Tomorrow, Obama is going to make his 2nd State of the Union Adress....

What will he bring up and stuff?

I may watch this as I'll be watching the Super Bowl...and I won't watch that either!

Tomorrow, Obama is going to make his 2nd State of the Union Adress....

What will he bring up and stuff?

I may watch this as I'll be watching the Super Bowl...and I won't watch that either!


mmmmm .....the Superbowl is Sunday the 6th

mmmmm .....the Superbowl is Sunday the 6th


I think he means he plans on watching neither... .







Tomorrow, Obama is going to make his 2nd State of the Union Adress....

What will he bring up and stuff?

I may watch this as I'll be watching the Super Bowl...and I won't watch that either!




a) trying to predict what he will talk about is pointless --- that's like trying to decide what will be on the news tonight... wait for it and then create a topic about what was said not what might or could be said  ::) 

b) your choice if you don't want to watch it but then don't come here and bitch and moan that you don't like what he said if you won't give him the benefit of listening to him

and don't judge the comments based on the few sound bites you heard because those are always taken out of context  >:(

a) trying to predict what he will talk about is pointless --- that's like trying to decide what will be on the news tonight... wait for it and then create a topic about what was said not what might or could be said  ::) 

b) your choice if you don't want to watch it but then don't come here and bitch and moan that you don't like what he said if you won't give him the benefit of listening to him

and don't judge the comments based on the few sound bites you heard because those are always taken out of context  >:(


YOU GO GIRL!

a) trying to predict what he will talk about is pointless --- that's like trying to decide what will be on the news tonight... wait for it and then create a topic about what was said not what might or could be said  ::) 

b) your choice if you don't want to watch it but then don't come here and bitch and moan that you don't like what he said if you won't give him the benefit of listening to him

and don't judge the comments based on the few sound bites you heard because those are always taken out of context  >:(



Isn't this basically what Faux News does?



Cat

Isn't this basically  what Faux News does?



Cat


fixt  :D

fixt   :D



Yeah, I should have left out that word.  ;D ;D ;D



Cat

Yeah, I should have left out that word.  ;D ;D ;D



Cat



;D

Tomorrow, Obama is going to make his 2nd State of the Union Adress....


...and you know what that means!  It's PARTY TIME!

"investment (in reference to government spending) - 1 shot.
"investment (in reference to individual discretionary financial decisions) - hide your shot under your bed; drink it the next time the Dow drops 100 points.

Yup, I'm doomed.  But I'm probably not going to care halfway through the speech.  

If you're not too hung over, watch the stocks of solar energy suppliers and ethanol producers on Wednesday morning.

...and you know what that means!  It's PARTY TIME!

"investment (in reference to government spending) - 1 shot.
"investment (in reference to individual discretionary financial decisions) - hide your shot under your bed; drink it the next time the Dow drops 100 points.

Yup, I'm doomed.  But I'm probably not going to care halfway through the speech.  

If you're not too hung over, watch the stocks of solar energy suppliers and ethanol producers on Wednesday morning.


I don't care either, I only voted for Obama just to see if he can fudge-up the country more or less and/or try to clean-up GWB's mess...

I may have been right with the first thing....



a) trying to predict what he will talk about is pointless --- that's like trying to decide what will be on the news tonight... wait for it and then create a topic about what was said not what might or could be said  ::) 

b) your choice if you don't want to watch it but then don't come here and bitch and moan that you don't like what he said if you won't give him the benefit of listening to him

and don't judge the comments based on the few sound bites you heard because those are always taken out of context  >:(


I can answer both of those...I'll let the people on the forums decide, if you see the Union Address....



Isn't this basically what Faux News does?



Cat


That's what ALL news stations do today, I don't even watch FOX nor CNN nor NBC....

I don't care either, I only voted for Obama just to see if he can fudge-up the country more or less and/or try to clean-up GWB's mess...

I may have been right with the first thing....




That's the dumbest reason to cast a vote I ever heard of....


I can answer both of those...I'll let the people on the forums decide, if you see the Union Address....



well they are going to do that anyway....but how can you possibly give an informed opinion or contribute to the topic you started if you don't bother watching the speech?



That's what ALL news stations do today, I don't even watch FOX nor CNN nor NBC...

do you watch any news? Local doesn't count...

for someone who posts in a lot of politics threads you probably should try educating yourself more.  repeating stuff you hear your dad or your friends or that you get from some random snippet you hear or an article you skimmed is not enough ammunition to approach a political discussion... especially with this group

I don't care either, I only voted for Obama just to see if he can fudge-up the country more or less and/or try to clean-up GWB's mess...

I may have been right with the first thing....

I can answer both of those...I'll let the people on the forums decide, if you see the Union Address....

That's what ALL news stations do today, I don't even watch FOX nor CNN nor NBC....


You don't take your ability to vote very seriously do you?  In Iraq people are willing to risk being gunned down in order to vote.

Whatever Obama says in the State of the Union address is "The State of the Union".  He may be a Democrat but he is President and he addressing the nation.

So where exactly do you get your information? 

That's the dumbest reason to cast a vote I ever heard of....


well they are going to do that anyway....but how can you possibly give an informed opinion or contribute to the topic you started if you don't bother watching the speech?


do you watch any news? Local doesn't count...

for someone who posts in a lot of politics threads you probably should try educating yourself more.  repeating stuff you hear your dad or your friends or that you get from some random snippet you hear or an article you skimmed is not enough ammunition to approach a political discussion... especially with this group



You know I love you.  :)



Cat

That's the dumbest reason to cast a vote I ever heard of....

do you watch any news? Local doesn't count...

for someone who posts in a lot of politics threads you probably should try educating yourself more.  repeating stuff you hear your dad or your friends or that you get from some random snippet you hear or an article you skimmed is not enough ammunition to approach a political discussion... especially with this group


1...Better than NOT voting.

2...No...not even local, I'm miserable enough without ANY news on TV! :(

3...Who'd you think sent that fire in my ass? Not you, but Carlos. If my Political gun is a Pea-Shooter...so be it! (I just can't stand the world because this isn't MY world, and I get some sound bites from you guys too....) :D


You don't take your ability to vote very seriously do you?  In Iraq people are willing to risk being gunned down in order to vote.

Whatever Obama says in the State of the Union address is "The State of the Union".  He may be a Democrat but he is President and he addressing the nation.

So where exactly do you get your information?  


I would if we have a leader like FDR, JFK, or Lincoln again! The President whether now it's Clinton, Bush, or Obama (Like them or not) don't have that strong power to lead.

And for your Iraq comment...yes, there are STILL people with fear of voting for change. But now there's no high liberation in America, unless the Gay Community pushes Obama to sign in that Gay Marriage is approved...then there'll be a shot heard 'round America!

3...Who'd you think sent that fire in my ass? Not you, but Carlos. If my Political gun is a Pea-Shooter...so be it! (I just can't stand the world because this isn't MY world, and I get some sound bites from you guys too....) :D



I think I'm more curious about who gave you that shovel you keep burying yourself with  ::)

I think I'm more curious about who gave you that shovel you keep burying yourself with  ::)


TOO many people to count. You may be the Karma-Leader but...No Karma From me to you...EVER! >:(

We get along like Joan Crawford and Bettie Davis...(They NEVER got along).

One had eyes, the other had...WIRE HANGERS!!! :P

No Karma From me...EVER! >:(





I think I'll survive....


We get along like Joan Crawford and Bettie Davis...(They NEVER got along).

One had eyes, the other had...WIRE HANGERS!!! :P

I assume in your analogy I'm Joan Crawford... I can accept that... I guess that makes you Bette Davis..... hmmm guess my only option is to quote a line from the song Positive K "I Got a Man" 

"You got eyes but they not for me you better use them for what they for and that's to see" 

1...Better than NOT voting.

