Forum Politics

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

So, I do agree with you there. It use to be a liberal position to defend free speech, not so much anymore. But again, I really dont believe this is most mainstream liberals, but the fringes of the left.

Side note from what I have observed. Far right tends to view liberals as stupid whereas the far left tends to view conservatives as evil.

No. It's Conservative policies that are evil. Conservatives themselves are just stupid. A subtle difference they lack the reasoning to comprehend. It's why Conservatives hear Rush Limbaugh speaking dogma while the rest hear satire.

Quote: billryan

No. It's Conservative policies that are evil. Conservatives themselves are just stupid. A subtle difference they lack the reasoning to comprehend. It's why Conservatives hear Rush Limbaugh speaking dogma while the rest hear satire.

If you say so. :)

Its when this type of stuff gets thrown around that I have little interest in staying in a thread.

Just an FYI though, the Rush crowd is really starting to go away. Most people with any conservative leanings follow Ben Shaprio, and you can call the policies he supports evil if you wish, but he is far from stupid.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

If you say so. :)

Its when this type of stuff gets thrown around that I have little interest in staying in a thread.

Just an FYI though, the Rush crowd is really starting to go away. Most people with any conservative leanings follow Ben Shaprio, and you can call the policies he supports evil if you wish, but he is far from stupid.

I think Shapiro is brilliant. He saw a large pool of clueless people and managed to monetize it. I respect people like him and Milo and Sasha Cohen. Any comedian can get people to laugh. The ability to get people to make fools of themselves is a rare and special talent.

Quote: billryan

No. It's Conservative policies that are evil. Conservatives themselves are just stupid. A subtle difference they lack the reasoning to comprehend. It's why Conservatives hear Rush Limbaugh speaking dogma while the rest hear satire.

If you take away the social restriction stuff, I'd say Conservatives would more-or-less be just fine. They can at least make reasonable arguments for their economic positions, positions on crime and Second Amendment positions.

They mainly lose credibility due to their ridiculous positions on social issues, but individual GOP politicians have little choice but to accept them, if not outright advocate for them or you lose the White Evangelical Christians.

Oh, and those few who want to abolish all welfare. That's not happening.

Which, again, is the problem with the two-party system. Lots of round pegs trying to get shoved into square holes.

If you had multiple parties who all had potential to acquire reasonable power, then certainly you would see coalitions, but I think your, "Far right," people, especially on social issues, would break off into a separate party. I also think that your SJW types and/or economic extremists (on the left) would break off and do their own thing, as well. While there would be a lot of coalition between the different parties, it would still open it up for other parties to win (more) Senate/House seats as well as the Presidency. It's really tough to have the funding to do that right now, and you also don't have a built-in base as a third party candidate for anything.

Anyway, what you end up with is the GOP has to at least tolerate racists and White Evangelicals, (there's lots of overlap there, anyway) in fact, they even have to virtue signal to them sometimes, which is what Trump did in the former case. He could have arguably been a little more subtle about it so as to leave more room for doubt in the minds of Moderate Conservatives, but he won, so it was effective enough. They ran a really good campaign, though it wouldn't have worked against anyone other than the second least popular major party candidate ever. (Him being the first)

On the other side of the coin, Democrats have to tolerate...whatever the hell some of these people are. They're not people who believe in free speech, I'll tell you that much. SJW and far-left tenets have become as much of a Religion to them as Christianity is for the White Evangelicals. The only thing that makes the far left slightly better, in my view, is that they at least understand the source of their tenets. There are many White Evangelicals who really seem not to understand what the Bible is about.

Why would Bernie be in the Democratic primaries? He's a Socialist through-and-through. Can't run as a Socialist. No use.

Why would Rand Paul be in the Republican primaries? He's a Libertarian (though possibly the stupidest Libertarian to ever live). Well, we saw how much of the vote Gary Johnson got...unfortunately.

I don't even think Trump would have run as a Republican if you didn't have a two-party system. Maybe Independent? It's hard to say because an, "All other things equal," really assumes too much. If you did want to go, "All other things equal," I think the 2016 Election would have looked like this:

Hillary Clinton (Democrat)
Marco Rubio (Republican)
Donald J. Trump (Independent)
Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
Bernie Sanders (Socialist)

Something like that, and maybe one or two other parties. Maybe Jill Stein would run as Green, but I think her and Sanders would agree it needs to be one or the other, otherwise they'd be competing for the far left.

Of two evils, choose neither.

Quote: billryan

Of two evils, choose neither.

I really believe that party affiliation should not be listed on ballots. If I was a motivated person, that is a change I would be fighting for.

