Why are distance runners such bleeding hearts?

Conscience may not be the regulator that keeps corporations in check but the legal system certainly would. Wrongful death suits and criminal prosecutions would put companies out-of-business in a hurry.

I really don't get the whole lefty argument against corporations anyway. I can get behind some very real concerns about power and worker rights but the notion that pharmaceutical firms would kill people for sport just because they can is laughable.

"Gee Bob, how can we gain more market share in the over-the-counter pain killer category?"

"That's easy J.W., we'll kill the consumer with poison!"

"Brilliant! That would ease their pain - HAHAHAHA"

If you truly believe what you are spouting, then you must get perverse pleasure from eating at restaurants with bad food, shopping at stores where the staff treats you like dirt, and you keep buying unreliable cars simplay because you are too dumb or lazy to seek better.

My prediction: America will become a truly free capitalist society in 10-20 years time. Why? Because the Democratic Party will join the Whigs and the Bullmoose parties as historical footnotes or they will morph into a socialist organization with very marginal support amongst the electorate. Get ready for the new paradigm in the two party system: The uber capitalist and libertarian GOP vs. the Theocratic Party.

Bleeding hearts? I don't know.

My high school class of 2003 track team (distance runners only and 400 hurdlers only--cause they were forced to run the 800), graduated from a middle class town--a red town near a big blue city in a big blue state.

2 distance runners voted for Bush absolutely (one campaigned).

1 distance runner was undecided for a very long time (although generally conservative in views).

2 distance runners voted for Kerry absolutely.

2 distance runners are very moderate and I don't know what they did.

1 distance runner was Canadian, so he didn't count, but probably would have voted for Kerry.

I am included in this list and I'm not the Canadian.

Sounds like a pretty decent mix of political opinions. I can't speak about social or economic policy (because as seventeen year olds we didn't discuss it that much), but I do know what people were doing with their votes.

"Less entitlement, strong military and a balanced budget. Sounds like what America is supposed to be to me."

Perhaps in your neo-con eyes, but the founding fathers believed in keeping a weak standing army. A large standing army is an incredible tool of tyranny.

jsquire wrote:

let's see here... wrote:

The market regulates itself far better than the government regulates it.

Which is why I'm holding onto my Macintosh computer and my BetaMax video player. I know the market forces will allow these superior products to dominate the marketplace once the gov't gets their filthy hands off it.

You don't seem to understand marketplace.

These products died because its inventors thought they could corner the market by refusing to share their particular technology. The refusal to make their technology a defacto standard resulted in the demise of the product (while the IBM compatible took over in the case of the computer). Note the word compatible.

The very same thing happened to Sony's minidisk.

Also, why does the christian right find it appropriate to expand government in order to regulate private matters (see also FCC)while pulling the smaller government card when it means that they are cutting community service and consumer protection programs? Does this seem hypocritical?

Countries Ranked by Population: 2005

--------------------------------------------------------

Rank Country Population

--------------------------------------------------------

1 China 1,306,313,812

2 India 1,080,264,388

3 United States 295,734,134

4 Indonesia 241,973,879

5 Brazil 186,112,794

6 Pakistan 162,419,946

7 Bangladesh 144,319,628

8 Russia 143,420,309

9 Nigeria 128,765,768

10 Japan 127,417,244

--------------------------------------------------------

Note: Data updated 4-26-2005 (Release notes).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base.

e- Ok China and India have a lot of people - but I wouldn't say "we lack the population to be a superpower." There's an article in Jane's which says that the US military budget will be greater than "the rest of the world combined" within the next 12 months. Do we need a military that large?

What would our country look like if we "let cities and states take care of themselves" ? I tell ya what - go ahead. I have a sneaking suspicion that the red states will start to remember why they voted democrat back under roosevelt. Under the current system "Only five blue states were net recipients of federal subsidies. Only two red states were net payers of federal taxes. "

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html

Your other point was to get rid of federal programs that protect and regulate our economy and protect us. Yes, eventually people will stop buying product A if it is killing people - but why let consumers be guinea pigs? Yes - most large and respectable companies will properly test their drugs first - but what about the ones who don't?

No you didn't mention the pharmaceutical industry, I just brought up a common issue which could easily be inferred from your smaller government drivel. Provide subsidies to the big business at the expense of the consumer must be your mantra.

thought police wrote:

[quote]No, I do care about it. So much so in fact, that I own shares of stock in many of the companies you describe. The share price goes up due to government help, and I make money. Sounds good to me.

What? I thought for conservatives, "It's about values." Do you really mean that being a bleading-heart for the rich is OK but being a bleading-heart for the poor isn't? In actual fact, I've made a lot of money for myself and for investors (I operate a Hedge Fund) by investing in homebuilders (yes, I still own them), which are directly aided by the government through the home mortgage deduction and government support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--but I also don't have a problem with government support for the working poor.

You can argue all this motherhood crap, but for me, a quantitive analyst, the numbers for the conservative side simply don't add up. That's why I used to be a conservative. If you go back to 1/20/1970 and look at the rate if return for the Standard and Poors 500 (which is a pretty good proxy for corporate profits in the US), these are the numbers for each Presidential term:

President Start Date End Date S&P 500 ROR

Nixon 1 1/20/70 1/20/73 7.46%

Nixon/Ford 1/20/73 1/20/77 -4.08%

Carter 1 1/20/77 1/20/81 5.05%

Reagan 1 1/20/81 1/20/85 5.34%

Reagan 2 1/20/85 1/20/89 8.82%

Bush 1 1/20/89 1/20/93 7.56%

Clinton 1 1/20/93 1/20/97 9.58%

Clinton 2 1/20/97 1/20/01 9.19%

George W 1 1/20/01 1/20/05 -3.76%

The aggregate ROR for democrats is 7.92%, and for republicans 3.41%. The 10-year gain from $1000 invested with democrats in control of the White House is $1143.33, and for republicans it is $399.02.