2...No...not even local, I'm miserable enough without ANY news on TV! :(

3...Who'd you think sent that fire in my ass? Not you, but Carlos. If my Political gun is a Pea-Shooter...so be it! (I just can't stand the world because this isn't MY world, and I get some sound bites from you guys too....) :D




Carlos will tell you to educate yourself. You do that by WATCHING the news-and NOT Faux News. Every news organization has their own slant so you have to watch ALL of them plus read all sorts of different news sites/newspapers to get a better understanding of what is going on in the world. And yes it IS your world. You may not think what happens half way across the world effects you but it does. What is going on in the Middle East does have an impact on your life. How your rep in Wash responds to what is going on in the Middle East DOES have an impact on your life. We are ALL connected. You want me to spell it out?

OPEC controls oil. If the Congress passes some kind of law that have some kind of political fallout that OPEC doesn't like, they may up their prices which means that you pay more $$ at the pump. That is one way what is going on in the Middle East effects you.

What about our wars over there? The U.S. is pumping boocoo bucks into these wars (that are in their second decade ::) ) which means the $$$$$$$$$ used for the wars cannot be used for domestic programs. Ok, if you don't want to fund Food Stamps or SSI programs, what about roads? You like to drive on paved and maintained roads? Well, sorry, there isn't enough $$$$ to maintain our roads because we are spending $$$$$$$$$$$ in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Oh, and import & export laws-which are enacted in Washington have A LOT of impact in your life. I heard you b!tch about not finding a job. That is because Congress, who are pro-industry and anti-labor, could care less about you and ship jobs to China for cheap labor. THAT DOES EFFECT YOU!!! It effects your neighbors, your town, city, whatever. IT EFFECTS ALL OF US!!!  

You, like all of us, SHOULD care! This is our world. We have save it from those greedy b@stards who want to destroy it for profit. You can do that by educating yourself in what is going on in the world. Once you have some knowledge of what is going on and WHY, then maybe you might be able to help find some solutions to the world's problems. Just don't b!tch about it without knowing exactly what you are b!tching about.


Ok, I'm getting off my soap box now.


Cat

Carlos will tell you to educate yourself. You do that by WATCHING the news-and NOT Faux News. Every news organization has their own slant so you have to watch ALL of them plus read all sorts of different news sites/newspapers to get a better understanding of what is going on in the world. And yes it IS your world. You may not think what happens half way across the world effects you but it does. What is going on in the Middle East does have an impact on your life. How your rep in Wash responds to what is going on in the Middle East DOES have an impact on your life. We are ALL connected. You want me to spell it out?

OPEC controls oil. If the Congress passes some kind of law that have some kind of political fallout that OPEC doesn't like, they may up their prices which means that you pay more $$ at the pump. That is one way what is going on in the Middle East effects you.

What about our wars over there? The U.S. is pumping boocoo bucks into these wars (that are in their second decade ::) ) which means the $$$$$$$$$ used for the wars cannot be used for domestic programs. Ok, if you don't want to fund Food Stamps or SSI programs, what about roads? You like to drive on paved and maintained roads? Well, sorry, there isn't enough $$$$ to maintain our roads because we are spending $$$$$$$$$$$ in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Oh, and import & export laws-which are enacted in Washington have A LOT of impact in your life. I heard you b!tch about not finding a job. That is because Congress, who are pro-industry and anti-labor, could care less about you and ship jobs to China for cheap labor. THAT DOES EFFECT YOU!!! It effects your neighbors, your town, city, whatever. IT EFFECTS ALL OF US!!!  

You, like all of us, SHOULD care! This is our world. We have save it from those greedy b@stards who want to destroy it for profit. You can do that by educating yourself in what is going on in the world. Once you have some knowledge of what is going on and WHY, then maybe you might be able to help find some solutions to the world's problems. Just don't b!tch about it without knowing exactly what you are b!tching about.


Ok, I'm getting off my soap box now.


Cat


Is THIS the reason why my world was on fire for 2 years? I do care, but this world has been broken for years. The fires WILL get hotter and the world WILL get darker, 2012 may happen, I don't know my name isn't God and if it is, I'd change EVERYTHING with my life, I would get the job of my dreams...but the economy is broken that I myself CAN'T find a decent job. It doesn't sound like I care, but I'm NO Glenn Beck nor Wolf Blitzer. Even if I HAD all the knowledge of Solomon...I would STILL be finding the answer.

So for now I'll just... :-X

MrC

1...Better than NOT voting.

2...No...not even local, I'm miserable enough without ANY news on TV! :(

3...Who'd you think sent that fire in my ass? Not you, but Carlos. If my Political gun is a Pea-Shooter...so be it! (I just can't stand the world because this isn't MY world, and I get some sound bites from you guys too....) :D

I would if we have a leader like FDR, JFK, or Lincoln again! The President whether now it's Clinton, Bush, or Obama (Like them or not) don't have that strong power to lead.

And for your Iraq comment...yes, there are STILL people with fear of voting for change. But now there's no high liberation in America, unless the Gay Community pushes Obama to sign in that Gay Marriage is approved...then there'll be a shot heard 'round America!


I'm not sure what I did, but I guess I'm sorry.  Clearly, I love to debate politics, but to do so requires others who have knowledge of the facts of the issue under discussion and know how to use those facts to frame logical positions, unlike the position you took regarding ThKosinich (?) and Cleavland's debt, it was both ill informed and illogical.

Now to your points:  Voting out of ignorance is not voting as a citizen but as a patsy

Shielding yourself from the world will not make you less miserable, just more isolated.

If I'm not mistaken, you did not experience JFK's presidency, and certainly not the others (believe it or not both Lincoln and FDR were before my time), so in a very real way you are comparing apples with oranges, the myths of the past with the flesh and blood of the present.  IMHO Clinton was as powerful a leader as JFK, just in a different time (and forget about Bubba;s BJ, it was small potatoes to JFK' poolside orgies, and don't forget Marilyn's "Happy birthday Mr President").  your comparisons just don't work, nor are they historical.  Times have definitely changed, the context is very different

What in h*ll do you mean by "there's no high liberation in America"?  Are you saying that gay marriage is the next civil rights hurdle?  As in many cases, your rhetoric isn't very clear, which makes it difficult to talk to you.

Is THIS the reason why my world was on fire for 2 years? I do care, but this world has been broken for years. The fires WILL get hotter and the world WILL get darker, 2012 may happen, I don't know my name isn't God and if it is, I'd change EVERYTHING with my life, I would get the job of my dreams...but the economy is broken that I myself CAN'T find a decent job. It doesn't sound like I care, but I'm NO Glenn Beck nor Wolf Blitzer. Even if I HAD all the knowledge of Solomon...I would STILL be finding the answer.

So for now I'll just... :-X

MrC


Again, this is confusing.  THIS what, and how would we know?  The world has been "on fire" for eons, and your problems are a lot less horrendous than lots of other people's.  Hotter and darker?  Hotter yes, climate change is happening, but I don't think the sun is darkening.  And byes, 2012 will certainly happen.

Sorry you can't find a job.  How hard are you looking? Are you retraining?  Jobs never, even in good times, jump up and bite you in the ars.  So yeah, you can sit on your hands, like Howard, and blame the world for your troubles, or you can do something about it.

Oh, and you really didn't respond to Cat's post, although you quoted it.

Peace

I'm not sure what I did, but I guess I'm sorry.  Clearly, I love to debate politics, but to do so requires others who have knowledge of the facts of the issue under discussion and know how to use those facts to frame logical positions, unlike the position you took regarding ThKosinich (?) and Cleavland's debt, it was both ill informed and illogical.