Quote: Mission146

Anyway, what you end up with is the GOP has to at least tolerate racists and White Evangelicals, (there's lots of overlap there, anyway) in fact, they even have to virtue signal to them sometimes, which is what Trump did in the former case. He could have arguably been a little more subtle about it so as to leave more room for doubt in the minds of Moderate Conservatives, but he won, so it was effective enough. They ran a really good campaign, though it wouldn't have worked against anyone other than the second least popular major party candidate ever. (Him being the first)

On the other side of the coin, Democrats have to tolerate...whatever the hell some of these people are. They're not people who believe in free speech, I'll tell you that much. SJW and far-left tenets have become as much of a Religion to them as Christianity is for the White Evangelicals. The only thing that makes the far left slightly better, in my view, is that they at least understand the source of their tenets. There are many White Evangelicals who really seem not to understand what the Bible is about.

This. Very much this. Although I disagree it makes the far left better.

Quote: Mission146

Why would Rand Paul be in the Republican primaries? He's a Libertarian (though possibly the stupidest Libertarian to ever live). Well, we saw how much of the vote Gary Johnson got...unfortunately.

Don't blame me, I had my hand all over the Johnson in 2016.

Quote: DRich

I really believe that party affiliation should not be listed on ballots. If I was a motivated person, that is a change I would be fighting for.

They arent in VA anymore I dont believe.

Funny story, my dad was a straight R voter his whole life. Didn't matter who was on the ballot, he would only vote for the republican. One election, I am guessing shortly after they removed affliction on the ballot, he asked the poll worker who the republican was. The poll worker told him that she could not tell him. He said that he wasnt going to vote if he didnt know who the republican was and walked off without voting.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Don't blame me, I had my hand all over the Johnson in 2016.

Same. I was out for quite a few hours pushing the Johnson as hard as I could to anyone willing to have it.

Quote: Mission146

If you take away the social restriction stuff, I'd say Conservatives would more-or-less be just fine. They can at least make reasonable arguments for their economic positions, positions on crime and Second Amendment positions.

They mainly lose credibility due to their ridiculous positions on social issues, but individual GOP politicians have little choice but to accept them, if not outright advocate for them or you lose the White Evangelical Christians.

Oh, and those few who want to abolish all welfare. That's not happening.

Which, again, is the problem with the two-party system. Lots of round pegs trying to get shoved into square holes.

If you had multiple parties who all had potential to acquire reasonable power, then certainly you would see coalitions, but I think your, "Far right," people, especially on social issues, would break off into a separate party. I also think that your SJW types and/or economic extremists (on the left) would break off and do their own thing, as well. While there would be a lot of coalition between the different parties, it would still open it up for other parties to win (more) Senate/House seats as well as the Presidency. It's really tough to have the funding to do that right now, and you also don't have a built-in base as a third party candidate for anything.

Anyway, what you end up with is the GOP has to at least tolerate racists and White Evangelicals, (there's lots of overlap there, anyway) in fact, they even have to virtue signal to them sometimes, which is what Trump did in the former case. He could have arguably been a little more subtle about it so as to leave more room for doubt in the minds of Moderate Conservatives, but he won, so it was effective enough. They ran a really good campaign, though it wouldn't have worked against anyone other than the second least popular major party candidate ever. (Him being the first)

On the other side of the coin, Democrats have to tolerate...whatever the hell some of these people are. They're not people who believe in free speech, I'll tell you that much. SJW and far-left tenets have become as much of a Religion to them as Christianity is for the White Evangelicals. The only thing that makes the far left slightly better, in my view, is that they at least understand the source of their tenets. There are many White Evangelicals who really seem not to understand what the Bible is about.

Why would Bernie be in the Democratic primaries? He's a Socialist through-and-through. Can't run as a Socialist. No use.

Why would Rand Paul be in the Republican primaries? He's a Libertarian (though possibly the stupidest Libertarian to ever live). Well, we saw how much of the vote Gary Johnson got...unfortunately.

I don't even think Trump would have run as a Republican if you didn't have a two-party system. Maybe Independent? It's hard to say because an, "All other things equal," really assumes too much. If you did want to go, "All other things equal," I think the 2016 Election would have looked like this:

Hillary Clinton (Democrat)
Marco Rubio (Republican)
Donald J. Trump (Independent)
Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
Bernie Sanders (Socialist)

Something like that, and maybe one or two other parties. Maybe Jill Stein would run as Green, but I think her and Sanders would agree it needs to be one or the other, otherwise they'd be competing for the far left.

I don't think there is any tenable argument for incarcerating 1 to 2% of the population, mostly for drugs and other victimless crimes. Though both parties are massive fans of it.

Sjws are like the Christian right. You're right there. They are the products of a divide and conquer approach by elites. They dgaf about mass incarceration. Just the pet issues that push their buttons.

Bernie is just FDR. Fdr was A dem. I'm not sure what the solution to the dems becoming a right wing, wall street party is. A new party and changing it from within are both nearly impossible.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

I have not found this to be the case at all. I find the fringes of both sides are off-put by associating with people with far differing ideologies.

And it is offputing to associate with them.

