|
|
Gusts: Musician and Black Eyed Peas frontman will.i.am., journalist Naomi Klein, political blogger Andrew Sullivan, and economist Paul Krugman.
|
Posts:
41
Registered:
9/15/07
|
|
(45 of 45)
Sep 29, 2008 9:00 PM
|
I strongly disagree with the suggestion that Andrew Sullivan should no longer be a guest on Real Time. I disagree with almost everything he believes, but he's also one of the few conservatives whose opinions interest me because he's intelligent and articulate.
Krugman had a lot of nerve suggesting that the Chavez takeover of an industry and our bailout were both examples of socialism. There's a very real difference between the two, Professor Krugman. When the government takes over a private industry the profits go into the public coffers; a bailout leaves the profits to the private businesses, who never have to take responsibility for their actions.
I am so tired of all this bullshit that private industry does a better job than government! If that's the case, why does government always have to bail them out? and why is that every example of municipal ownership of a utility results in a clear benefit to the consumer? That's why LA's DWP did so well during the energy fiasco a few years ago--because it was publicly owned, not privately owned like PG&E and SoCal Edison.
The worst fallacy is the statement that "government can't change society". Bullshit. It was called the G.I. Bill, and it created the middle class. You remember them, right? The class that Bush took only eight years to destroy?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,695
Registered:
1/15/06
|
|
(44 of 45)
Sep 23, 2008 5:46 PM
|
Cynthia McKinney running as a Green.
--
wicky/effi
|
|
|
Posts:
20
Registered:
9/18/08
|
|
(43 of 45)
Sep 23, 2008 3:41 PM
|
To grammyoffour:
You're mistaken. we DO have Libertarians running this time. The former Senator? Representative? (I don't remember which) from Georgia (or was it Texas?) Bob Barr is running as the Libertarian candidate.
|
|
|
Posts:
58
Registered:
9/6/08
|
|
(42 of 45)
Sep 23, 2008 12:11 AM
|
If you really wanted to see change at the CEO level, you need to look at the Board of Directors. They hire and negotiate the CEO's compensation package. They are an inbred lot, hiring their buddies. They sit on the board because (1) they are a large shareholder in the firm (2) they represent a large institutional investor or (3) they are buddies with one of the larger shareholders. Regulate the process for the BOD and you will see change in the CEO. They are the ones providing a multimillion "golden parachute" for the CEO who drove the ESP into the ground. Any other employee would have been fired WITHOUT compensation.
I am in agreement with all of this. While I don't want to massively strap CEO pay like many people do, I definitely want to reign it way in. 18 years ago CEO vs average worker pay was like 107 times, and now it is 364 times.
(source)
It needs to be pulled back down to a 100 times or maybe a bit less than that. Although, according to that source, things have improved as it was 525 times in year 2000.
|
|
|
Posts:
110
Registered:
3/24/07
|
|
(41 of 45)
Sep 22, 2008 9:55 PM
|
If you really wanted to see change at the CEO level, you need to look at the Board of Directors. They hire and negotiate the CEO's compensation package. They are an inbred lot, hiring their buddies. They sit on the board because (1) they are a large shareholder in the firm (2) they represent a large institutional investor or (3) they are buddies with one of the larger shareholders. Regulate the process for the BOD and you will see change in the CEO. They are the ones providing a multimillion "golden parachute" for the CEO who drove the ESP into the ground. Any other employee would have been fired WITHOUT compensation.
--
"The man who dies rich, dies disgraced" - Andrew Carnegie
|
|
|
Posts:
58
Registered:
9/6/08
|
|
(40 of 45)
Sep 22, 2008 9:33 PM
|
I agree the blame is to be spread all around.
