[Zipperfish]

Quote:

Then you have in some small way contributed to Hugo Chavez's war chest.

I didn't know Venezuela was at war.

[Firekite]

Not overtly, not yet. I do wonder how serious he is when he calls us all "monsters" and prays publicly that God will destroy us, "Allah willing."

[tritium]

Zipperfish wrote:

Quote:

Then you have in some small way contributed to Hugo Chavez's war chest.

I didn't know Venezuela was at war.

"In business, a war chest is a stash of money set aside to deal with unexpected changes in the business environment, or to use when expansion possibilities arise. The term originates with the medieval practice of having a chest, literally, filled with money to open in time of war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_chest

"The bizarre remarks and actions of the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez continue to concern anyone who is interested in the peace and security of the Caribbean region."

For more of the story click the link below....

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/ ... XIETY_.asp

[Zipperfish]

tritium wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Quote:

Then you have in some small way contributed to Hugo Chavez's war chest.

I didn't know Venezuela was at war.

"In business, a war chest is a stash of money set aside to deal with unexpected changes in the business environment, or to use when expansion possibilities arise. The term originates with the medieval practice of having a chest, literally, filled with money to open in time of war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_chest

"The bizarre remarks and actions of the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez continue to concern anyone who is interested in the peace and security of the Caribbean region."

For more of the story click the link below....

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/ ... XIETY_.asp

OK, on the one hand you're telling me that your use of the term "war chest" has nothing to do with war, and then, with the other you're quoting a headline stating that "Venezuelan Military Buildup Cause for Anxiety." As usual, you're sending mixed messages.

[tritium]

Zipperfish wrote:

I didn't know Venezuela was at war.

Zipperfish wrote:

OK, on the one hand you're telling me that your use of the term "war chest" has nothing to do with war, and then, with the other you're quoting a headline stating that "Venezuelan Military Buildup Cause for Anxiety." As usual, you're sending mixed messages.

Zipperfish, seriously, is English your first language??

You're like Obama, who couldn't admit the surge worked... until the debate.

Hugo Chavez is building a significant war chest, which he will use most likely in defense of his country or to invade neighbors. He may use it to maintain political stability, or his own political power.

I didn't say anywhere that he was at war, you just picked that out and made the assumption.

Maybe the term "war chest" confused you, dunno, don't care.

Quote:

Dictionary: war chest

n.
1. An accumulation of funds to finance a war effort.
2. A fund reserved for a particular purpose such as a political campaign.

[Zipperfish]

tritium wrote:

Zipperfish, seriously, is English your first language??

Look above in your own post; "The term originates with the medieval practice of having a chest, literally, filled with money to open in time of war."

You're like Obama, who couldn't admit when he was wrong on the military surge.

Hugo Chavez is building a significant war chest, which he will use most likely in defense of his country or to invade neighbors.

I didn't say anywhere that he was at war, you just picked that out and made the assumption.

Maybe the term "war chest" confused you, dunno, don't care.

Quote:

Dictionary: war chest

n.
1. An accumulation of funds to finance a war effort.
2. A fund reserved for a particular purpose such as a political campaign.

So I questioned your use of "war chest" by saying that I didn't know Venzuela was at war, at which point you said that the term "war chest" is a business term that has nothing to do with war, and now you're back to, yes, war chest is indeed a war term.

You're the one that seems confused, not me.

[Zipperfish]

Firekite wrote:

Not overtly, not yet.

Not yet? So let me get this straight then...you think that Venezuela is going to invade the US?

[tritium]

Zipperfish wrote:

So I questioned your use of "war chest" by saying that I didn't know Venzuela was at war, at which point you said that the term "war chest" is a business term that has nothing to do with war, and now you're back to, yes, war chest is indeed a war term.

You're the one that seems confused, not me.

o.k. Obama, whatever.

[Geryon]

Quote:

Geryon, if you don't know what a word means, don't use it. The internet is not the best and most reliable place to learn these words.

Okay I'll remember for the future trying to discredit someone by attacking them rather than their points or information is not an ad hominem argument. Thanks.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

He [Rush Limbaugh] is a pretty funny guy and less serious than the Ann Coulter school, who frankly are depressing.

Ann Coulter serious? Every other sentence from her is intended to get a laugh (from conservatives).