Now to your points:  Voting out of ignorance is not voting as a citizen but as a patsy

Shielding yourself from the world will not make you less miserable, just more isolated.

If I'm not mistaken, you did not experience JFK's presidency, and certainly not the others (believe it or not both Lincoln and FDR were before my time), so in a very real way you are comparing apples with oranges, the myths of the past with the flesh and blood of the present.  IMHO Clinton was as powerful a leader as JFK, just in a different time (and forget about Bubba;s BJ, it was small potatoes to JFK' poolside orgies, and don't forget Marilyn's "Happy birthday Mr President").  your comparisons just don't work, nor are they historical.  Times have definitely changed, the context is very different

What in h*ll do you mean by "there's no high liberation in America"?  Are you saying that gay marriage is the next civil rights hurdle?  As in many cases, your rhetoric isn't very clear, which makes it difficult to talk to you.


So my type of voting...should I just boycott Election Day?

Yeah, I do want to be alone like Greta Garbo (Yes, there's a Joan Crawford connection there with the only film to win an Oscar "Grand Hotel" and Lionel Barrymore was in "It's a Wonderful Life" with James Stewart and he voiced Wyatt Burp in "An American Tail: Fivel Goes West", Stephen Speilberg produced that as well as "1941" with John Candy) but I can't with a cell phone that rings all the time.

The Presidency since Eisenhower practically is in a circle. The JFK/LBJ Years are similar to Bill Clinton's years in office (Not what LBJ did, but in the 90's news went faster than the 60's). The Nixon/Ford Years are similar to GWB's years in office (Watergate, Opening China, Escalating Vietnam...but that was LBJ's dirty job). The Carter Years seem to be similar to Obama's years in office...too many questions, but not enough answers.

Okay, the last one WAS nothing...disregard what I said.


Again, this is confusing.  THIS what, and how would we know?  The world has been "on fire" for eons, and your problems are a lot less horrendous than lots of other people's.  Hotter and darker?  Hotter yes, climate change is happening, but I don't think the sun is darkening.  And byes, 2012 will certainly happen.

Sorry you can't find a job.  How hard are you looking? Are you retraining?  Jobs never, even in good times, jump up and bite you in the ars.  So yeah, you can sit on your hands, like Howard, and blame the world for your troubles, or you can do something about it.

Oh, and you really didn't respond to Cat's post, although you quoted it.

Peace


When I mean 'on fire' and 'darkness' I mean it in a metaphoric way. This is why I volunteer at my church and food pantries so I can see the urban blight and how people fudgeed their life by a drug and this is why I'm doing a 12-step recovery, I saw people who drank, smoked, used drugs, and had sex through their adulthood. I have a brother who drinks almost a case of beer a week...not a can or bottle...a whole damn case!

Yes, a 2012 will happen...but maybe not in 2012.

PS-I did write a letter to an Acting for Camera Teacher and I made a vow if I don't get a better job nor an SSI/SSDI Check...Yes, I have a disability, that's why sometimes my words aren't clear...I'm going back to College and not only going in for more Theater...but maybe Political Science....

PS-Just give me some time...I'm STILL young with this Political Stuff...I may need 10 more years on my belt!

Is THIS the reason why my world was on fire for 2 years? I do care, but this world has been broken for years. The fires WILL get hotter and the world WILL get darker, 2012 may happen, I don't know my name isn't God and if it is, I'd change EVERYTHING with my life, I would get the job of my dreams...but the economy is broken that I myself CAN'T find a decent job. It doesn't sound like I care, but I'm NO Glenn Beck nor Wolf Blitzer. Even if I HAD all the knowledge of Solomon...I would STILL be finding the answer.

So for now I'll just... :-X

MrC


You are not making any sense.

What we are telling you that if you want to participate in political debate, you should educate yourself on the issues. If not, you are only going to make yourself look very foolish and ignorant.


Cat

You are not making any sense.

What we are telling you that if you want to participate in political debate, you should educate yourself on the issues. If not, you are only going to make yourself look very foolish and ignorant.


Cat


Then for you, Carlos, and me (when I have conversation with you guys), I'll do what James Stewart and Henry Fonda did...NOT Talk about Politics!

PS-Look above my last post, I said just give me some time I'm STILL in my late 20's, so I can't know everything....

I also want to say this...

YouTube is also showing the Address, so you can ask questions about his speech. (And don't ask Obama "Hey, we have a dumbass on this forum site that when it comes to politics, he doesn't know his asshole to a hole in the ground"!) :P

I was gonna start with a lulzy post about how the ghost of Reagan managed to come back from the dead.  What with the SOTU speech centered around big subsidies for solar, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, signing free trade agreements, cutting the corporate tax rate, and tax reform.  

But this is actually important.


So my type of voting...should I just boycott Election Day?


Sure, if you like.  Or vote for someone just for the lulz.  I mean, write "Mickey Mouse" on the ballot.  I've got no beef with someone who voted Obama because he was the only candidate who could have beaten McCain - McCain's performance in the debates was atrocious, and demonstrated a staggering lack of economic clue.  He should have been advised better than that, but the Elephant Party wasn't in a position to stand up and say "Yeah, we bailed out the banks, and whoever wins the elections is going to continue that policy, because it's the only option remaining".  

This is why I volunteer at my church and food pantries so I can see the urban blight and how people fudgeed their life by a drug and this is why I'm doing a 12-step recovery, I saw people who drank, smoked, used drugs, and had sex through their adulthood. I have a brother who drinks almost a case of beer a week...not a can or bottle...a whole damn case!

Amateur!  I went through (the ABV equivalent of) a six-pack during the speech tonight!  

(Although to get serious, if he's doing a case of 24 12-oz 5% beers a week, yeah, he might have a problem.  3 drinks a day is a long way down the road to dependency, but not necessarily gutter-crawling, mad-dog-2020-out-of-a-paper-bag, spare-any-change-man alcoholism.  But yeah, it's probably time for him to cut back.  Or at least see if he can skip a month or two.)


Yeah, I do want to be alone like Greta Garbo (Yes, there's a Joan Crawford connection there with the only film to win an Oscar "Grand Hotel" and Lionel Barrymore was in "It's a Wonderful Life" with James Stewart and he voiced Wyatt Burp in "An American Tail: Fivel Goes West", Stephen Speilberg produced that as well as "1941" with John Candy) but I can't with a cell phone that rings all the time.


So turn off the ringer.


The Presidency since Eisenhower practically is in a circle.


Welcome to American politics.  That's how it's supposed to work.  Nutty whackjobs on the left threaten to take over, moderates on the right take over the reins of sanity.  Moderates on the right get drunk on power, become nutty whackjobs.  Moderates on the left take over the reins of sanity.  Moderates on the left get drunk on power, become nutty whackjobs.  Lather, rinse, repeat.


PS-Just give me some time...I'm STILL young with this Political Stuff...I may need 10 more years on my belt!


Relax.  Once upon a time, I was a True Believer.  You'll grow out of it too :)  

The most important skill you can learn in life - be it in politics, at work, or even in random discussions with your friends - is to look at things from outside the perspective of your own Reality Tunnel.

http://s23.org/w/images/8/8d/WhaddyaMeanTunnelVision.jpg

A useful exercise is to pick a Reality Tunnel, and try to view everything through it, for a few moments at a time.  What would a fundie Christian think of the recent unpleasantness in that Russian airport?  How about a fundie Muslim?  How about a TSA ball-fondler?  How about Putin?