People who are full of anger, hatred and intolerance and who launch into political diatribes at the drop of a hat, with no capacity to listen to other povs, are no fun at parties. Who knew?

Quote: Rigondeaux

And it is offputing to associate with them.

People who are full of anger, hatred and intolerance and who launch into political diatribes at the drop of a hat, with no capacity to listen to other povs, are no fun at parties. Who knew?

Is it really a party if there isnt at least one brawl?

Quote: billryan

Of two evils, choose neither.

Hear him! Hear him!



@Mish, your test gots me all kinds of f#$%ed up right now. I'm learning so much about myself; it's bloody disconcerting.

67% Green. Not entirely surprising.
66% Socialist. What in tarnation?!
62% Libertarian. Obv.
61% Democratic. Say huh?
49% Women's Party. Makes sense, what with me being 49% woman and all.
41% Republican. 40% of which must be due to my rampant ammosexuality.
32% Constitution.

You think you know someone...

Anyway, interesting thread already. Perhaps the RonC's of the forum will find the proper discourse they've been desiring, as I too miss that and am finding it here. Keep it going, and let's try to make a proper politic thread, instead of just another dumpster fire.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

So, I do agree with you there. It use to be a liberal position to defend free speech, not so much anymore. But again, I really dont believe this is most mainstream liberals, but the fringes of the left.

Side note from what I have observed. Far right tends to view liberals as stupid whereas the far left tends to view conservatives as evil.

The free speech thing kills me. It sort of caught me of guard. One day you wake up and tons of young people don't believe in free speech. Due process too.

It comes from people living in their own little bubble worlds I guess. Once they become dogmatists there is only their version of reality, and evil.

At the same time, there are issues where I find it is good vs evil. If Joe schmoe was duped into supporting the Iraq war, I don't blame him. But politicians and journalists knowingly supporting a war on false pretenses... If that ain't evil, what is?

Quote: AZDuffman

It is a bad term and one that the left has charged up in a negative way. e.g: "Tax cuts for 'the rich.'" Who are "the rich?" Just over $65,000 puts you at the 75th percentile. $109,000 puts you in the top 10%. I know people making that $109K, none would call themselves "the rich." Statistically, though, they really are, being better off than 90% of people. To compare, an IQ of about 120 puts you in the top 10%, are you part of "the smart" then?




I am pro-life but it is not a huge issue to me. I am not for an outright ban, but I do think we need to educate on the negatives. I also think these pro-abortion feminists are kind of unbalanced and sick. I think there is something wrong with celebrating abortions. And I think the higher the abortion rate in a society, the more that society is a society in decline, abortion being a symptom, not a cause.

They ain't puttin that in.

Nobody.

Celebrates.

Abortion.

We celebrate, if it can be called that, the chance to have a choice whether to raise a child for the next 18 years. No woman I know has ever made the decision in either direction without a lot of thought, prayer, and examination of other options. Many of us who would not have one under any circumstances still strongly support the rights of others of us to make a different decision for their lives.

Quote: billryan

No. It's Conservative policies that are evil. Conservatives themselves are just stupid. A subtle difference they lack the reasoning to comprehend. It's why Conservatives hear Rush Limbaugh speaking dogma while the rest hear satire.

Yet so many of those Conservatives support a ton of liberal leeches that are never happy with anything.

Quote: MaxPen

Yet so many of those Conservatives support a ton of liberal leeches that are never happy with anything.

I'm flattered, but bewildered, by your obvious attraction to me. It brings me back to my Junior High days. What's next? A punch in the arm next time you see me? An invite for a sleepover party?

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Seems like a high percentage of friends to identify a certain way.

Yeah, I thought about that after I made that post, and realized there's no way 90% of my friends are liberals. Probably more like 60%? Definitely a majority, though, but just barely.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Most people with any conservative leanings follow Ben Shaprio, and you can call the policies he supports evil if you wish, but he is far from stupid.

I've only listened to like 3 or 4 of Ben Shapiro's interviews/speeches, and he seemed completely reasonable. Then I heard a lot of people hate him and think he's an extremist, so maybe I just didn't see the same speeches they did. He's definitely not a complete f***ing moron like Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly, that's for sure. At least not from what I've seen.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I don't think there is any tenable argument for incarcerating 1 to 2% of the population, mostly for drugs and other victimless crimes. Though both parties are massive fans of it.

I agree with you 100%, especially when it comes to non-violent offenses. I think reasonable arguments can be made for the death penalty, though. That's not to say I agree with them, but they could be made.

My understanding is some on the right believe a DUI/DWI = no drivers license for the rest of one's life. You could get me on board with that, easily.

Quote:

Sjws are like the Christian right. You're right there. They are the products of a divide and conquer approach by elites. They dgaf about mass incarceration. Just the pet issues that push their buttons.

