Control C, Control V!!!

[City Dad]

let's have a thread about

"Cut Copy & Paste"

Even if you know next to nothing about using a computer. this is the one simple task you should learn how to do.


http://www.use.com/images/uselogo_tran.gif NO http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYrSteU7ILEMzoC9bb47Ra9II_Y-XAbWfQOXmzcrPxiuc2TP4Uhttp://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-n85JqcXVGm1wv9cm2j3qZkvhPTtySU9s3M764H_hTHX-wm6n

cut and paste ONLY

I'll Start


Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.
(http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=525650664116080&set=a.282596201754862.87871.282596015088214&type=1)Mark Twain (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marktwain120156.html)

[Lady Quagga]

let's have a thread about

"Cut Copy & Paste"

Oh for pete's sake CityDad, don't encourage them.

And honestly, aren't the last 40 posts in General Discussion cut-and-paste? Go get your fill there, CD.

[DarkShadow]

Oh for pete's sake CityDad, don't encourage them.

Cmon, dudette! Imagine the fun that can be had:


The Deafness Before the Storm


It was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.


See? Anybody can play the Copy and Paste Game!

[City Dad]

Oh for pete's sake CityDad, don't encourage them.

And honestly, aren't the last 40 posts in General Discussion cut-and-paste? Go get your fill there, CD.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-KO2aakd4iNSpWklOVNc_qUvwJHTecq5NhfbMvXvxiE6whNaSnA

[City Dad]

Cmon, dudette! Imagine the fun that can be had:


The Deafness Before the Storm


It was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.


See? Anybody can play the Copy and Paste Game!

Homoerotic Overtones Enliven NRA Meeting

June 24, 1998 |
COEUR D'ALENE, ID—Repression was the order of the day as the National Rifle Association's North Idaho Chapter held its annual convention this weekend.
Enlarge Image (http://www.theonion.com/articles/homoerotic-overtones-enliven-nra-meeting,544/#enlarge)http://media.theonion.com/images/articles/article/544/onion_news1369_jpg_250x1000_q85.jpgNRA member James D'Alessandro admires a fellow member's piece, stirring potent feelings within himself.
More than 25,000 dedicated gun lovers from across Northern Idaho flocked to the Coeur d'Alene Convention Center for the two-day event, happily sublimating homosexual impulses amid a carefully maintained facade of platonic camaraderie.
Moscow, ID, resident Richard Hoflinger, 47, a longtime gun-rights activist, proudly exhibited the collection of antique rifles through which he has channeled his culturally unacceptable impulses. "Guns should be part of any upstanding Christian family," Hoflinger said, sticking a long, thick, oily pipe-cleaner 14 inches up an 1886 Remington.
In the next booth, another latent gay man, Duane Erlich of Sandpoint, moved his hand slowly up and down a well-polished 1948 Winchester. "Ain't she a beautiful baby?" Erlich said, displaying the kind of feminization/infantilization of firearms for which NRA members are renowned.
Erlich then demonstrated the proper loading procedure for his "baby," lovingly inserting a pair of bullets into the dark, snug-fitting tunnels before thrusting the gun's bolt smoothly into the action, cocking it firmly.
"This'll blow a man straight to heaven," he said.
The tone of the event was set by chapter president John Henry Unger, whose opening remarks cited the "wonderful variety of weaponry on display, from little snub-nosed pieces that fit snugly in your pocket to big, meaty shooters with barrels as thick as your arm."
Unger then fired his father's prize Colt Peacemaker revolver into the air, drawing raucous applause from the crowd, many of whose own fathers had suppressed latent physical attraction for their adolescent sons by channeling their forbidden feelings into totemistic firearms.
All over the convention floor, gun manufacturers proudly unveiled new technologies which will allow simmering homoerotic tensions to be expressed with greater nuance than ever before. At the Smith & Wesson booth, company spokesman Darrell Trace displayed a handgun made from a newly developed metal alloy whose "incredibly hard" nature, he explained, gives it no recoil after discharge, providing its user with "a far greater sense of control over his piece."
"It's a very comfortable gun, very soft in the hands," added Trace, noting that Smith & Wesson had designed the gun to appeal to "shooters tired of coming home from the firing range with sore, worn-out wrists."
But even as conventioneers reveled in a two-day orgy of firearm-to-phallus transference, a dark cloud hung over the event. The NRA has declined in power over the last decade, and its once-potent lobbyists have come out on the losing end of key legislative battles like the Brady Bill, causing many members to bring their lifelong subconscious fears of castration to the fore.
"If the gun-control lobby wants my rod, they'll have to yank it from my dead body," said Pocatello-area bar-owner Joseph Greer, cradling a tell-tale snub-nosed revolver.
"Those guys out there in Washington are tryin' to take our guns away, but we ain't gonna let 'em," Greer continued, adding classic paternal displacement to the already-rich psychosexual tapestry. "No siree, Bob."http://www.theonion.com/static/onion/img/icons/terminator.gif

[Lady Quagga]

Oh jeez......FINE, CD.