"Due to the territorial imperatives of primate neurology, some information is not only ignored but actively resisted. Denial, anger or even desire to punish the messenger who brings "bad news" are well-known traits of our species. To the extent that we are aware of this tendancy, and try to combat it in ourselves, we will make efforts to seek  unwelcome signals - e.g. by reading periodicals of the groups that whose reality-tunnels oppose our own, as Bertrand Russel often recommended. To the extent that we ignore or forget this primate tendency in ourselves, we will lapse into Fundamentalism, Idolatry and the Inquisitorial mode of behavior."

 - Robert Anton Wilson.

To put this in more practical terms:  If you're only reading Republican websites, you're getting - at best - the half of the news that the Elephants want you to read.  If you're only reading Democratic websites, you're also getting - at best - the half of the news that Jackasses want you to read.  If you're reading everybody's ideas, you might have a better picture of the world than ideologues of any stripe, and you will have more information available to you.  Whether you use this information to make profitable trades or improve your odds of getting laid at political conventions is up to you.

And now you know why The Illuminatus! Trilogy (still available at any reputable science fiction bookstore, and most mainstream bookstores) is my go-to "comfort zone" book.  Precisely because it forces you to consider - at least for a few moments - every nutty conspiracy theory that had ever existed, and will ever exist.  (And because unlike most works of philosophy, it's got lots of naughty words in it, and some hysterically funny scenes.  I kinda envied George Dorn's day involving the thing that ceiling cat sees, a Lewinsky, and... well, let's not spoil the first few chapters and say that if, someday, a bunch of people bust me out of a jail in Bad Ass, TX, and some chick in a yellow submarine offers me a BJ, and the ship's got an artificial intelligence named F*redacted*KUP, and they subsequently ask me to do unmentionable things to an apple, am I gonna worry about whether the flag on the ship sports a dollar sign or a hammer-and-sickle?  Or am I going to sign up for whatever sort of adventure's in store?)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RshsKGzNxWA/TB9QhCXK0fI/AAAAAAAAAEc/MFwujJaIRmw/s1600/BlueRedPill.jpg

When in doubt, take the red pill.  Look through the reality tunnels of your adversaries.  They can't convert you.  They can't even hurt you.  They're not necessarily your enemies - they might just be people who see things differently.  And unlike the red pill in The Matrix, you can always spit it out if you don't like the taste, and try another.

I don't know my name isn't God and if it is, I'd change EVERYTHING with my life, I would get the job of my dreams...but the economy is broken that I myself CAN'T find a decent job. It doesn't sound like I care, but I'm NO Glenn Beck nor Wolf Blitzer. Even if I HAD all the knowledge of Solomon...I would STILL be finding the answer.

So for now I'll just... :-X



MrC



this is what bugs me the most...whenever I read your posts about politics it's always "me, me, me"  the world is so much more about what's going on with you... even here^ you say you don't have power and yet....even if you were God all it seems you'd be concerned with is "you, you, you"    ::)


you need to:

get out of your bubble and realize that it's not about you....never was, never will be.
listen to Cat and Carlos because- in case you can't tell- they are saying the exact same thing I am (sure they are less direct about it but they are telling you  that until you make the effort to educate yourself and inform yourself you will never be able to have a real political debate because no one wants to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.  I'm not calling you stupid - you'll read it that way but I'm not- I'm just saying you're not very well informed. There for have a political discussion with you is like fighting with one of those blow up punching bags.... once they are blown up you can knock em down with one punch and they keep coming back for more but they can never ever throw a punch of their own.

Again, this is confusing.  THIS what, and how would we know?  The world has been "on fire" for eons, and your problems are a lot less horrendous than lots of other people's.  Hotter and darker?  Hotter yes, climate change is happening, but I don't think the sun is darkening.  And byes, 2012 will certainly happen.




;D

you should have said and 2013 and 2014 and 2015 etc

now he thinks you think the world will implode or whatever come 2012  ;D

I'm not sure what I did, but I guess I'm sorry.  Clearly, I love to debate politics, but to do so requires others who have knowledge of the facts of the issue under discussion and know how to use those facts to frame logical positions, unlike the position you took regarding ThKosinich (?) and Cleavland's debt, it was both ill informed and illogical.

Now to your points:  Voting out of ignorance is not voting as a citizen but as a patsy

Shielding yourself from the world will not make you less miserable, just more isolated.

If I'm not mistaken, you did not experience JFK's presidency, and certainly not the others (believe it or not both Lincoln and FDR were before my time), so in a very real way you are comparing apples with oranges, the myths of the past with the flesh and blood of the present.  IMHO Clinton was as powerful a leader as JFK, just in a different time (and forget about Bubba;s BJ, it was small potatoes to JFK' poolside orgies, and don't forget Marilyn's "Happy birthday Mr President").  your comparisons just don't work, nor are they historical.  Times have definitely changed, the context is very different

What in h*ll do you mean by "there's no high liberation in America"?  Are you saying that gay marriage is the next civil rights hurdle?  As in many cases, your rhetoric isn't very clear, which makes it difficult to talk to you.


oh... I almost forgot... KARMA!

Yeah, I do want to be alone like Greta Garbo (Yes, there's a Joan Crawford connection there with the only film to win an Oscar "Grand Hotel" and Lionel Barrymore was in "It's a Wonderful Life" with James Stewart and he voiced Wyatt Burp in "An American Tail: Fivel Goes West", Stephen Speilberg produced that as well as "1941" with John Candy) but I can't with a cell phone that rings all the time.





admittedly... I'm really tired.. so maybe I missed the clarifyer..... can someone please tell me what the hell^ has to do with anything...  ???




The Presidency since Eisenhower practically is in a circle. The JFK/LBJ Years are similar to Bill Clinton's years in office (Not what LBJ did, but in the 90's news went faster than the 60's). The Nixon/Ford Years are similar to GWB's years in office (Watergate, Opening China, Escalating Vietnam...but that was LBJ's dirty job). The Carter Years seem to be similar to Obama's years in office...too many questions, but not enough answers.

since I know you don't like it when I comment I'm just gonna reply by quoting Carlos and Cat.


Clearly, I love to debate politics, but to do so requires others who have knowledge of the facts of the issue under discussion and know how to use those facts to frame logical positions, unlike the position you took regarding ThKosinich (?) and Cleavland's debt, it was both ill informed and illogical.



your comparisons just don't work, nor are they historical.  Times have definitely changed, the context is very different

As in many cases, your rhetoric isn't very clear, which makes it difficult to talk to you.






You are not making any sense.

What we are telling you that if you want to participate in political debate, you should educate yourself on the issues. If not, you are only going to make yourself look very foolish and ignorant.


Cat






PS-I did write a letter to an Acting for Camera Teacher and I made a vow if I don't get a better job nor an SSI/SSDI Check...Yes, I have a disability, that's why sometimes my words aren't clear...I'm going back to College and not only going in for more Theater...but maybe Political Science....



Why not do both? you can go to community college part time if you are working. I don't know a whole lot about ssi/ssdi so if you can't go to college if you are collecting a check that doesn't mean you can't educate yourself... as Cat said watch as many news shows as you can. I know she said don't watch Fox News. I'd be inclined to agree but I think if you watch everything out there you'll get a more balanced pov.  You should watch news not produced in the US like BBC news because they aren't as slanted as US news outlets...

you should get some political books and read them... not just one book but many books about the same subjects...again to get balanced information...

you could always approach the intro poli sci professor and ask if it's possible to audit the class... no you won't get credit for it but you'll be sitting in a classroom learning something.. not for a degree but for your own personal advancement



PS-Just give me some time...I'm STILL young with this Political Stuff...I may need 10 more years on my belt!

Paul no one wants to wait 10 years for you to catch up...if you start taking action now....even small steps they will notice and will appreciate the effort.. but you need to get a foundation and come in with sound political argument and material, evidence, facts to back them up...





