Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


Festivito's Journal
Festivito's Journal
July 22, 2016

Terrible: 24/7 GOP saying they would wipe out the debt quicker than Dems.

And why kill that Osama bin Laden fella who helped us beat the Russians in Afghanistan. Just because he tried to blow up the World Trade Center, what 15 years ago. Get over it, you already tried, convicted and sentenced the guys who did it -- it's still standing -- don't ya know. Just like Clinton, Gore meets with those so-called intelligence people every day. Once every six months should be more than enough I tell ya. And, just because we don't need that Saudi money in the banks anymore is no reason to upset their apple cart all the way over there. What, just because we get half our energy from solar and wind and whatever. It's still only half. What have they done to us? Dang liberal, spending American tax dollars to give a light water reactor to those nuts in North Korea -- like they'd ever be able to make a nuke. Ha! President Gore is a real problem. Constantly stopping banks from selling new products like CDOs and CDSs. Over regulation -- all the time. The only reason the economy has not nosedived completely is because of the new advances in communications. Ha! If he were to join, say, Apple Corporation their stock would tumble. Just take my word for it. We could sell our rights to the airwaves and pay off the debt, but, "No," he says.

Yup, it would be horrible.

Ending the fake Republican as sarcasm...

Problem is, Trump is not a third party Nader, he's a second party upstart. And, Hillary runs as stayed, calm, assured, old school. And the mood of the public is not for stayed, calm, assured, old school. I hope she can win it, but, it's more of a battle than I have seen her admit just yet.

March 14, 2016

No. Never. It's bait. INSTEAD: "Let's agree THAT we disagree."

Agreeing to disagree elevates disagreement as closure, an end. It's not.

Agreeing that we disagree is to say that we both acknowledge hearing each others ideas.

And, it provokes the idea that we need to identify that disagreement.

That's why Republicans use the wrong form. It is designed to let them run and hide from the truth rather than dealing with truth. They want to run back to their authority figures on radio and Fox listening to lengthy half-truths and rolling lists of unfinished unchallenged attacks. Attacks that make them feel powerful until they realize that they cannot answer challenges except by changing the topic quickly over and over again. Or, by invoking a false ending.

February 12, 2016

W* should be relieved it wasn't his 2004 SEC letting top 5 banks treat CDOs as cash....

No, it had to be a Democrat.

Even if it starts with Regan and there were a few glitches -- small recessions, did I remember to say small -- until we get to a ... a ... Democrat, Clinton, who had 8 years of constant up in market. The eventual fall after he left office due to Republican recalculations and putting their immediate bad months mixed with Clinton's last months was certainly not the fault of the Republican re-calculators.

No, it had to be a Democrat.

Even though the stock market took a dive the day of the election and people started putting their Clinton era earnings into housing instead. Even though the economy needed government help of borrowing over a thousand dollars per person and giving them 600 dollars to boost the economy. Even though as 2004 re-election loomed and 6 months prior the SEC decided to free the banks from that pesky old 10% rule. (CDOs are as good as cash anyway!) Even though we had changed from a trade surplus under Clinton to a trade deficit under W* that put cash into the hands of the Chinese who then put that cash into the housing bubble inflating it further and letting bankers give cash interest up front. (Oops, the Chinese didn't like that investment and we had to give them part of our national debt instead.) It couldn't be called a problem made by a Republican like W*.

No, it had to be a Democrat.

Not that anyone would benefit from re-writing history.

WARNING: There may be a lot of sarcasm here.

January 6, 2014

The "actual concept" is what Einstein stated. And it was the OP that stated that, not me.

The post alludes to know more about Einstein than Einstein needed to tell us. Not that there is evidence presented of intimate knowledge of Einstein, rather, someone doesn't like what I've said. It's fine that someone doesn't like what I said. No need for smoke screens like "actual concept," what "He meant" as though there is some inside information, and then a falsely painting a SINGLE statement as a false DIchotomy. Really now!

October 25, 2013

Economy and security bungling war and disaster profiteer still passes lies for the rich.

Yes she did take responsibility.

Responses began within minutes of reports.

You expect anyone to be hands on each one of hundreds of locations. Ridiculous.

The Bush Cheney administration had nine times, the number of Benghazi like attacks.

Sounds like a paid political announcement, Paid for by the same guys who made a fortune Off hard working Americans lost housing values.

January 3, 2013

Okay. First paragraph is enough.