Here is my contribution:


Romney campaign caught plagiarizing Obama’s copy

Is the Romney campaign so inept at copywriting that they’re forced to steal words from Obama?

Mitt Romney’s campaign was forced to change 3 blocks of copy on its donations website after sharp-eyed readers spotted word-for-word similarities with the Obama campaign site.

“This was a junior staff confusion that has been updated and resolved,” Romney digital director Zac Moffat told Buzzfeed, which reported the similarities.

Both campaigns are leaning on online marketing to reel in cash, and are using carefully tested emails and website messages to woo donors.

The similarities between Obama’s “Quick Donate” page and Romney’s “Victory Wallet” page were blatant, as you can see below.

Obama: “When you’re logged in to your BarackObama.com account with a saved credit card, just click the Quick Donate button. We’ll charge your saved credit card and you’re done in seconds.”

Romney: “When you’re logged in to your MyMitt account with a saved credit card, just click the Contribute button. We’ll charge your saved credit card and you’re done in seconds.”

Romney revised: “Once you’ve registered for Victory Wallet, whenever you’re logged in to your MyMitt account online, just click the Contribute button and your saved credit card will be charged in seconds.”

* * * *

Obama: “When you save your credit card information to your account, you’ll receive special Quick Donate links in emails from the campaign. Clicking this link processes your donation and charges your saved credit card instantly if you’re logged in. If not, just enter your password. Either way, you’re done in seconds!”

Romney: “When you save your credit card information to your account, you’ll receive special Victory Wallet links in emails from the campaign. Clicking this link processes your donation and charges your saved credit card instantly if you’re logged in. If not, just enter your password. Either way, you’re done in seconds!”

Romney revised: “Once registered for Victory Wallet, you’ll receive special emails from Romney-Ryan. Just click on the link within each email to make a contribution. And if you’re logged in to your account, your securely saved credit card will be charged instantly. If you’re not logged in, just enter your password and you’ll be done in seconds.”

* * * *

Obama: “After you’ve saved your credit card and phone number in your BarackObama.com account, you can use your cell phone to make a donation. All you need to do is text the amount you want to give. If you text us “10″, we’ll charge your saved credit card $10. It’s never been easier to donate.”

Romney: “After you’ve saved your credit card and phone number in your MyMitt account, you can use your cell phone to make a donation. All you need to do is text the amount you want to give. If you text us “10″, we’ll charge your saved credit card $10. It’s never been easier to donate.”

Romney revised: “Once you’ve saved your credit card information and phone number securely to your MyMitt account, you can use your mobile phone to make donations through Victory Wallet. Just text the amount you want to donate — i.e., “10” for $10 — and in seconds, you’re done.”

* * * *

I can think of only two innocent explanations for how this might have happened. It’s possible (though unlikely) that both candidates were using the same off-the-shelf donations software and made only minor edits to the suggested copy. Another distant possibility is that they both copied it from some other site which was identified somewhere as having successful conversion copy.

The more likelihood explanation—that a Romney staffer actually copied what was already on Obama’s site—points to a slapdash copy-and-paste job.

Evidence pointing in this direction? Obama’s quick donations page was apparently live a week before Romney’s.

* * * *

The copy similarities were spotted by Matt Ortega on Twitter and quickly noted by Buzzfeed, Salon, The Washington Post and others.

— By Daryl Lang. Filed under Copywriting, News & Journalism, Politics

[City Dad]

Oh jeez......FINE, CD.

Romney campaign caught plagiarizing Obama’s copy

Is the Romney campaign so inept at copywriting that they’re forced to steal words from Obama?

Mitt Romney’s campaign was forced to change 3 blocks of copy on its donations website after sharp-eyed readers spotted word-for-word similarities with the Obama campaign site.

“This was a junior staff confusion that has been updated and resolved,” Romney digital director Zac Moffat told Buzzfeed, which reported the similarities.

Both campaigns are leaning on online marketing to reel in cash, and are using carefully tested emails and website messages to woo donors.

