Chile Forum

el puelche wrote:No need to clarify something i am not going to read. ...I think you are going to get awfuly skinny with no words to eat.

I appreciate your concern. But, you may want to focus on why you're reading things you say you won't read. (This is starting to remind me of that girl I dated years ago who said "no, no, no" but meant "yes, yes, yes." ).

Mark

The problem with imigrants isn't, that they are imigrants...but that they don't learn the language. You can find them everywhere...at work, in the stores where you shop and even attending the public in government jobs. Their mouth opens and you know they are saying something...you ask the question again...and the response is the same...unintelligible...it might go back and forth a few times...usually the imigrant will splash his hands through the air a few times, or use some strange method to try and communicate...it must make sense where they are from, but not here... in the end...they are desperate to communicate, but they can't get thier message across...its sad, you know they have something to say but there is that language barrier...you don't understand....personaly, I just walk away after awhile...there is nothing to be done...usually the imigrant just stands there talking to himself and continues to gestulate wildly, as if, with some strange behavior he will be understood better....it never turns out that way...

oh well,

p out


.

MarkF wrote:

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote: 2. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.

I wasn't using "rhetoric" in a pejorative sense. Just claiming that Ron Paul (and libertarians generally) use principled rhetoric when not justified. My emphasis is on the adjective, not the noun.
Hope that explanation helps.

Mark

I wasn't referring to Ron Paul's rhetoric Mark.

MarkF wrote: (This is starting to remind me of that girl I dated years ago who said "no, no, no" but meant "yes, yes, yes." ).

Mark

Anyway we might email this gal you dated and made the no no no reference to (twice now) and find out if she really really meant yes yes yes? Maybe what is going on is a perception problem. But, back to the subject at hand...

I don't know about media coverage in the US,m as far as fairness to 2008 candidates, but online I hear all the boo-hooing about Obama getting the lions share and McCain being stiffed. However, what I find is that online media is covering about the same, maybe McCain a little more, UNLESS you add in all the negative stories about Obama, his gaffs, goofs, his high-mindedness, his ner-do-well hangers on-ers and past acquaintances and preachers. This weekend for instance WAS loaded with Obama stories, and only a few McCains. Most of the Obama stories were about his failure to visit the injured troops in Germany, and most of John McCains stories were about how appalled he was that Obama didn't visit troops. If I had nothing to do, I would sit with a paper and pen, and three times a day open up Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and do nothing but count front page stories for each candidate. It's all about perception. I did read a short blurb about Obama having a meeting on economic issues with Warren Buffet, among other econom egg heads. That was a nice diversion from the usual bull news about news that isn't news except "since someone else is reporting it we'd better report it too!"

I lied in an earlier post on this thread (I'm a terrible, chronic lier) and I will come clean. I do care. Wait....I might be lying. My father used to say "You LIE like a rug" and then kick my ass all the way back to the house after my brother and I started a fire. Just kidding.

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:Anyway we might email this gal you dated and made the no no no reference to (twice now) and find out if she really really meant yes yes yes? Maybe what is going on is a perception problem. But, back to the subject at hand...

This was over 30 years ago. She was a preacher's daughter. Her mixed messages are emblematic of those who say "I gave up on politics" (as I've said in the past) and then continue to be *heated* over politics. Or, "I'm not reading your posts any more" while continuing to read each one.

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:I lied in an earlier post on this thread (I'm a terrible, chronic lier) and I will come clean. I do care.

You do care. When people say they stopped caring about politics it's just because (IMO) the world isn't as simple as they wish it was. At that point, people either throw in the towel, claiming they don't care any more (with references to the system being "rigged" and "corrupt"). But, there's no opting out. No withdrawing from the system. Just letting others make your choices for you. (Which itself is a choice).

Or, when things become too complicated, folks turn to libertarianism. An unrealistic simplification of life down to one principle: non-coercion. The world becomes simple, in terms of how it *could* be. With complete disregard for how it *never* will be.

Mark

George Mason University just came out with the results of a media study which showed that while there appears to be a media bias (Obama v. McCain), that 72 percent of the news stories on Obama were negative. So, it's possible my hunch was correct.