So my type of voting...should I just boycott Election Day?



yes... if that's the way you chose to vote then you're just wasting the vote anyway so why bother casting it

I was gonna start with a lulzy post about how the ghost of Reagan managed to come back from the dead.  What with the SOTU speech centered around big subsidies for solar, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, signing free trade agreements, cutting the corporate tax rate, and tax reform.  

But this is actually important.

Sure, if you like.  Or vote for someone just for the lulz.  I mean, write "Mickey Mouse" on the ballot.  I've got no beef with someone who voted Obama because he was the only candidate who could have beaten McCain - McCain's performance in the debates was atrocious, and demonstrated a staggering lack of economic clue.  He should have been advised better than that, but the Elephant Party wasn't in a position to stand up and say "Yeah, we bailed out the banks, and whoever wins the elections is going to continue that policy, because it's the only option remaining".  

Amateur!  I went through (the ABV equivalent of) a six-pack during the speech tonight!  

(Although to get serious, if he's doing a case of 24 12-oz 5% beers a week, yeah, he might have a problem.  3 drinks a day is a long way down the road to dependency, but not necessarily gutter-crawling, mad-dog-2020-out-of-a-paper-bag, spare-any-change-man alcoholism.  But yeah, it's probably time for him to cut back.  Or at least see if he can skip a month or two.)

So turn off the ringer.

Welcome to American politics.  That's how it's supposed to work.  Nutty whackjobs on the left threaten to take over, moderates on the right take over the reins of sanity.  Moderates on the right get drunk on power, become nutty whackjobs.  Moderates on the left take over the reins of sanity.  Moderates on the left get drunk on power, become nutty whackjobs.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Relax.  Once upon a time, I was a True Believer.  You'll grow out of it too :)  

The most important skill you can learn in life - be it in politics, at work, or even in random discussions with your friends - is to look at things from outside the perspective of your own Reality Tunnel.

http://s23.org/w/images/8/8d/WhaddyaMeanTunnelVision.jpg

A useful exercise is to pick a Reality Tunnel, and try to view everything through it, for a few moments at a time.  What would a fundie Christian think of the recent unpleasantness in that Russian airport?  How about a fundie Muslim?  How about a TSA ball-fondler?  How about Putin?

"Due to the territorial imperatives of primate neurology, some information is not only ignored but actively resisted. Denial, anger or even desire to punish the messenger who brings "bad news" are well-known traits of our species. To the extent that we are aware of this tendancy, and try to combat it in ourselves, we will make efforts to seek  unwelcome signals - e.g. by reading periodicals of the groups that whose reality-tunnels oppose our own, as Bertrand Russel often recommended. To the extent that we ignore or forget this primate tendency in ourselves, we will lapse into Fundamentalism, Idolatry and the Inquisitorial mode of behavior."

 - Robert Anton Wilson.

To put this in more practical terms:  If you're only reading Republican websites, you're getting - at best - the half of the news that the Elephants want you to read.  If you're only reading Democratic websites, you're also getting - at best - the half of the news that Jackasses want you to read.  If you're reading everybody's ideas, you might have a better picture of the world than ideologues of any stripe, and you will have more information available to you.  Whether you use this information to make profitable trades or improve your odds of getting laid at political conventions is up to you.

And now you know why The Illuminatus! Trilogy (still available at any reputable science fiction bookstore, and most mainstream bookstores) is my go-to "comfort zone" book.  Precisely because it forces you to consider - at least for a few moments - every nutty conspiracy theory that had ever existed, and will ever exist.  (And because unlike most works of philosophy, it's got lots of naughty words in it, and some hysterically funny scenes.  I kinda envied George Dorn's day involving the thing that ceiling cat sees, a Lewinsky, and... well, let's not spoil the first few chapters and say that if, someday, a bunch of people bust me out of a jail in Bad Ass, TX, and some chick in a yellow submarine offers me a BJ, and the ship's got an artificial intelligence named F*redacted*KUP, and they subsequently ask me to do unmentionable things to an apple, am I gonna worry about whether the flag on the ship sports a dollar sign or a hammer-and-sickle?  Or am I going to sign up for whatever sort of adventure's in store?)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RshsKGzNxWA/TB9QhCXK0fI/AAAAAAAAAEc/MFwujJaIRmw/s1600/BlueRedPill.jpg

When in doubt, take the red pill.  Look through the reality tunnels of your adversaries.  They can't convert you.  They can't even hurt you.  They're not necessarily your enemies - they might just be people who see things differently.  And unlike the red pill in The Matrix, you can always spit it out if you don't like the taste, and try another.


Karma for that, I think I'll take that Red Pill and I hope it causes Drowsiness...Maybe you can teach me Foo, a little more....

So my type of voting...should I just boycott Election Day?



Absolutely NOT!  Never not vote, even if you go in and enter a blank ballot, at least show up to the polls and be counted. 

Absolutely NOT!  Never not vote, even if you go in and enter a blank ballot, at least show up to the polls and be counted.  


Assuming he makes an effort to learn about the issues he's voting for.
If he approaches every issue the way he approached the choices for president then he's doing damage and making a mockery out of a system people died to have a right to use.

Karma for that, I think I'll take that Red Pill and I hope it causes Drowsiness...Maybe you can teach me Foo, a little more....


Foo can give you a point of view which is completely valid, so do listen to him, but I would say he is a bit cynical, and something of a libertarian.  I doubt if he would disagree.

Assuming he makes an effort to learn about the issues he's voting for.
If he approaches every issue the way he approached the choices for president then he's doing damage and making a mockery out of a system people died to have a right to use.



Assuming he makes an effort to learn about the issues he's voting for.
If he approaches every issue the way he approached the choices for president then he's doing damage and making a mockery out of a system people died to have a right to use.


I agree with both of you to some extent

Assuming he makes an effort to learn about the issues he's voting for.
If he approaches every issue the way he approached the choices for president then he's doing damage and making a mockery out of a system people died to have a right to use.



As I said, even if he shows up and doesn't put a mark on his ballot it is always important to show that there is a voter there that cares enough to go to the polls.  The people who make a mockery are those ones who fail to show up at all.

"And now for something completely different"

I thought Obama did ok, of course he is a powerful speaker, but he did lay out what SHOULD be possible if the repubs in the house were interested in governing.  There was nothing radical there, nor did I expect anything radical (he is, and always has been, a moderate, as most of us know), but what he said made sense.  But the house isn't interested in governing, so nothing  positive will happen.  They will simply try to turn the clock back as far as they can, like 1980, or better, 1880.

That's my take

As I said, even if he shows up and doesn't put a mark on his ballot it is always important to show that there is a voter there that cares enough to go to the polls.  The people who make a mockery are those ones who fail to show up at all.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

"And now for something completely different"

I thought Obama did ok, of course he is a powerful speaker, but he did lay out what SHOULD be possible if the repubs in the house were interested in governing.  There was nothing radical there, nor did I expect anything radical (he is, and always has been, a moderate, as most of us know), but what he said made sense.  But the house isn't interested in governing, so nothing  positive will happen.  They will simply try to turn the clock back as far as they can, like 1980, or better, 1880.

That's my take



OMG! You are actually responding to the topic!  ;D ;D ;D



Cat

OMG! You are actually responding to the topic!  ;D ;D ;D



Cat


Well...here's the entire State of the Union Address, in case you missed it....

9ZdEmjtF6HE

...And I'll admit I WAS being Self-Righteous when it came to Religion and Politics. I just need my fruits of life to mature, the tree isn't ready to be cut....