The similarities between Obama’s “Quick Donate” page and Romney’s “Victory Wallet” page were blatant, as you can see below.

Obama: “When you’re logged in to your BarackObama.com account with a saved credit card, just click the Quick Donate button. We’ll charge your saved credit card and you’re done in seconds.”

Romney: “When you’re logged in to your MyMitt account with a saved credit card, just click the Contribute button. We’ll charge your saved credit card and you’re done in seconds.”

Romney revised: “Once you’ve registered for Victory Wallet, whenever you’re logged in to your MyMitt account online, just click the Contribute button and your saved credit card will be charged in seconds.”

* * * *

Obama: “When you save your credit card information to your account, you’ll receive special Quick Donate links in emails from the campaign. Clicking this link processes your donation and charges your saved credit card instantly if you’re logged in. If not, just enter your password. Either way, you’re done in seconds!”

Romney: “When you save your credit card information to your account, you’ll receive special Victory Wallet links in emails from the campaign. Clicking this link processes your donation and charges your saved credit card instantly if you’re logged in. If not, just enter your password. Either way, you’re done in seconds!”

Romney revised: “Once registered for Victory Wallet, you’ll receive special emails from Romney-Ryan. Just click on the link within each email to make a contribution. And if you’re logged in to your account, your securely saved credit card will be charged instantly. If you’re not logged in, just enter your password and you’ll be done in seconds.”

* * * *

Obama: “After you’ve saved your credit card and phone number in your BarackObama.com account, you can use your cell phone to make a donation. All you need to do is text the amount you want to give. If you text us “10″, we’ll charge your saved credit card $10. It’s never been easier to donate.”

Romney: “After you’ve saved your credit card and phone number in your MyMitt account, you can use your cell phone to make a donation. All you need to do is text the amount you want to give. If you text us “10″, we’ll charge your saved credit card $10. It’s never been easier to donate.”

Romney revised: “Once you’ve saved your credit card information and phone number securely to your MyMitt account, you can use your mobile phone to make donations through Victory Wallet. Just text the amount you want to donate — i.e., “10” for $10 — and in seconds, you’re done.”

* * * *

I can think of only two innocent explanations for how this might have happened. It’s possible (though unlikely) that both candidates were using the same off-the-shelf donations software and made only minor edits to the suggested copy. Another distant possibility is that they both copied it from some other site which was identified somewhere as having successful conversion copy.

The more likelihood explanation—that a Romney staffer actually copied what was already on Obama’s site—points to a slapdash copy-and-paste job.

Evidence pointing in this direction? Obama’s quick donations page was apparently live a week before Romney’s.

* * * *

The copy similarities were spotted by Matt Ortega on Twitter and quickly noted by Buzzfeed, Salon, The Washington Post and others.

— By Daryl Lang. Filed under Copywriting, News & Journalism, Politics

Here is my contribution:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTztdUrg2urDWam5DJy1Zs5xO-VLhLy2ArcmGxJ-Q6IOufVuETKzA

[fishinarteest]

I copied and pasted this post from microsoft word. Is that good enough?

[smokehound]

Y'all need to go fishing. =\

[City Dad]

I copied and pasted this post from microsoft word. Is that good enough?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRsxfEB1IrCryKTGYSIBPRhIeBeiAXg-943LUgfFIZpmoXmBziSxg
http://blog.business-model-innovation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/copy-and-paste.jpeg 37286 3728837289

[City Dad]

Y'all need to go fishing. =\
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Users/Help/screenshots/2010/12/27/1293462627440/Model-of-a-Neanderthal-ma-007.jpg

[DarkShadow]

http://imageshack.us/a/img27/6893/nshw4.pnghttp://imageshack.us/a/img708/1786/windows7u.jpghttp://imageshack.us/a/img32/61/percentsign.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge03Sys8SdA

The spectacular implosion of Mitt Romney means a no-choice US election
By Iain Martin US politics

Several months ago I wrote a column for The Daily Telegraph saying that, on balance, it was preferable for Mitt Romney to win the looming US Presidential election. Since it was written, a video and certain statements by Mr Romney have come to light which suggest that my original argument suffered from severe design flaws. I am now issuing a product recall.
In the secret recording that has just emerged Romney was caught telling Republican donors he has no interest in 47 per cent of the US electorate, as they are all dependent on the state, expect the government to provide and see themselves as victims. This is one of the all time great election screw ups. A candidate stupid enough to say such a thing in an election year, or in any year, should be asking himself if politics is really the game for him. It will be astonishing if the release of this tape doesn't signal the implosion of his campaign, sealing victory for Obama.

