Wanting money does not make you a capitalist. Look it up Einstein.

At 3:37 PM, November 08, 2007, Blogger TOOKIE said...

Did you notice where leaf blowers are banned they have tons of cheap illegals ?

Just a funny ironic moment

At 6:56 PM, November 08, 2007, Blogger THE ORACLE... said...

Umr: You need to help the anonymous idiot that doesn't think capitalists want money.

At 9:22 AM, November 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like you are on your own O-cialist.

At 10:25 AM, November 09, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

cap·i·tal·ist (kp-tl-st)
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.

At 10:27 AM, November 09, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...
so·cial·ist (ssh-lst)
1. An advocate of socialism.
2. often Socialist A member of a political party or group that advocates socialism.
1. Of, promoting, or practicing socialism.
2. Socialist Of, belonging to, or constituting a socialist party or political group.

At 10:28 AM, November 09, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...


1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles

2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers

3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need

At 10:31 AM, November 09, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

O. is neither.

Using "socialist" as some kind of seventh grade insult is not a particularly good way to advance discussion.

You'd have to show where he championed common ownership of stuff.

I don't think making an argument for any kind of national insurance program makes someone a "socialist".

OTOH, O is "sociable" but that's a different conversation.

At 1:29 PM, November 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...


So what is he then?

At 2:10 PM, November 09, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

democrat with a small d, more proletarian than bourgeois little bit of a protectionist and an obvious trade unionist.

Some folks just don't completely fit in little boxes, to the frustration of chronic labelers


At 2:12 PM, November 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure buddy.

Do you think HRC is closer to a socialist or a capitalist?

At 2:54 PM, November 09, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Uh, Rose Law Firm? Cattle Futures?

Can't get much more capitalist than that!

At 7:13 PM, November 09, 2007, Blogger THE ORACLE... said...

Umr: your description left out "Champion of TRUTH and WISDOM."
One day the blind right wing fools will listen to us. It's knowing that our words will change them and America for the better that we keep on keeping on...

At 5:46 AM, November 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You'll be hard pressed to come up with any examples from the last two decades. In fact, it is just the opposite. Remember this:

“There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed,” she said. “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Does she honestly believe that it is the governments job to create a social society. Does she really believe that it is the government who must 'ensure' that this happens.

Hello, she just has said word for word, she is going to limit growth, by pairing it with fairness. That means we can only grow at the pace of the lowest common denominator.

Or this:

"There is no great force for economic growth that free markets, BUT.." There should never be in a free societly, the word "but" following that statement. Especially when but is followed by "with rules". Government rules?

TRANSLATION: Free markets work best when we micromanage them to the Nth degree. We know that the rich will abuse the working class people if we don’t micromanage them into submission.

There’s no more destructive economic force than a liberal with a pro-regulation agenda and a micromanagement mindset. What isn’t fair about keeping taxes low on everyone? Why shouldn’t we assume that people will prosper if government stays out of their way?

This is just another facet of Hillary’s “it takes a village” agenda. That was just a gussied up term for nanny state, the goal of which was to indoctrinate children.

The minute that a Democrat starts talking about fairness, it’s time to hide your wallet. It’s that simple. Implicit in Hillary’s statements is her opinion on your ability to make wise decisions. I’m perfectly comfortable making my own decisions. I suspect that most people think that they can prosper if governmental interference is kept to a minimum. I further suspect that most people don’t think in terms of the gap between the rich and poor widening. I’m betting that most people focus solely on being prosperous.

At 6:54 AM, November 10, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

So I guess you object to the Sherman AntiTrust Act and the National Labor Relations Act.

Free Markets are an astonishing force for innovation, no question. But left to their own devices, the Carnegies, Mellons and Gateses behave in oppressive manners. Government regulation keeps free markets alive and generally fair to do their thing.

If you disagree with me, you're disgreeing with a whole buncha GOP presidents including Ike and Teddy R.

The village thing wasn't a bit about government. It was about community. Thou paintest with too broad a brush.


At 7:09 AM, November 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not arguing for no regulation, you paint with too broad a brush. Who said all these things? Hint: You already know it's HRC.

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

At 7:12 AM, November 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seriously, just one policy position that is more on the side of individual responsibility and capitalism than the other way. Can you list one?

At 7:13 AM, November 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you believe HRC will raise taxes?

At 7:15 AM, November 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watch this, maybe she will think you make too much profit at what you do.

At 7:49 AM, November 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Ya might want to reread the book. It Takes a Village is replete with designs for government "investment" in children.

This variety of social control was pioneered in the early years of this century by Britain's Fabian Socialists, who pursued the triumph of socialism through political conquest rather than communist-style violence.

Since coming to power in 1993, the Clinton vanguard has tirelessly urged the enrichment of AFDC, Head Start, and other federal welfare programs as a means of "investing in children." Such "investments" not only create an incentive for single parenthood, but also make the federal government the surrogate father. By subsidizing the mother, the state effectively controls the home.

At 7:37 AM, November 11, 2007, Blogger THE ORACLE... said...

This guy going to make you come over to the Ron Paul side Umr? I have to admit he is well versed in meaningless Republican drivel.

At 7:29 AM, November 12, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're done? That's pretty weak.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home