I also would support some sort of limit on excessive CEO compensation - either tie it in with their results over a 5 year period or tie in their total compensation with the lowest paid employee.
|
|
|
Posts:
635
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(39 of 45)
Sep 22, 2008 11:08 AM
|
> Naomi Klein wasn't discredited over Sullivan's "yes
> or no" interview! Pigeonholing her into support or
> denial of protectionism and regulation principle
> completely misses the point of her body of work.
>
> "Regulate?" is not a yes or no question, her
> commentary was on how regulation was misapplied and
> abused by the disaster capitalists, not on the
> regulation philosophy itself.
>
> --
> Edited by jestellef at 09/21/2008 4:13 PM PDT
I agree. As a nation we've painted our problems with a black or white brush when most of them are too complicated for that. I do agree with Andrew Sullivan that the American people have to accept some, a large some, of the blame, but I also agree a lot with Naomi Klein's theories.
--
Jane
HBO Forums Host
|
|
|
Posts:
3,695
Registered:
1/15/06
|
|
(38 of 45)
Sep 22, 2008 10:57 AM
|
> Naomi Klein wasn't discredited over Sullivan's "yes
> or no" interview! Pigeonholing her into support or
> denial of protectionism and regulation principle
> completely misses the point of her body of work.
>
> "Regulate?" is not a yes or no question, her
> commentary was on how regulation was misapplied and
> abused by the disaster capitalists, not on the
> regulation philosophy itself.
>
> --
> Edited by jestellef at 09/21/2008 4:13 PM PDT
I agree.
--
wicky/effi
|
|
|
Posts:
1,790
Registered:
4/16/07
|
|
(37 of 45)
Sep 21, 2008 7:11 PM
|
Naomi Klein wasn't discredited over Sullivan's "yes or no" interview! Pigeonholing her into support or denial of protectionism and regulation principle completely misses the point of her body of work.
"Regulate?" is not a yes or no question, her commentary was on how regulation was misapplied and abused by the disaster capitalists, not on the regulation philosophy itself.
--
Edited by jestellef at 09/21/2008 4:13 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
58
Registered:
9/6/08
|
|
(36 of 45)
Sep 21, 2008 1:38 PM
|
I enjoyed how two seconds into the panel portion of the show that Sullivan immediately discredited Naomi Whein by pointing out the contradictions in her views on capitalism. (ie, he pointed out how she wants to cherry pick what portion of capitalism to regulate).
I thoroughly enjoyed how Sullivan absolutely put the religiously bigotted Maher in his place demonstrating quite clearly that there are many intelligent people that can both have faith AND think secularly regarding, amongst many subjects, economic policy. I think BM looks like a total bigotted buffoon full of hate and vitriol (sp) everytime he goes after anyone who has faith. But I could not have worded it any better than Sullivan did. I was cheering him on.
I would like to point out a hypocritical statement that Bill made that I bet many people missed. In an earlier segment of the show Bill is on the liberal elitist platform of "I don't trust normal Americans to vote properly, I think they are all morons." and then later after someone quoted a Churchhill statement from the 1940s Bill then said "Americans were a lot smarter back then." Are you kidding me? Back in the days of Jim Crowe laws? Before blacks could even vote? It is truly amazing to watch someone (BM) with such utter contempt for people with different views than him. At first he complains about the Republicans referring to liberals like him as elitists then he turns right around and proves the Reps correct by insulting everyone who has faith (90% of the country) as a moron, and how Americans can't be trusted.
Why doesn't BM go after Obama's faith? He is a self proclaimed strong Christian. In the argument with Sullivan Bill said that it is impossible to separate out "believing in magic" and being able to think intellectually. So where is the condemnation of Obama? Bill? Beuhler? Anyone?
BM likes to make claims that Americans are still racist and this is why Obama is not getting ahead in the polls. Can I point out Obama is doing as well as any democrat has in the last 15 years? Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the vote. Gore had, what, 49%? Kerry I don't remember but it was in the 40s. Obama has 45-47% of the vote now. Where is the racism Maher???