Exactly. They also want to shout down and shame the opposition, that's a big thing for some of them. It's not enough to have won gay marriage or abortion rights, they need everyone to believe that those are correct and nobody should EVER say otherwise. Quite frankly, I just care that gay marriage is legal, I'm completely unconcerned with whether or not individual people disagree with it. Express your disagreement.

I can also understand why Fred Phelps with his, "God hates F***," should be considered detestable. At least, until this country was recently relieved of his existence. But if somebody just says, "I think marriage should be a man and a woman," that's fine, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to express that.

Again, I really wouldn't mind it being a strictly states rights decision. The only problem is that there can be Federal Tax implications that go along with it, so the Feds are kind of painted into taking a stand. I guess the Feds could just say they'll respect marriage licenses from states that allow it...but you know that wouldn't be enough for the naysayers. For one, they'd want the Federal Government not to recognize it AT ALL. Secondly, they'd want it to be based on the state of residence being filed from, not the state in which the two people got married, which they would see as a, "Loophole."

Quote:

Bernie is just FDR. Fdr was A dem. I'm not sure what the solution to the dems becoming a right wing, wall street party is. A new party and changing it from within are both nearly impossible.

Any more than two parties is impossible. Bernie, his Bernie Bros and others on the far left probably just figure that the rest of the Moderate left will go along because it's more palatable to them than the right would be. It's a power struggle, but the far left is beating the moderate left on the social media. Let's see how it translates in terms of the candidates that are trotted out.

I'm guessing many of these SJW's are big on the saying and small on the doing, which might be the most annoying quality about them.

Quote: Face

Hear him! Hear him!

@Mish, your test gots me all kinds of f#$%ed up right now. I'm learning so much about myself; it's bloody disconcerting.

67% Green. Not entirely surprising.
66% Socialist. What in tarnation?!
62% Libertarian. Obv.
61% Democratic. Say huh?
49% Women's Party. Makes sense, what with me being 49% woman and all.
41% Republican. 40% of which must be due to my rampant ammosexuality.
32% Constitution.

You think you know someone...

Your tolerance and, "Live and let live," attitude has betrayed you, Face! It looks like you and I are almost in lockstep politically!

Quote:

Anyway, interesting thread already. Perhaps the RonC's of the forum will find the proper discourse they've been desiring, as I too miss that and am finding it here. Keep it going, and let's try to make a proper politic thread, instead of just another dumpster fire.

Let's hope so!

Quote: Rigondeaux

Its cool to know what these terms mean.

On the political compass, in the broad sense, a liberal is someone who thinks changes should be actively promoted. A conservative wants to keep things how they are and/or allow changes to occur more organically.

Quote:

Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great.
-William F. Buckley

Oops, edited out my own comment. All political views shift somewhat, but there was nothing wrong with your original statement.

Quote: Rigondeaux

The free speech thing kills me. It sort of caught me of guard. One day you wake up and tons of young people don't believe in free speech. Due process too.

Exactly. Both 100% correct. I also think, "Social justice," means, "Social ostracization," because that's what they seem to want done to those who would have the audacity to oppose them on anything. Or, make a joke, that too.

Quote:

It comes from people living in their own little bubble worlds I guess. Once they become dogmatists there is only their version of reality, and evil.

I disagree. I think it's pretentious as hell, if you want to know the truth. People keep coming up with new ridiculous, "Triggers," and who knows what else. The SJW's and far-left are essentially in a race to be the most accepting and politically correct. It's like a bunch of cult members prostrating themselves before the leader to curry favor. Except, there is no leader, in this case. The closest thing to a leader is not being banished from the circle jerk.

Quote:

At the same time, there are issues where I find it is good vs evil. If Joe schmoe was duped into supporting the Iraq war, I don't blame him. But politicians and journalists knowingly supporting a war on false pretenses... If that ain't evil, what is?

Sugar cookies. Very bland and chalky. Stick to the roof of your mouth. True evil.

Quote: Mission146

Exactly. Both 100% correct. I also think, "Social justice," means, "Social ostracization," because that's what they seem to want done to those who would have the audacity to oppose them on anything. Or, make a joke, that too.

It has shifted back and forth between several groups and will likely do so in the future. Consider this list of historical book burnings.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents

Quote: Mission146

Your tolerance and, "Live and let live," attitude has betrayed you, Face! It looks like you and I are almost in lockstep politically!

On one hand. On the other, I've never been incited by a post like I've been incited by some of yours. Previous to this, I would have wagered that the only thing we agreed on politically is that there is a government and yes, we should have one lol.