The above takes into account everything, including inflation, tax rates, military expenses, and the like, that allow businesses to make profits, invest those profits, hire workers, reward investors, and generally make the nation better off. Amd it's not just any one president; Even with George W or Nixon removed, republicans still suck.

Someone who freely casts a vote that will make him/her less well off is, frankly, STUPID.

thought police wrote:

Most runners are:

1. Cheap

2. Poor

.

Those 2 almost always go together. If you are cheap you will end up poor. Because others will make you pay for everything. If you are generous then you will always have money because others will feel that they owe you something.

You are right, I did get a little heated with that post. And I do mostly agree with the "you damn conservatives" part, they do need to quit bitching about liberals. I suppose I am just cynical and feel people carry extreme views without examining the merits of the other side (sometimes the other side is dead wrong, but maybe not!) And as much as people like to critique the US government, we should be proud we do have that right where in many other developed countries (even Western Europe) freedom of the press and opinion is rather restrained. I am sure there is some shady censoring and hiding of the truth going on, but for the most part we have a lot of rights (although the current administration may not be too fond of all of them), and one of them is to disagree with each other.

The death of Russia was not so much the death of socialism, but rather the death of oppresive government. There is nothing about socialism (see many northern european socialist governments) that makes it less democratic, but unfortunately the countries that have been self-proclaimed communists last century did so to give people the illusion of power.

They combined nationalism, populism, and a military authoritarian regime into a kind of government that was feared both by its own people and the world at large. To think that those governments are/were representative of socialism/communism is to look at what they say they were - not what they actually were. Most western countries (including the US) have some socialistic parts to our economy so that the economy doesn't get too hot or too cold (think alan greenspan). The number of serious economists who would take away these controls is pretty small.

Facts? The FDA had nothing to do with Vioxx being pulled. That's the irony. Merck pulled it but could have left it on the shelves with a black label warning.

By satiring my point, you didn't do anything to disprove it.

WRONG. There will be a battle WITHIN the Republican party between the "capitalists" and the "theocrats." But that will only tear the party apart. The Theocrats are winning BIG TIME, by the way.

thought police wrote:

A little less government and a whole lot more "take care of yourself" would do a lot to make this country more like what our founders intended.

Even under the Bush administration the gov. has actually grown larger than it has ever been in the past 40 years...

Good bumpersticker logic, chief.

Exactly. While a concurrent battle rages within the Democratic Party between leftist/socialists (led by MoveOn.org, the Moore factions, Deaniacs etc.) and the more centrist Clintonites. When the dust settles, the capaitalist Republicans and the Clinton Dems will align to form a business friendly, fiscally conservative-socially libertarian party to thwart the extreme right wing Theocrats. It will look and think more like the traditional GOP than the current Democratic Party.

True Dat wrote:

Exactly. While a concurrent battle rages within the Democratic Party between leftist/socialists (led by MoveOn.org, the Moore factions, Deaniacs etc.) and the more centrist Clintonites. When the dust settles, the capaitalist Republicans and the Clinton Dems will align to form a business friendly, fiscally conservative-socially libertarian party to thwart the extreme right wing Theocrats. It will look and think more like the traditional GOP than the current Democratic Party.

The only problem with this dream world is that thier is no evidence that this is happening, and it is essentially impossible to form a centrist party out of our current structure, mainly because of those market forces you love so much.

What part of Ohio do you live in? I also live in Ohio and would love training partners.

The U.S. has many problems but try living somewhere else if you don't like this system. We've got it pretty good and social mobility is possible. Poor people are educated, have access to medical attention, and receive many other benefits. A remarkable amount also have DVD players and monthly appointments at the nail salon. OK, a cheap shot.

I am not against the govt. supplying a cushion for the needy. The counter to that argument is that abuses occur both by recipients and by the government. The government abuses tend to become institutionalized and expensive to the taxpayer - meaning everyone else.

My experience is that my running friends are very compassionate, caring people who understand sacrifice, bad luck but don't react kindly to chronic excuses, complaining, or lack of effort. I'd say most are moderates in the sense they are socially left of center but fiscally responsible. I cannot put this current administration in the fiscally responsible column. However, the democratic party freakshow was so devoid of leadership and direction that I voted for GWB in '04 and am pleased to date with his performance. In fact, if Iraq becomes Democratic and Social Security gets revamped, he will become one of the most important Presidents in recent history. Something that would've shocked me a few years ago.

The Democrats need to come up with a vision and stop complaining. How can you ignore Social Security's correlation to demographic trends. GM and the European Continent offer striking examples of letting the problem go too far.

Kjell wrote:

"Less entitlement, strong military and a balanced budget. Sounds like what America is supposed to be to me."

Perhaps in your neo-con eyes, but the founding fathers believed in keeping a weak standing army. A large standing army is an incredible tool of tyranny.

Large standing army is an incredible tool huh? The only tyrant to have used such a tool in the US was good old honest Abe.

Of course, "he kept the union together and free the slaves?” Republicans…