Can I also point out the following black achievements:
1) Richest woman in America? Oprah
2) First athlete to close in on making a billion dollars from his sport? Tiger Woods
3) Highest paid actor in Hollywood? Will Smith
4) Current presidential candidate in a dead heat to win the presidency? Obama
5) Secretary of State and National Security Advisors? Condi Rice and Colon Powel
Where is the racism Bill? Blacks have arrived. Get off it you moron.
And....While I loved the clarity and insightfulness that Sullivan brought and I agreed with most everything he said, I agree with all the ealier posters that he monopolized the conversation much of the time, which is a rude thing to do in a show where time is limited. I would like to see him back because I believe his insightfulness cuts through the crap but he needs to give more time over to other guests.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,735
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(35 of 45)
Sep 20, 2008 9:43 PM
|
> I caught the 7 AM repeat of last night's show and
> couldn't help but notice the lack of control and the
> unusual selection of Andrew Sullivan for the
> roundtable. Naomi Klein was certainly a perfect
> guest. I think I would have liked her for the 1 on 1
> remote interview better, though. Maybe she would have
> been able to speak for more than 60 seconds.
>
> If the discussion were to have centered on Palin's
> lack of qualifications, Sullivan could have been
> useful as a perfect example of how that point is
> moot. You never have to hold public office, or even
> work for the government, or even vote, for that
> matter, to pontificate about who we should be
> electing for our leader. For Christ's sake, he isn't
> even a citizen. Send him home and let him try to
> elect a new queen.
>
> Klein spoke for all of 60 seconds to answer two
> questions that Maher directed to her before that
> blowhard with a green card started badgering her and
> then filibustered for the remainder of the show.
> Where was the control that Maher had last week? This
> was the perfect week to tell someone to "SHUT...
> UP!"
>
> This pompous ass is the quintessential intellectual
> elitist. Maher commented once about life after death
> saying, "We don't know, but the difference is that
> you think that you do". It extends way beyond that
> subject. Sullivan did that with every subject. When
> someone shared a view, he would tell them that they
> were "wrong", as if his viewpoint was the only
> correct one. His body language was violent when he
> was demanding the floor again with aggressive arm
> waving and pounding the table. I thought he may take
> a shoe off if he didn't get his way. When he did have
> the floor, his body language was deceptive - watch
> his eyes - oh yeah, you can't because he closes them.
> He's hiding the fact that he is an empty shirt that
> only got where he is by pretending to know what he
> was talking about.
>
> The worst thing is that it made the segment boring.
> Having the knowledgeable debate the know-it-all is
> empty chatter. I expected Klein to say, "That's not
> an argument, it's only contradiction!", in her best
> Monty Python accent. If you bring Sullivan on again,
> please only do it to make fun of him. That would make
> for a much better show.
>
> I will say that I judged Will.I.Am too quickly based
> on his former band mate, Lauren Hill. She is bitter
> and rude - especially to white interviewers.
> Will.I.Am was soft spoken and deliberate, and I
> thought he fielded the faith question very well. Note
> that he never said, "...faith in my Lord Jesus
> Christ.", just "...faith." Those are different.
>
> I've never written one of these posts, but I thought
> that this one show had great potential but got
> derailed by a single guest. I wrote this in the hope
> that this does not indicate a permanent change in a
> formula that has served so well.
>
> By the way, I can see Mexico from AZ, so I am well
> qualified to comment.
Or Andrew Sullivan could run for Queen!.
--
"W stands for WORST!!!!!!!!"