I dunno, I find I suffer cognitive dissonance all the time. Not so much with acting against my beliefs, but the holding conflicting ideas aspect. On a micro level, it'd be fair to say I'm nearing full Marx. My efforts to create an Old World neighborhood where everyone was friendly and kids and dogs could run unfettered is becoming almost a commune. Forget simple things such as sub-hour childcare or borrowing a ladder, it's to the point people are purging equipment. Why have 8 lawnmowers for 8 houses when you can just share 1? Bob's is the best, we'll use his, and do Bob's landscaping to cover his cost of purchase and maintenance. Everybody else purges theirs, and then each buys one piece to the rest of the puzzle. Jim gets a roller, Bognish gets the snowblower attachment, Zeke nabs a power washer. Now everybody has eight things, but everybody's only had to buy one. It's bleeding amazing, and without a doubt the best thing one could do.

I just can't translate it to the macro. I can't see it working, and thoughts of trying make me angry. Perhaps it's the control factor, the idea that if one of my 8 steps out, I can physically reach him. Perhaps it's the security of power, knowing that if I find myself being taken advantage of or victimized, I personally can act and be certain that it stops exactly when I want or need it to. Or maybe it's a different kind of regular ol' control, as in my 8 I am making the decision myself, whereas with national socialism all the decisions are being made for me. I dunno, but this is an example of the cog-dis. On one hand and in real life practice, I see that a sort of social/commune structure is the absolute best option. On the other, the mere mention of leftist ideas sends me to realcheapammo.com for tithing.


Government should provide essential services only. Health, safety, and defense, the last of which should be gutted like a puffer fish. On the other, art, music, museums, education, et al are absolutely vital to having a country worth a s#$% and must be funded at any cost. Healthcare is a service, and you've no right to ask Uncle Sam to pay SOOPOO for sleepy times than you do asking Uncle Sam to pay for Face to fix your four wheel drive. If you want it, YOU go get it. On the other, it seems obvious, or at least reasonable to assume, that whatever the negative cost of fronting SOOPOO's fee is several times less than the cost of lost productivity in these folks who are ailing. I could go on and on. Unless it's drugs or guns, I'm double sided on just about every issue I can think of. So what am I? What do I call myself, where do I fall?

I cope by compartmentalizing. In theory / on paper / in simulation, I'd probably be left as hell. I suppose it's fair to say it's where I'd want to be and what I think, in theory, could provide the best end result. But I view all that stuff as idealistic. In a perfect world where charlatans were a rarity and POS were shunned and exiled instead of lauded and promoted, sure. But they're not, and I'm far, far too defensive psychologically to accept that. Much like my personal life, I will forgo many positives to ensure I don't suffer a single negative. So, sorry Uncle Bern, but I gotta roll with Uncle Ted.

Quote: Face

On one hand. On the other, I've never been incited by a post like I've been incited by some of yours. Previous to this, I would have wagered that the only thing we agreed on politically is that there is a government and yes, we should have one lol.

(Emphasis Added)

Thanks for the compliment!

Quote:

I dunno, I find I suffer cognitive dissonance all the time. Not so much with acting against my beliefs, but the holding conflicting ideas aspect. On a micro level, it'd be fair to say I'm nearing full Marx. My efforts to create an Old World neighborhood where everyone was friendly and kids and dogs could run unfettered is becoming almost a commune. Forget simple things such as sub-hour childcare or borrowing a ladder, it's to the point people are purging equipment. Why have 8 lawnmowers for 8 houses when you can just share 1? Bob's is the best, we'll use his, and do Bob's landscaping to cover his cost of purchase and maintenance. Everybody else purges theirs, and then each buys one piece to the rest of the puzzle. Jim gets a roller, Bognish gets the snowblower attachment, Zeke nabs a power washer. Now everybody has eight things, but everybody's only had to buy one. It's bleeding amazing, and without a doubt the best thing one could do.

I think it's fair to suggest that many people suffer cognitive dissonance. Personally, I understand that many of my ideals could only really work Universally applied, but at the same time, I've become pretty big on states rights. I find the amount of power that one party who controls the bodies of Congress and the Presidency at the same time alarming. That's not just because Trump is in office, either. I'm talking ObamaCare (which I generally would support) being passed despite the fact that over half of the country didn't want it.

As far as the localized commune goes, I think the sad truth of Marxism is that it needs to be well-funded (relative to who is in it) and the bigger the utopia gets, the more difficult it is to manage. That pretty much stands to reason, right? It's like they say, "You guys will have nothing, but at least it'll be divided equally."

I think you're right about the hang-ups. With your eight household thing, that's where you're at. You have one-eighth of the power and you're contributing one-eighth of the goods. You guys must have the most amazing block parties!

Quote:

Government should provide essential services only. Health, safety, and defense, the last of which should be gutted like a puffer fish. On the other, art, music, museums, education, et al are absolutely vital to having a country worth a s#$% and must be funded at any cost. Healthcare is a service, and you've no right to ask Uncle Sam to pay SOOPOO for sleepy times than you do asking Uncle Sam to pay for Face to fix your four wheel drive. If you want it, YOU go get it. On the other, it seems obvious, or at least reasonable to assume, that whatever the negative cost of fronting SOOPOO's fee is several times less than the cost of lost productivity in these folks who are ailing. I could go on and on. Unless it's drugs or guns, I'm double sided on just about every issue I can think of. So what am I? What do I call myself, where do I fall?