...And I'll admit I WAS being Self-Righteous when it came to Religion and Politics. I just need my fruits of life to mature, the tree isn't ready to be cut....


Cut hell, you are, as you say, young.  You haven't yet born fruit.  While some of my (and others) comments may have seemed harsh, you can consider mine, at least, what they call "tough love" but as either Snoz or Dan. said, "it ain't about you", the economy ain't about you, nor politics, nor foreign affairs.  None of is about you, but it all effects you, so you need to realize that the world is impersonal but you need to understand, and then some.  Marx said "So far philosophers have tried to understand the world, but the trick is to change it."  So hang in there, AND READ!!!  Don't wait till spring, or till you get up the energy to "go to the library".  Here is a link to the passage I mentioned elsewhere.  Read it once, read it twice, chew on it, think about it, understand it, then challenge it.  This stuff ain't easy, but it will get you thinking, sharpen your gray matter., and if you have questions, ask me.

www.iwise.com/T5XKm

If you have the balls, ask Foo to link you to something else.

A few additional comments on the SOTU last night.  I thought the "kumbyah moment" was pathetic absolute nonsense - "And who was your prom date?".

The "official" repub response was lame, especially from a guy who has called for the privatization of Soc Sec, the elimination of medicare and medicaid in favor of vouchers, and tax increases for working and middle classes to levels HIGHER than those for the supper rich.  But we shall see.

As to the "Tea Party" response, Anthony Wiener (D-NY) put it best "Apparently she wasn't in touch with the mother ship"

Karma for that, I think I'll take that Red Pill and I hope it causes Drowsiness...Maybe you can teach me Foo, a little more....


What on earth makes you think I know what's going on any more than anybody else?  :)


"This is the turning point in history," he said. "All the forces of Evil, dispersed and often in conflict before, have been brought together under one sign, ((spoiler removed)). All the forces of Good have been gathered, also, under the sign of ((spoiler removed))."

"I see," 00005 nodded. "And you want to enlist me on the side of Good?"

"Not at all," the old man cried, bouncing up and down in his seat with laughter. "I want to invite you to stay here with us while the damned fools fight it out aboveground."

 - excerpted from Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy.


Foo can give you a point of view which is completely valid, so do listen to him, but I would say he is a bit cynical, and something of a libertarian.  I doubt if he would disagree.


I'd not only agree with those characterizations, I'd take them both as compliments.  Thanks!

Where I'd differ from Carlos, for instance - might be on that cynicism.  "So far philosophers have tried to understand the world" would get no argument from me.  The second bit - "but the trick is to change it" - smacks of hubris.  Change it?  To what?  And to what end?  And on what basis?


Yeah, I do want to be alone like Greta Garbo


Nothing wrong with wanting to be left alone.  

Which brings me to my fun thought experiment for the day: Imagine you're "Q" from Star Trek:TNG. What would you do?

Oh, one tiny catch.  The first time you get angry at that jackass who cut you off in traffic and send him cartwheeling into the median, the first time you immolate that crazy bastard who gunned down those innocent civilians, the first time you glass the entire Middle East (pick a side, or just glass 'em both for being such dicks to each other!), you lose the game.

Remember, as long as you're playing, you're immortal and omnipotent, so self-defense doesn't count - you could, after all, just enter bullet-time and dodge the other guy's car, you could cause the psycho guy's gun to jam before he gets off a single shot, or just stand between the bomber and the target and stop the projectiles in mid-air, just like Neo did in the movie.

With the powers of a god, how long could you go without harming anyone?  (I managed a weekend, but only because I kept the TV turned off, read a few books, and didn't leave home :)

I'm a cynic because I've seen what happens when humans get that kind of power over other humans.  We're jerks.  The best we can do for each other is to leave each other alone.  The minute you try to help someone - even if they're asking for your help - you taken on the responsibility that it'll probably end in tears if you're talking about individuals, or end in flames if you're talking about large populations and/or nation states.

What on earth makes you think I know what's going on any more than anybody else?  :)
 - excerpted from Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy.

I'd not only agree with those characterizations, I'd take them both as compliments.  Thanks!

Where I'd differ from Carlos, for instance - might be on that cynicism.  "So far philosophers have tried to understand the world" would get no argument from me.  The second bit - "but the trick is to change it" - smacks of hubris.  Change it?  To what?  And to what end?  And on what basis?

Nothing wrong with wanting to be left alone.  

Which brings me to my fun thought experiment for the day: Imagine you're "Q" from Star Trek:TNG. What would you do?

Oh, one tiny catch.  The first time you get angry at that jackass who cut you off in traffic and send him cartwheeling into the median, the first time you immolate that crazy bastard who gunned down those innocent civilians, the first time you glass the entire Middle East (pick a side, or just glass 'em both for being such dicks to each other!), you lose the game.

Remember, as long as you're playing, you're immortal and omnipotent, so self-defense doesn't count - you could, after all, just enter bullet-time and dodge the other guy's car, you could cause the psycho guy's gun to jam before he gets off a single shot, or just stand between the bomber and the target and stop the projectiles in mid-air, just like Neo did in the movie.

With the powers of a god, how long could you go without harming anyone?  (I managed a weekend, but only because I kept the TV turned off, read a few books, and didn't leave home :)

I'm a cynic because I've seen what happens when humans get that kind of power over other humans.  We're jerks.  The best we can do for each other is to leave each other alone.  The minute you try to help someone - even if they're asking for your help - you taken on the responsibility that it'll probably end in tears if you're talking about individuals, or end in flames if you're talking about large populations and/or nation states.



Put that in the context of the material in the link I gave Mr C and the apparent hubris disappears.  And in any case, every public action, and many private actions, cause change, good, bad, or indifferent depending on who and where you are.

You state this as an inflexible law.  I disagree.  Sure, power corrupts, sometimes.  Other times not.  But the problem with ideologies is that the world is just to darn complex.  "The Market" isn't a god, and can't solve all problems, same thing with the state.

Put that in the context of the material in the link I gave Mr C and the apparent hubris disappears.  And in any case, every public action, and many private actions, cause change, good, bad, or indifferent depending on who and where you are.


Naw, I wasn't going for that.  I was going more for the whole notion that some new socialist man would somehow change human nature.  (Granted, not Marx's fault, but I'll call foul on Lenin for it.)  Rand - for all her faults - was at least honest about how her equivalent ideologically-pure world would show up: the system would collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy, and everyone who hasn't figured out how to make a living for themselves is toast.  Not too far from what would have happened if the Russkies had won the Cold War.  (I'll concede that the jury's still out, but the odds aren't looking good for Rand in the context of Bailout America.  Really, the only difference in endgame may turn out to have been the timing.  Russia goes from revolutionary idealism to collapse in 70 years, America takes 250 or so.)


You state this as an inflexible law.  I disagree.  Sure, power corrupts, sometimes.  Other times not.  But the problem with ideologies is that the world is just to darn complex.  "The Market" isn't a god, and can't solve all problems, same thing with the state.


I think you might have hit on our key difference.  You said power corrupts sometimes.  That's something on which we'll have to agree to disagree.  My answer would be always.  (Corollary: given that assumption, and given the further assumption that corruption is to be avoided, I'm forced to select an ideology that seeks to minimize the amount of power any individual or group has over any other individual or group.)

But although I stand by "Power corrupts, absolute power is pretty neat!", but beyond that, we're in agreement. 

The problem in our "free" markets Stateside is that regulatory capture is indistinguishable from government intervention.  A free market is less coercive than a government solution, but if free markets must degenerate into monopolies, then regulatory capture is as inevitable as the rise of the nomenklatura (or their successors, namely the oligarchs that elected to work with the KGB/FSB instead of trying to ignore them).