"Follow the Money" - Mark Felt AKA "Deep Throat"
"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." - Edward R. Murrow
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact" - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The first casualty when war comes is the truth. - Senator Hiram Johnson in 1917
Who murdered Ray Lemme?? We know why!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
1/26/08
|
|
(34 of 45)
Sep 20, 2008 9:39 PM
|
Bill,
PLEASE do not ever invite Andrew Sullivan to join your panel again..The man is nothing but an obnoxious idiot, who tried to monopolize every discussion depsite all the "looks" you kept shooting at him. The man is too irritationg and painfull to watch, and I will skip any future episode(s) he appears on..Thanks!
|
|
|
Posts:
114
Registered:
11/19/05
|
|
(33 of 45)
Sep 20, 2008 8:34 PM
|
> I will say that I judged Will.I.Am too quickly based
> on his former band mate, Lauren Hill. She is bitter
> and rude - especially to white interviewers.
> Will.I.Am was soft spoken and deliberate, and I
> thought he fielded the faith question very well. Note
> that he never said, "...faith in my Lord Jesus
> Christ.", just "...faith." Those are different.
Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean were in the Fugees together. will.i.am is in The Black Eyed Peas. IF you're going to slam Lauryn Hill, at least put her with the right bandmate. I don't know of her to be racist towards white interviewers, so I don't know where you got that misinformation from.
--
Edited by 1ofmany at 09/20/2008 5:35 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,790
Registered:
4/16/07
|
|
(32 of 45)
Sep 20, 2008 7:10 PM
|
It wasn't the Jesus fetish that got us entangled.
Numerous socioeconomic factors, geographic realities and outright theatrics tempted us into war, overlending, and corporate protectionism, they didn't get votes for pretending to be a servant of God, they got them for lying about the situation and tricking us.
How much of the assent was the bogus "God made me do it" lapel pin, and how much was the bogus WMD's?
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
9/20/08
|
|
(31 of 45)
Sep 20, 2008 7:06 PM
|
I caught the 7 AM repeat of last night's show and couldn't help but notice the lack of control and the unusual selection of Andrew Sullivan for the roundtable. Naomi Klein was certainly a perfect guest. I think I would have liked her for the 1 on 1 remote interview better, though. Maybe she would have been able to speak for more than 60 seconds.
If the discussion were to have centered on Palin's lack of qualifications, Sullivan could have been useful as a perfect example of how that point is moot. You never have to hold public office, or even work for the government, or even vote, for that matter, to pontificate about who we should be electing for our leader. For Christ's sake, he isn't even a citizen. Send him home and let him try to elect a new queen.
Klein spoke for all of 60 seconds to answer two questions that Maher directed to her before that blowhard with a green card started badgering her and then filibustered for the remainder of the show. Where was the control that Maher had last week? This was the perfect week to tell someone to "SHUT... UP!"
This pompous ass is the quintessential intellectual elitist. Maher commented once about life after death saying, "We don't know, but the difference is that you think that you do". It extends way beyond that subject. Sullivan did that with every subject. When someone shared a view, he would tell them that they were "wrong", as if his viewpoint was the only correct one. His body language was violent when he was demanding the floor again with aggressive arm waving and pounding the table. I thought he may take a shoe off if he didn't get his way. When he did have the floor, his body language was deceptive - watch his eyes - oh yeah, you can't because he closes them. He's hiding the fact that he is an empty shirt that only got where he is by pretending to know what he was talking about.
The worst thing is that it made the segment boring. Having the knowledgeable debate the know-it-all is empty chatter. I expected Klein to say, "That's not an argument, it's only contradiction!", in her best Monty Python accent. If you bring Sullivan on again, please only do it to make fun of him. That would make for a much better show.
I will say that I judged Will.I.Am too quickly based on his former band mate, Lauren Hill. She is bitter and rude - especially to white interviewers. Will.I.Am was soft spoken and deliberate, and I thought he fielded the faith question very well. Note that he never said, "...faith in my Lord Jesus Christ.", just "...faith." Those are different.
I've never written one of these posts, but I thought that this one show had great potential but got derailed by a single guest. I wrote this in the hope that this does not indicate a permanent change in a formula that has served so well.
By the way, I can see Mexico from AZ, so I am well qualified to comment.
|
|
|
|
|