I agree with the first three that you said and with education. I would suggest that art, music and museums are all primarily forms of entertainment (before being educational, though they are both) and should be funded either privately or by way of donations. I guess you could make an argument for museums of science and history being educational. Museums of art? Meh.

I really wouldn't want to see Government spending on any non-essential programs whatsoever. Anything recreational I would want to see done with publicly voted levies, like parks and such. The towns can be as nice as the townspeople are willing to vote to make them. I would eliminate national parks entirely, waste of money, not the Government's business. Roads are necessary, obviously.

Quote:

I cope by compartmentalizing. In theory / on paper / in simulation, I'd probably be left as hell. I suppose it's fair to say it's where I'd want to be and what I think, in theory, could provide the best end result. But I view all that stuff as idealistic. In a perfect world where charlatans were a rarity and POS were shunned and exiled instead of lauded and promoted, sure. But they're not, and I'm far, far too defensive psychologically to accept that. Much like my personal life, I will forgo many positives to ensure I don't suffer a single negative. So, sorry Uncle Bern, but I gotta roll with Uncle Ted.

I'm really just left when it comes to basic needs: food, medical, education, roads, basic infrastructure and defense to the degree that is necessary. (Defense would include police) I would categorize anything that either doesn't, or only loosely, falls under those purviews as wasteful spending. Debates about putting statues up, for example, why is the Government wasting money on statues? To commemorate history? Teach it in school, that'll be commemoration enough, especially if they go ahead and teach an honest accounting of events.

Quote: Rigondeaux

The free speech thing kills me. It sort of caught me of guard. One day you wake up and tons of young people don't believe in free speech. Due process too.

It comes from people living in their own little bubble worlds I guess. Once they become dogmatists there is only their version of reality, and evil.

You're seeing the result. I want you, I mean seriously want you, to consider the cause.

***Disclaimer - I'm going to talk about guns, but only because it's what I know and not because I want a gun discussion. If something I say interests and/or triggers you, please copy/paste it into the default gun discussion repository (gunshow loophole thread) and we'll have that discussion there. Many thanks***


If you pop into left leaning sites and view gun news, you'll see a slew of terms and numerous types of rhetoric being used. This "news" is not news at all; it quite simply is nothing but propaganda. The term "assault weapon" didn't exist until the media created it. "Assault rifle", sure, because it is a specific type of weapon (a rifle) designed for a very specific purpose (to attack enemy forces in direct combat, aka military definition of assault). "Assault weapon" is but hokum, used precisely to engender an emotional response. If you look, you'll see this agenda being pushed and spreading as a result. Today, we don't even blink at "assault weapon"; it's been successfully inserted into the lexicon. But it's still going on. My god rotting Sen, Mr Chuck Schumer (and cousin to that foul beast Amy) is currently getting his panties in a knot and firing up the riff raff about 3D printed guns.

Quote: Chuck Schumer

I am sounding an alarm that come Aug. 1, America is going to get a lot less safe when it comes to the gut-wrenching epidemic of gun violence

NYS is third best in the country re: gun deaths. We're around 900 a year, in a state of close to 20,000,000. And 30k marks the nationwide total, with 330mm+ as the pop. So, "gutwrenching"? "Epidemic?" 500,000 homeless people in the richest nation that has ever existed is gutwrenching. Veterans dying by the tens every f#$%ing day to suicide is gutwrenching. 400,000 kids without homes being bounced from foster to foster is gutwrenching. Let us please cut the s#$%.

He goes on to say that these "ghost guns" (not a real term until invented by those with an agenda, cuz ooooh spooky) could "mimic the look and capacity of a hardened, fully semi automatic weapon". You're a bright guy, Ragu. Do you think how something looks affects anything? Are you the type that thinks a Saturn SL2 could put down 10sec quarters because it has a ricer wing and diffuser? Course not, cuz looks is immaterial, but anything to draw similarities, amirite? Next, we have "hardened". What is hardened, Rigon? I know when I hear "hardened" I think of "hardened criminal" or "hardened emplacement", like a bunker, like they have in war. We can't be having that, surely. And then the icing on the brainwashing cake, he comes in with a mf'in "fully semi automatic".

As much as we like to state it (and sometimes hope it's true, as the alternative is terrifying) these folks are not stupid. Mr. Schumer is not some f#$%wit, snot nosed kid swinging above his weight class. This is engineered propaganda, plain and simple. Use terms to shock the rubes until they grab the pitchforks, then let "useful idiots" do the work for you.

You're tech savvy, IIRC. Tell me you did not or are not still seeing the same sort of misinfo campaign surrounding net neutrality.