There will be those who say: Romney is right, 46 per cent of Americans pay no income tax. But it isn't that simple. Some of those who pay no income tax, as the Democrats are eagerly pointing out, will be elderly Republicans. Or there are people who now pay no income tax now, but who did in the past or who aspire to in the future when they can get a job. Is Romney calling all such voters subsidy junkies? Also, most Americans pay sales taxes, so many contribute in other ways.

But what is worst about this episode is that Romney chooses to take such a mean, cynical, reductive, depressing view of so many of his countrymen. It is impossible to imagine Ronald Reagan saying, or thinking, that 47 per cent of Americans should be written off. He would have wanted to try and persuade those overly reliant on the state that they could be liberated, and the lives of their families improved, if they voted for him. His creed was essentially positive and aspirational.

The tragedy is that America and the Western world needed this year's election to be a proper contest. Obama has been a deep disappointment as President and the country's finances are in a mess. Britain and the world need a strong American recovery, but Obama seems to have no idea how to help create the climate in which it might happen. In contrast, Mr Romney does have an understanding of business growth and free-markets, although he was far from being the perfect candidate.

Now, with Romney having ruined himself, it becomes a no-choice election. This is quite extraordinary when one considers the tumultuous nature of events since the financial crisis and the need for solutions to be implemented which go beyond the centrist corporatism which dominates the landscape.

The rise of the Tea Party movement on the right and the Occupy movement on the left were presented as being polar opposite developments. But although they advocated different solutions, they were both taking on big, monopolistic interests: big government, in the Tea Party's case, and big business and finance in the case of Occupy.

Big business and big government are often in bed together, whether it be in the bank bailouts or lobbying for tax breaks which cement advantage.

That is one of the main strands of thinking in a brilliant and important new book by the Italian born American economist Luigi Zingales. In A Capitalism For The People (recapturing the lost genius of American prosperity), he suggests that the language of markets has been stolen and subverted.

Zingales (who was in London last night at the Centre for Policy Studies) has produced a devastating deconstruction of crony capitalism. He issues a rallying cry for open markets. What is needed is proper competition, to serve the consumer, and a dramatic simplification of the tax system to remove the need for big business to spend so much time worrying about trying to influence the government.

In part this echoes the cry of the American progressives from the tail-end of the 19th century and early 20th century, who took on giant monopoly interests such as the Standard Oil Trust (which was eventually broken up). Other targets included J.P. Morgan's rail interests.

In the right hands, an updated agenda of this kind could have been immensely powerful in the current American election, making the case that business and government should serve the interests of the many rather than it being, as it so often is now, the other way round.

President Teddy Roosevelt, the great trust-busting opponent of monopoly and progressive hero of the opening years of the 20th century, would have been the ideal candidate to take such a platform forward. But unfortunately he died in 1919. Leaving the Republicans with Mitt Romney.

[City Dad]

http://imageshack.us/a/img27/6893/nshw4.pnghttp://imageshack.us/a/img708/1786/windows7u.jpghttp://imageshack.us/a/img32/61/percentsign.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge03Sys8SdA

The spectacular implosion of Mitt Romney means a no-choice US election
By Iain Martin US politics

Several months ago I wrote a column for The Daily Telegraph saying that, on balance, it was preferable for Mitt Romney to win the looming US Presidential election. Since it was written, a video and certain statements by Mr Romney have come to light which suggest that my original argument suffered from severe design flaws. I am now issuing a product recall.
In the secret recording that has just emerged Romney was caught telling Republican donors he has no interest in 47 per cent of the US electorate, as they are all dependent on the state, expect the government to provide and see themselves as victims. This is one of the all time great election screw ups. A candidate stupid enough to say such a thing in an election year, or in any year, should be asking himself if politics is really the game for him. It will be astonishing if the release of this tape doesn't signal the implosion of his campaign, sealing victory for Obama.

There will be those who say: Romney is right, 46 per cent of Americans pay no income tax. But it isn't that simple. Some of those who pay no income tax, as the Democrats are eagerly pointing out, will be elderly Republicans. Or there are people who now pay no income tax now, but who did in the past or who aspire to in the future when they can get a job. Is Romney calling all such voters subsidy junkies? Also, most Americans pay sales taxes, so many contribute in other ways.

But what is worst about this episode is that Romney chooses to take such a mean, cynical, reductive, depressing view of so many of his countrymen. It is impossible to imagine Ronald Reagan saying, or thinking, that 47 per cent of Americans should be written off. He would have wanted to try and persuade those overly reliant on the state that they could be liberated, and the lives of their families improved, if they voted for him. His creed was essentially positive and aspirational.