Corruption is an inherent feature of coercion-based economies.  It takes time to develop in free economies, and can be disrupted by some wise-ass inventing the steam engine, electricity, or the Internets.  Corruption-wise (with the honest goal of minimizing corruption, not merely asking for a chance to participate :), I prefer free markets to planned economies, because although the data trends towards monopoly, (e.g. the Pareto principle), at least it takes a longer time to get there than it does in a planned economy. 

There aren't too many examples, because both philosophies have only been around for 300 of the past few thousand years of human history but I'll go back to my original one: Pre-9/11 America made it 200+ years, and Post-Czarist Russia, less than 100.

Naw, I wasn't going for that.  I was going more for the whole notion that some new socialist man would somehow change human nature.  (Granted, not Marx's fault, but I'll call foul on Lenin for it.)  Rand - for all her faults - was at least honest about how her equivalent ideologically-pure world would show up: the system would collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy, and everyone who hasn't figured out how to make a living for themselves is toast.  Not too far from what would have happened if the Russkies had won the Cold War.  (I'll concede that the jury's still out, but the odds aren't looking good for Rand in the context of Bailout America.  Really, the only difference in endgame may turn out to have been the timing.  Russia goes from revolutionary idealism to collapse in 70 years, America takes 250 or so.)

I think you might have hit on our key difference.  You said power corrupts sometimes.  That's something on which we'll have to agree to disagree.  My answer would be always.  (Corollary: given that assumption, and given the further assumption that corruption is to be avoided, I'm forced to select an ideology that seeks to minimize the amount of power any individual or group has over any other individual or group.)

But although I stand by "Power corrupts, absolute power is pretty neat!", but beyond that, we're in agreement. 

The problem in our "free" markets Stateside is that regulatory capture is indistinguishable from government intervention.  A free market is less coercive than a government solution, but if free markets must degenerate into monopolies, then regulatory capture is as inevitable as the rise of the nomenklatura (or their successors, namely the oligarchs that elected to work with the KGB/FSB instead of trying to ignore them).

Corruption is an inherent feature of coercion-based economies.  It takes time to develop in free economies, and can be disrupted by some wise-ass inventing the steam engine, electricity, or the Internets.  Corruption-wise (with the honest goal of minimizing corruption, not merely asking for a chance to participate :), I prefer free markets to planned economies, because although the data trends towards monopoly, (e.g. the Pareto principle), at least it takes a longer time to get there than it does in a planned economy. 

There aren't too many examples, because both philosophies have only been around for 300 of the past few thousand years of human history but I'll go back to my original one: Pre-9/11 America made it 200+ years, and Post-Czarist Russia, less than 100.


I don't go for the notion of "creating" the "new socialist man" either, nor do I advocate a planned economy as such.  But there had been ideas put out there as to how to "bell the cat" in the short term, and the passage I recommended to Mr C, which you might read to much better effect the he, suggests in general terms, what the future holds, and it might not be too far away.  See you at the revolution

Why do people want a return to the Laissez-Fare era so badly?

See you at the revolution

OK, but only as long as the Internet stays up :)


Why do people want a return to the Laissez-Fare era so badly?


Was it really that bad?

I prefer to deal with my fellow man with reason, not force.  The force stuff, well, that's where even I don't mind paying a few bucks in taxes, so that I don't have to deal with the messy (and occasionally bloody) business of maintaining the law.  If you believe in a government of laws and not men, you must believe that "right" is subordinate to "might" for all.  The tradeoff is that for a private citizen (who delegates the use of force to the government), anything not forbidden should be permitted, but for the government (which holds a monopoly on the use of force), anything not permitted should be forbidden.

Now, I think Rand takes it way too far, but she had a point when she said in 1966 "Another current catch-phrase is the complaint that the nations of the world are divided into 'haves' and the 'have-nots.'  Observe that the 'haves' are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the 'have-nots' have not."
 - Rand, The Roots of War

(Carlos, over to you - I think she was right in the context of the global economy 50 years ago when she wrote it, but I can't say I'd have bought her argument in 1917.  The jury's still out in 2010 - the free nations of Europe and North America are in the economic doldrums, and to everyone's surprise, a totalitarian (we'd agree on that) Commie (I think we'd agree they're commies in-name-only) state turned out to be the biggest, fastest-growing economy on the planet.)

OK, but only as long as the Internet stays up :)

Was it really that bad?

I prefer to deal with my fellow man with reason, not force.  The force stuff, well, that's where even I don't mind paying a few bucks in taxes, so that I don't have to deal with the messy (and occasionally bloody) business of maintaining the law.  If you believe in a government of laws and not men, you must believe that "right" is subordinate to "might" for all.  The tradeoff is that for a private citizen (who delegates the use of force to the government), anything not forbidden should be permitted, but for the government (which holds a monopoly on the use of force), anything not permitted should be forbidden.

Now, I think Rand takes it way too far, but she had a point when she said in 1966 "Another current catch-phrase is the complaint that the nations of the world are divided into 'haves' and the 'have-nots.'  Observe that the 'haves' are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the 'have-nots' have not."
 - Rand, The Roots of War

(Carlos, over to you - I think she was right in the context of the global economy 50 years ago when she wrote it, but I can't say I'd have bought her argument in 1917.  The jury's still out in 2010 - the free nations of Europe and North America are in the economic doldrums, and to everyone's surprise, a totalitarian (we'd agree on that) Commie (I think we'd agree they're commies in-name-only) state turned out to be the biggest, fastest-growing economy on the planet.)


I just think that industries should have at least a little level of regulation. Businesses are not by nature good entities, nor are they negative entities; but still, watch over them.
I also believe that things such as Social Security exist and serve a good purpose. I don't see why we need to have utterly unfettered Capitalism, and in fact, I believe the root of the recent lust for returning to unfettered capitalism is greed. You bring up Rand--I believe she was one of the most purposefully morally repugnant people ever to have existed, because I feel she knew full well her beliefs were self-centered, that their effects if put into policy would lead to man disregarding his brother utterly and completely. Her religion is one of ultimate selfishness.

OK, but only as long as the Internet stays up :)

Was it really that bad?

I prefer to deal with my fellow man with reason, not force.  The force stuff, well, that's where even I don't mind paying a few bucks in taxes, so that I don't have to deal with the messy (and occasionally bloody) business of maintaining the law.  If you believe in a government of laws and not men, you must believe that "right" is subordinate to "might" for all.  The tradeoff is that for a private citizen (who delegates the use of force to the government), anything not forbidden should be permitted, but for the government (which holds a monopoly on the use of force), anything not permitted should be forbidden.

Now, I think Rand takes it way too far, but she had a point when she said in 1966 "Another current catch-phrase is the complaint that the nations of the world are divided into 'haves' and the 'have-nots.'  Observe that the 'haves' are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the 'have-nots' have not."
 - Rand, The Roots of War

(Carlos, over to you - I think she was right in the context of the global economy 50 years ago when she wrote it, but I can't say I'd have bought her argument in 1917.  The jury's still out in 2010 - the free nations of Europe and North America are in the economic doldrums, and to everyone's surprise, a totalitarian (we'd agree on that) Commie (I think we'd agree they're commies in-name-only) state turned out to be the biggest, fastest-growing economy on the planet.)


Basically we agree.  I would point out that "have not" countries in the 60's  were all once colonies, and during their colonial phase produced great wealth. which was siphoned to the metropolitan power.  Early on, Spain wasted that wealth on wars and became dependent on English manufactures, hence "Spain kept the cow, but England drank the milk".  That wealth, and what it siphoned from its own colonies, powered the industrial revolution.  Beyond that, the countries that Rand is referring to,in many cases, we independent in mane only,  which is why they were authoritarian.  Rand's comment was ahistorical.