Haaa,

I was ruminating over this over the weekend...Obama is somewhat like W in that he does not mix with reporters very much...the NYtimes reported that on the campaign plane, on the way to Germany, Obama came back and initiated conversation...which never happens...he called a reporter by name and was jostleing her about what she was going to do in Berlin in the off time...the reporters were aghast....now, I have also talked with friends of mine that are shooting the Obama thing and they have said that they have been somewhat cloistered by the campaign by Obama...but, different than Clinton(no access whatso ever), that the obama staff has pre-arranged good shots for him...so my point in this is that...the photos of Obama are epic...they show the leader in position...he is in action, absolute brillinat shots...they convey power...and then what shows up in print or broadcast in video is less than favorable....perhaps, Obama is taking a Kennedy maxim into the 21st century(remember the old media cliche of the kennedy/nixon debates with radio vs tv)...he is showing up for the photo and is a mime for everything else....look at the last shots in the ap for Obama in IRaq, and berlin....3 days in a row, front page nytimes....brilliant..not so good in London...at 10 downing street, he looked like an African leader waiting at the door for someone to open it with a big gumby smile...big mistake...did you notice in those shots he was alone?...ouch...its the photos folks...people don't bother to read anymore.

p out


.

el puelche wrote:. . . . the obama staff has pre-arranged good shots for him...so my point in this is that...the photos of Obama are epic...they show the leader in position...he is in action, absolute brillinat shots...they convey power... .

There's a website -- entitled "Is Obama the Messiah?", if I remember correctly -- which analyses, with examples, the mode of operations in presenting B. Obama as an heroic, supra-human figure. His is shaping up to be one of the best-orchestrated campaigns in history.

An AP photo appears on the front page of the NYTimes on Fri or Sat...anyway its a shot or Obama from behind as he addresses the crowd in Germany....he is the extreme left of the shot with his right arm out and above his head...extended...the crowd, all peach colored faces, show light against the dark thin figure that is Obama. Obama looks to his left...he is connecting with the few..the few that need his help the most...they are between him and the margin of the photo, and yet with his right arm out and above him, he brings close the rest of the world...his dark figure cast against the multitudes..."I will remember and take care of you" it says...but then in the mid lower foreground of the photo is a lone attendee...they hold a banner and it says /ANGOLA/ with the colors of that country...the sign shows backwards or inside out...I will bet that the photo was turned around...and printed inverse...for its impact...we'll see if it comes out, could be that the participant just got the sign inside out...but I doubt it. This photo will win the WorldPress photo of the year...and meanwhile, John McPain is cast as the crabby uncle that screams "...why isn't there any gin in this house???"<<<<uncle McPain is another's observation, not mine..although I was 3 minutes away from thinking it up myself)


p out...


.

is this the photo? I would not have noticed the Angola sign. Good eye.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Berlin-Se ... Me8LJbbBAF

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:is this the photo? . . . . http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Berlin-Se ... Me8LJbbBAF

If so, very good indeed: the crowd rapt, hands clasped in adoration of the mysterious yet comforting suprahuman figure come to earth.

And this, in the land that gave us the "superman". Interesting.

National Socialism, anyone?

yes thats it ...but the nytimes cropped it to make it much better shot...it won't win like that to much clatter..also Barack banner is spelled right at low barrier so no photo-shop...shot I saw i believe had barack looking to his left so could be a shot in the sequence...good eye, thats from the ap/reuters newswire>yahoo news photocombine...if you go on it and plug in CHile you can get all the shots.

p out.

USD at 517? Dead cat bounce? Or friday manipulation? Gold is a ($855 ) surprise too! After they start interfering in Iran this will look pretty cheap IMO.

Jam the dollar from 72 to 75-76, control the rate of increase in oil, bash severely gold and silver.

Very impressive extended coordinated financial manipulation of an economy that is in reality running on fumes.

Stop running in the futures at an unprecedented scale.

Your US tax dollars at work.

The fact that this leg of the bash takes place on a Friday should make one wonder what might happen somewhere in the world from this evening through Sunday night.