The bubble is part of it, certainly. But more than the fact that the bubble exists, what gets me the absolute most is people's willing desire to remain in it, even when showed beyond a doubt that the bubble is false, faulty, or even harmful. Perhaps it's much like my actual stance of Individualism vs my desired stance of Socialism, where certain personality traits don't allow them to go there. Free Speech might strike them as important, but its use means sometimes it comes back at them in a way they can't accept, so better to dump the speech than have their stance be challenged. Have enough people say something is "too damaging to say", get enough people on board repeating it, the most passionate make enough noise so one person sounds like one thousand, and suddenly all those who feel that way are now emboldened to act that way, fueled by a sense of duty along with the groupthink swell of "everyone feels like this so this is righteous" created by the bubble.


I kinda wish everyone would just tune out and go fishing. The absurdity and obviousness of the games being played is quite easy to see from the outside.

well Face, if you are not happy here, perhaps you should return to your native land.

Quote: TomG

This is a perfect example of changing definitions to fit whatever you want. The data we have shows the exact opposite of what you claim. The more that places like China, Russia, and Europe move away from communism, the more their middle class (more equal outcomes) grows.

Has zero to do with trying to make a more equal outcome in the USA, which is what social programs are mostly about.

Quote:

The more rigid our borders, the more that birth place is the deciding factor in opportunities (completely unequal). That may be a conservative value based on some definitions. But it is once again the exact opposite of the definition you provided. Trump's Border Wall is North America's version of India's Caste system. I commend you for your talent in being able to bend these political definitions and values in whatever way necessary to make absolutely sure that you know you're on the right side and the other side is wrong. It's very American of you.

India's caste system? So you are saying that you favor a borderless world? Because that is how that statement sounds. Trump is POTUS, not PONA or POTW. Other countries do not enter into the equal opportunity as they are not part of the USA. I don't get why you are saying that any other country has to do with conservative vs. liberal. Other countries do not matter, their business and societies are there own.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Well it only takes a small percentage of the population to appear large. So lets start off with the 65 Million people that voted for Hillary Clinton. If say only 15% are in the extreme (I am not saying that is the case just a small example) then that is almost 10 million loons in this country. That is scary. Same for the right.

I use this same example when talking to some of my ultra conservative friends about Islam. There are 1.6 Billion (as of 2010) Muslims in the world, take a small fraction that are violent extremist, lets say .1% (again not saying that is the figure) and that is a scary amount of violent crazy people.

In both of these cases it tends to make the larger group look bad.

Islam itself is radical and if you look at islamic societies, you will find a violent, intolerant sewer. Islam cannot exist side by side with other religions. Using it is a bad example.

Quote: Mission146

I want to say that any doctor has a fundamental duty to explain to his/her patient the dangers of a medical procedure. I should certainly like to think that is being done anywhere an abortion is performed.

I don't know about emotional damage. The abortion doctor is unlikely to also be a psychologist or psychiatrist.

You might like to think it is being explained, but I doubt the abortion mills are doing so. Feminists fight this kind of counseling. As to the emotional damage, if the doctor is trained in performing abortions it is a simple thing to add this kind of training to the training.

Quote:

I Googled what you said, it's mostly just people wearing T-Shirts that say, "I had an abortion." When you said, "Celebrate," I was hoping there would be some libations involved. Wearing a T-Shirt isn't much of a celebration. I'm wearing a, "Rural King," T-Shirt right now, am I celebrating the store?

If you paid for the T then yes, you are celebrating the store. If you brag about having had an abortion, I would call that celebrating it. Choose another word other than "celebrating" if you wish, they are clearly proud of the fact and happy with it. You seem to have take the view that NOW and feminists are trying to sell, that they are "pro-choice." I say it again, tell them your choice is for life, see what their reaction is. Limbaugh explains it best when he says abortion is their "sacrament." Almost some kind of initiation ritual to the sisterhood. This is a hard fact of life, but a fact nonetheless.

Quote: AZDuffman

Islam itself is radical and if you look at islamic societies, you will find a violent, intolerant sewer. Islam cannot exist side by side with other religions. Using it is a bad example.

QFP.

Wow.

And I occasionally worry about taking my bias against certain White Evangelicals too far. Guess not.

Good thing the Founding Fathers weren't big on religious freedom, or anything. Are you sure you don't think the #ConstitutionSucks?

Quote: AZDuffman

You might like to think it is being explained, but I doubt the abortion mills are doing so. Feminists fight this kind of counseling. As to the emotional damage, if the doctor is trained in performing abortions it is a simple thing to add this kind of training to the training.

They fight counseling as to possible side effects and complications that can arise from what is technically a surgery? Yes, the, "Abortion mills," are explaining it. Can I get any doctor on here to confirm that doctors have a fundamental duty to explain the possible side effects and complications of medical procedures to patients, or in the alternative, risk losing their licenses?