Of course "the state" claims a legitimate monopoly on coercion, by definition.  In his book on Andrew Jackson (written during the admin of FDR) Arthur Schlesinger posits a "enduring struggle" between labor and capital, or as he put it, between the business community and the rest of us, which, he claimed, was the guarantor of liberty in a democratic republic - note - THE STRUGGLE is the guarantor.   And note that of late, labor has been loosing that struggle as liberty is diminished.

And by the way, the passage I linked has to do with the outlines of historical materialism, not, as Mr C thought without actually reading it, socialism.

We talked a bit about axioms. I'll throw one more out there:  The more liquid the market, the more accurate its price.  

If you want to know what Apple Computer is worth, there are hundreds of millions of AAPL shares traded every day.  If you want to know what the cost to insure against the default of some obscure tranche of some bond that hasn't traded in six weeks, you're Bear Stearns doomed, because if nobody wants to buy (or in the case of Bear, if nobody wants to buy from you), you hold nothing other than worthless pieces of paper.


Of course "the state" claims a legitimate monopoly on coercion, by definition.  In his book on Andrew Jackson (written during the admin of FDR) Arthur Schlesinger posits a "enduring struggle" between labor and capital, or as he put it, between the business community and the rest of us, which, he claimed, was the guarantor of liberty in a democratic republic - note - THE STRUGGLE is the guarantor.   And note that of late, labor has been losing that struggle as liberty is diminished.


We're in some agreement here too - replace the word "struggle" with "market" and you've got a pretty decent summation of my take on politics.   What's a market other than a struggle between buyers and sellers?  

One-party states suck.  In business, so do (economic) monopolies.  It takes a revolution to overthrow a one-party state; the economic analogy would be a disruptive technology (P2P, OpenOffice) to do the same to a monopoly (RIAA, Microsoft).  The more sellers there are, the more likely you are to get a good price.  The more buyers there are, the more likely a seller is to get a fair offer.  The more sellers and buyers there are, the more "fair" (for some nebulous definition of the word "fair") the pricing is going to be.

The US experiment in federalism is really neat.  Mormons can have Utah, rednecks can have Texas, humanists have most of the west coast, and fundies can have Georgia.  If you're not getting your money's worth out of your taxes, move to a state that actually wants your business.  There are 50 perfectly good states in the USA.  Having those options open beats the hell out of trying to pack the whole thing up and move to some BRIC nation.

We talked a bit about axioms. I'll throw one more out there:  The more liquid the market, the more accurate its price.  

If you want to know what Apple Computer is worth, there are hundreds of millions of AAPL shares traded every day.  If you want to know what the cost to insure against the default of some obscure tranche of some bond that hasn't traded in six weeks, you're Bear Stearns doomed, because if nobody wants to buy (or in the case of Bear, if nobody wants to buy from you), you hold nothing other than worthless pieces of paper.

We're in some agreement here too - replace the word "struggle" with "market" and you've got a pretty decent summation of my take on politics.   What's a market other than a struggle between buyers and sellers?  

One-party states suck.  In business, so do (economic) monopolies.  It takes a revolution to overthrow a one-party state; the economic analogy would be a disruptive technology (P2P, OpenOffice) to do the same to a monopoly (RIAA, Microsoft).  The more sellers there are, the more likely you are to get a good price.  The more buyers there are, the more likely a seller is to get a fair offer.  The more sellers and buyers there are, the more "fair" (for some nebulous definition of the word "fair") the pricing is going to be.

The US experiment in federalism is really neat.  Mormons can have Utah, rednecks can have Texas, humanists have most of the west coast, and fundies can have Georgia.  If you're not getting your money's worth out of your taxes, move to a state that actually wants your business.  There are 50 perfectly good states in the USA.  Having those options open beats the hell out of trying to pack the whole thing up and move to some BRIC nation.


Sure, when Adam Smith (in 1776) published The wealth of Nations that made perfect sense, and is a good starting place for political economy.  Nor did the idea just fall out of heaven like manna.  It was a reaction to bullionism and granted monopolies, like the East India Company etc.  It also formed the basis for the labor theory of value since the incremental value of a pair of shoes over the cost of the leather could only be the labor of the shoemaker.

But, of course, the world is very different today, and the laws of supply and demand have pretty much been superseded by the laws of oligopoly and monopoly.  Thats because the market always tends in that direction, either naturally (in down times small firms fall away, and are gobbled up by larger ones) or by design (Smith observed that capitalists hate competition and given a chance will always conspire to avoid it).  So the answer, to maintain some semblance of Smith's  market or "invisible hand" is government intervention to maintain competition (TR's honest broker), as in the anti-trust legislation, and to reduce the steepness of the playing field against which labor must contend, as with the Wagner Act.  But these palliatives, as mild as they are, have become dormant of late.  So the "broker" ain't so honest any more, if "he" ever was (which he was not).

We are in agreement re one party politics, although there have been instances were their demise did not require a revolution, as in Chile in the 1990's when Pinochett stepped down and there is nor a functioning democracy although I grant you there aren't many.  But what, then do we make of our system, with just two parties that both come from the same paradigm, and argue only about the extent of state intervention>

But what, then do we make of our system, with just two parties that both come from the same paradigm, and argue only about the extent of state intervention?


It beats the alternatives?

Well, if neither of the two mainstream parties represent your interests, why vote for either of them?  Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, etc...

Unfortunately, duopolies are a practical outcome of any first-past-the-post electoral system.  The only way out of that bind is to wait for things to get bad enough that 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of Congress calls for some other way of counting for the votes.  This is exceedingly unlikely given that 535/535 of Congress and 50/50 of the states are controlled by representatives of one of the two wings of the Party, but it hasn't gotten that bad yet.  If it does get that bad, consider that a constitutional convention's going to be a messy affair, but - as I cast a sideways glance at the 1860s - it beats the hell out of the alternatives.

Fracture the Elephants into the Corporate Party (Bush) and the Jesus Party (Tea).  Fracture the Jackasses into the Conservative Party (Obama/Clinton) and the Progressive Party (Kucinich?).  The hardcore religious extremist parties would be borged by the Jesus Party, the Green Party would probably be borged by the Progressives, and Libertarians would probably be split between the Corporate Party (free markets!) and the Progressives (free dope!).

It beats the alternatives?

Well, if neither of the two mainstream parties represent your interests, why vote for either of them?  Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, etc...

Unfortunately, duopolies are a practical outcome of any first-past-the-post electoral system.  The only way out of that bind is to wait for things to get bad enough that 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of Congress calls for some other way of counting for the votes.  This is exceedingly unlikely given that 535/535 of Congress and 50/50 of the states are controlled by representatives of one of the two wings of the Party, but it hasn't gotten that bad yet.  If it does get that bad, consider that a constitutional convention's going to be a messy affair, but - as I cast a sideways glance at the 1860s - it beats the hell out of the alternatives.

Fracture the Elephants into the Corporate Party (Bush) and the Jesus Party (Tea).  Fracture the Jackasses into the Conservative Party (Obama/Clinton) and the Progressive Party (Kucinich?).  The hardcore religious extremist parties would be borged by the Jesus Party, the Green Party would probably be borged by the Progressives, and Libertarians would probably be split between the Corporate Party (free markets!) and the Progressives (free dope!).



The only other options, which as you say, will never happen short of revolution, are a muliparty system (representation based on % of the vote, probably on a national level), or a parliamentary system  with a prime minister rather that a president.  But this is just pie in the sky talk, and the various factions (in the Madisonian sense - Federalist # 10) and sects fight it out for control of the two parties.  It ain't the best system for a democratic republic, but its the one we've got.