Depressing is more Michael Savage or Mark Lavin. Michael Savage is almost nihilist in his views that Washington is bought and paid for and nothing will get better.

Zipperfish wrote:

I knew he had the most possible radio show, which is interesting becasue it kind of belies the old right-wing myth that the media is somehow stacked against them.

Not really. Correct me if you can, but the "myth" was Rush's excuse for his admitted bias. Everyone else is leftist, there's no reason for him to offer equal time for the opposing view on his show; in his own words, "I am equal time." Since he started it when discussing his competition, his success can't belie it.

His success might even be attributed to it: the airwaves are awash with left-wing opinion, so there's a powerful, unmet demand for right-wing radio. Then Rush appears and becomes the most popular broadcaster of all time.

It's probably not true anymore, with the dozens of radio imitators, Fox News, and the variety of right-wing blogs. But circa 1992 it certainly was.

===
And now to stick my nose into others' discussions:

Zipperfish wrote:

So I questioned your use of "war chest" by saying that I didn't know Venzuela was at war, at which point you said that the term "war chest" is a business term that has nothing to do with war, and now you're back to, yes, war chest is indeed a war term.

The term "War Chest" originates from a military term, but the military application is almost defunct, far more commonly replaced with the metaphorical version used in corporate finance, for political campaigns, by union leaders, and generally anywhere where large amounts of money can win someone their goals.

So it's military in nature in the same sense as when corporate execs read "The Art of War" to learn how to aggressively dominate their competition. Everything sounds more exciting and heroic if you surround it with military metaphors, but that doesn't actually make it military in nature.

[Kjorteo]

Just because I'm a bit of a language nerd at times,

Psudo wrote:

The term "War Chest" originates from a military term, but the military application is almost defunct, far more commonly replaced with the metaphorical version used in corporate finance, for political campaigns, by union leaders, and generally anywhere where large amounts of money can win someone their goals.

"Campaign" is a military term as well.

[Arctic_Menace]

Then there's also the military word "theatre"...

[Psudo]

Zipperfish: If you need an example of Bush and Rush disagreeing, look to the modern financial bail-out. Bush, both presidential candidates, and the Democrat Party leadership are pushing for government action to solve the problem, and Rush and the House Republicans are opposing government intervention on the claim that government regulation of the home loan industry is what got us into this mess.

About a third of the House Democrats are opposing the $700 bn bailout, too, but I think they oppose *this version* of the bailout rather than any bailout whatsoever.

Incidentally, I'm with Rush on this one.

[Kjorteo]

I strongly oppose any version of the bailout that's more or less just giving free money to the Treasury secretary, which is what the current version up for debate sounds like. I really hope it gets defeated, but sadly, something tells me the immense pressure on Congress to do something is going to force it through, just because they'll somehow look inept if they can't pass one bill or another in a timely manner. Personally, I'd rather have no action than really bad action, but I'm not the public at large, so, you know.

I think I'm in favor of government intervention of some sort, provided it has tight controls and all that good stuff, but I'd really have to see each version of the bill as it comes up and evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. Not that that opinion will matter much if the current one goes through, but hey.

Edit: On second thought, I might have been a little pessimistic, as apparently the current version actually failed. The roll call vote is interesting, as it seems a lot of party lines have been crossed, or at least such is the case with my representatives (from New Mexico.) It looks like Heather Wilson (R-NM) voted for, and Tom Udall (D-NM) and Steve Pearce (R-NM) voted against. I actually take some comfort in that, since Udall is in line to absolutely crush all comers for NM's open senate seat and become our next Senator as of this election, so I'm glad to say I agree with him on this one.

[Febus75]

US going commie ? Here is an idea. People might call it communism but is it ?

Let's say a group of people in a closed community agreed to live together in a special type of social experiment.

They would be free to interact with anyone outside of the closed community but being a part of this closed community involved the sharing of monetary earnings with each other. There would not be a hoarding of financial earnings. All earnings would be given to a trustee committee and then distributed to all in this community.

We would have blue collar workers and white collar workers in this community. The trustee committee would determine who gets what amount based on number of people in a family. Housing would be determined by the same criteria. Money and housing would be arranged according to need not want.

In essence, a janitor and his family of 5 would get just as much in living space and money to meet his needs as would a ceo and her family of 5.

Could this work if people agreed upon this social model of co-op living ?