The tragedy is that America and the Western world needed this year's election to be a proper contest. Obama has been a deep disappointment as President and the country's finances are in a mess. Britain and the world need a strong American recovery, but Obama seems to have no idea how to help create the climate in which it might happen. In contrast, Mr Romney does have an understanding of business growth and free-markets, although he was far from being the perfect candidate.

Now, with Romney having ruined himself, it becomes a no-choice election. This is quite extraordinary when one considers the tumultuous nature of events since the financial crisis and the need for solutions to be implemented which go beyond the centrist corporatism which dominates the landscape.

The rise of the Tea Party movement on the right and the Occupy movement on the left were presented as being polar opposite developments. But although they advocated different solutions, they were both taking on big, monopolistic interests: big government, in the Tea Party's case, and big business and finance in the case of Occupy.

Big business and big government are often in bed together, whether it be in the bank bailouts or lobbying for tax breaks which cement advantage.

That is one of the main strands of thinking in a brilliant and important new book by the Italian born American economist Luigi Zingales. In A Capitalism For The People (recapturing the lost genius of American prosperity), he suggests that the language of markets has been stolen and subverted.

Zingales (who was in London last night at the Centre for Policy Studies) has produced a devastating deconstruction of crony capitalism. He issues a rallying cry for open markets. What is needed is proper competition, to serve the consumer, and a dramatic simplification of the tax system to remove the need for big business to spend so much time worrying about trying to influence the government.

In part this echoes the cry of the American progressives from the tail-end of the 19th century and early 20th century, who took on giant monopoly interests such as the Standard Oil Trust (which was eventually broken up). Other targets included J.P. Morgan's rail interests.

In the right hands, an updated agenda of this kind could have been immensely powerful in the current American election, making the case that business and government should serve the interests of the many rather than it being, as it so often is now, the other way round.

President Teddy Roosevelt, the great trust-busting opponent of monopoly and progressive hero of the opening years of the 20th century, would have been the ideal candidate to take such a platform forward. But unfortunately he died in 1919. Leaving the Republicans with Mitt Romney.

“I hope you're proud of yourself for the times you've said "yes," when all it meant was extra work for you and was seemingly helpful only to someone else.”
― Fred Rogers (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/32106.Fred_Rogers), The World According to Mister Rogers: Important Things to Remember (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/713675)

[fishinarteest]

Y'all need to go fishing. =\

im counting the days that i can go again, really I am.

[etucker1959]

Y'all need to go fishing. =\
Or something else!!!!!

[City Dad]

Or something else!!!!!

http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/pink-question-mark.jpg
http://www.onlyinevansville.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/redneck2009.jpghttp://www.southdakotabartenderlicense.com/web/site_170_files/images/1275917330_questionMarkIcon.jpg
http://friendlycountryforum.com/aa/2011/redneck-ride.jpghttp://www.southdakotabartenderlicense.com/web/site_170_files/images/1275917330_questionMarkIcon.jpg
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxIg97UGvJ2FZlIv--MExmPpegF3-5qjDE1opoNIdP0D8ncP8qhttp://www.southdakotabartenderlicense.com/web/site_170_files/images/1275917330_questionMarkIcon.jpg

[Lady Quagga]

This is quite extraordinary when one considers the tumultuous nature of events since the financial crisis and the need for solutions to be implemented which go beyond the centrist corporatism which dominates the landscape.

The rise of the Tea Party movement on the right and the Occupy movement on the left were presented as being polar opposite developments. But although they advocated different solutions, they were both taking on big, monopolistic interests: big government, in the Tea Party's case, and big business and finance in the case of Occupy.

Big business and big government are often in bed together, whether it be in the bank bailouts or lobbying for tax breaks which cement advantage.


http://blog.lib.umn.edu/ramb0005/simulacrum/jdwilliams.jpg

"This game is rigged, man."

[etucker1959]

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/ramb0005/simulacrum/jdwilliams.jpg

"This game is rigged, man."

That is a very nice observation. It's nice to have some new blood in the discussion's at hand.

[Lady Quagga]

That is a very nice observation. It's nice to have some new blood in the discussion's at hand.

Everything you want to know about free-market capitalism, you can learn watching The Wire.

[FELIPE]

37290 37291 37292.
37293

[fishinarteest]

37294 37295

[FELIPE]

37296 37297!!!!

[DockRat]

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/SkeezixOtoole/Crosse-eyedBikini.jpg