NRA and gun manufacturers make money by passing rumors that Democrats will take their rifles. Suddenly, guns and bullets fly off shelves making more money for suppliers and more ad money for gun magazines. All we need know about this that fools and their money are soon parted.

Everyone I ask about felons having guns say: no, felons should not have guns. I tell them that they just said they want gun control. That's everyone so far. Let's regulate our militia as the 2nd amendment tells us.

December 11, 2012

Time is our realization that more than two similar movements occurred.

All measure of time involves movement and can be further characterized as finding more and more consistency of these movements.

The perfect conception of time is a fourth dimension, being one dimension added to the three dimensions we use to describe space, that is space without any movement until time's fourth dimension is added.

The imperfect conception of time is our human conception of measuring time and trying to find more and more consistent movements that describe better and better what we previously measured as consistent. This can lead to us having several different measurements for the above perfect conception of time. For example:

1. a physicist wants to measure with great accuracy for movements large and small and would prefer time measured in some small consistent vibration that can be added together to create a consistent amount of time;

2. a paleontologist wants to describe long numbers of years and prefers rotations around our sun that, again, can be added together to create a consistent amount of time where the actual rotation and angled revolving of our planet effect what he studies more than the number of seconds that transpired in those rotations of the planet.

3. an astro-physicist wants to understand what we might not know yet. How what is consistent here on earth might not remain consistent away from earth or may change beyond our star system and then again it could change again beyond our galaxy, and further as we exit what might be our globule or closeness to one, and on and on again and again as we might discover and name even larger agglomerations in the universe.

4. a philosopher realizes that all these measurements are ego-centric, that is they all evolve around who we are and what we want, what we want sometimes being a desire to understand physics, history and the universe in order to better our own position in our time and maybe, if we are lucky, to extend our lives for a little more time to enjoy the time we have.

And, that's enough time on this.

November 25, 2012

about nine letters

For some it means total government control that we need. To some that means it will fail -- so do I.

For some it means regulating some things that help businesses to thrive, such as requiring helmets and seat belt use. Those I can handle. As to what goes into cigarettes -- not so much.

For some it means having laws so people and business don't do bad things to each other such as making sure insurance companies pay up when the claim is made or that I pay up when I'm supposed to.

For some it means regulating some things that help people to thrive and have fun such as having Federal Insurance on banks and Social Security...

For some it means letting government handle things that are best left to government(e.g. water, electric, internet, health-care,..) and letting the market handle those things best left to the market(e.g. travel, shopping, cars, new-ideas,...). I like it here.

For some it means one man one vote, not one vote per million dollars owned.

For some it is to be avoided at all costs and we are all to be individuals until each of us is divided and eaten. I don't like this one either.

September 27, 2012

Romneys take benefits of our tax dollars and pays nothing or next to it.

Romney heirs get this tax free shelter for what was earned by our tax dollars.

And, he does not want to pay.

We built, upgraded and maintained the roads.
.. giving his businesses free unfettered access to people and goods.
We kept a justice system at his beckon call..
.. Jails, judges, police to protect his money and his butt
We maintained a military giving him access to the world.
.. Note: We paid with our sons and daughters while he didn't.
We kept his food safe, water safe, air safe and clear.
We gave tax breaks to others supporting ..
.. schools that helped him and his family.
.. the medical industry that keeps him and family healthy.
We kept Social Security insurance on him in case he did fail.

And, now, because he re-invests. That increase in wealth, partially due to OUR INVESTMENT... He and heirs will not part with to pay his fair share.

July 21, 2012

We've abrogated our right to general welfare.

Our right to connect responsibility with right.

No one wants two-year-olds to have a gun.
No one wants gun-felons to carry a gun.

Yet, somehow we cannot talk about this issue? Or, we relent to say "enough" with your rights?

I want to say that I am perhaps more liberal than you on how to manage guns. Liberal as in liberty, free, free to carry. (ASIDE: liberal, left, etc. is misused rhetoric I employ to talk about other misused rhetoric. Oh, the irony.)

What I care about more is whether or not I have made sure my fellow responsible American has received his needed health care, and mental health care, and psychological health care that my view of general welfare allows. We are a rich country. We want to enjoy our riches. The problem is that if we do not share our riches we do not get to enjoy our riches. Disparity of wealth is just as dangerous as disparity of power between carriers and non carriers assembling together.

Denying rights, as we did with alcohol causes people to hoard. It happened with alcohol, it happens with drugs, it happens with guns.

I think we'd agree, but our words are disagreeing.

Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 13,452

About Festivito

America - Change it, or lose it.

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»Festivito's Journal