I mean, sure, if you want to throw some stats or something at them on the emotional whatever, be my guest. That's really going to be damn near the first time that a person's emotions are at the forefront of a Social Conservative's concerns, but have a ball.

Quote:

If you paid for the T then yes, you are celebrating the store. If you brag about having had an abortion, I would call that celebrating it. Choose another word other than "celebrating" if you wish, they are clearly proud of the fact and happy with it. You seem to have take the view that NOW and feminists are trying to sell, that they are "pro-choice." I say it again, tell them your choice is for life, see what their reaction is. Limbaugh explains it best when he says abortion is their "sacrament." Almost some kind of initiation ritual to the sisterhood. This is a hard fact of life, but a fact nonetheless.

What?

It's a $3.99 T-Shirt. I got it because it is a relatively plain T-Shirt, in my size, for only $3.99. Actually, I'm currently boycotting Rural King for being open on Thanksgiving Day last year, if you want to know the truth.

Gas stations, pharmacies, grocery stores, some eateries.

I'm not willing to accept any other stores being open on Thanksgiving Day. It's the best holiday we have. At least in terms of what it means nowadays. Non-Religious, Non-denominational, just a day where we say, "Screw it, let's take the day off and spend some time with our families and eat a huge meal."

Besides, I get to make my, "Dad joke," about celebrating the six, "F's," of Thanksgiving.

Family
Food
Friends
Fun
And...F****** Football

So, BOOOOOOOOO at Rural King. "America's Home and Farm Store," my ass. Nothing American about being open on Thanksgiving. Wait, consumerism. Okay, maybe it's totally American.

Anyway, I'm perfectly fine with people both being pro-life and expressing same, so the rest of what you said doesn't apply to me at all.

Quote: Face

On one hand. On the other, I've never been incited by a post like I've been incited by some of yours. Previous to this, I would have wagered that the only thing we agreed on politically is that there is a government and yes, we should have one lol.

I dunno, I find I suffer cognitive dissonance all the time. Not so much with acting against my beliefs, but the holding conflicting ideas aspect. On a micro level, it'd be fair to say I'm nearing full Marx. My efforts to create an Old World neighborhood where everyone was friendly and kids and dogs could run unfettered is becoming almost a commune. Forget simple things such as sub-hour childcare or borrowing a ladder, it's to the point people are purging equipment. Why have 8 lawnmowers for 8 houses when you can just share 1? Bob's is the best, we'll use his, and do Bob's landscaping to cover his cost of purchase and maintenance. Everybody else purges theirs, and then each buys one piece to the rest of the puzzle. Jim gets a roller, Bognish gets the snowblower attachment, Zeke nabs a power washer. Now everybody has eight things, but everybody's only had to buy one. It's bleeding amazing, and without a doubt the best thing one could do.

I just can't translate it to the macro. I can't see it working, and thoughts of trying make me angry. Perhaps it's the control factor, the idea that if one of my 8 steps out, I can physically reach him. Perhaps it's the security of power, knowing that if I find myself being taken advantage of or victimized, I personally can act and be certain that it stops exactly when I want or need it to. Or maybe it's a different kind of regular ol' control, as in my 8 I am making the decision myself, whereas with national socialism all the decisions are being made for me. I dunno, but this is an example of the cog-dis. On one hand and in real life practice, I see that a sort of social/commune structure is the absolute best option. On the other, the mere mention of leftist ideas sends me to realcheapammo.com for tithing.


Government should provide essential services only. Health, safety, and defense, the last of which should be gutted like a puffer fish. On the other, art, music, museums, education, et al are absolutely vital to having a country worth a s#$% and must be funded at any cost. Healthcare is a service, and you've no right to ask Uncle Sam to pay SOOPOO for sleepy times than you do asking Uncle Sam to pay for Face to fix your four wheel drive. If you want it, YOU go get it. On the other, it seems obvious, or at least reasonable to assume, that whatever the negative cost of fronting SOOPOO's fee is several times less than the cost of lost productivity in these folks who are ailing. I could go on and on. Unless it's drugs or guns, I'm double sided on just about every issue I can think of. So what am I? What do I call myself, where do I fall?

I cope by compartmentalizing. In theory / on paper / in simulation, I'd probably be left as hell. I suppose it's fair to say it's where I'd want to be and what I think, in theory, could provide the best end result. But I view all that stuff as idealistic. In a perfect world where charlatans were a rarity and POS were shunned and exiled instead of lauded and promoted, sure. But they're not, and I'm far, far too defensive psychologically to accept that. Much like my personal life, I will forgo many positives to ensure I don't suffer a single negative. So, sorry Uncle Bern, but I gotta roll with Uncle Ted.

So very much like what I see as ideal. And I agree most of it doesn't work in the macro. Everyone has responsibility, brings their best to contribute, shares the work and the rewards. But it's not universal: it works on a personal level. An infrastructure that supports that small-world model would be just enough government.

And yes, you absolutely must have arts, music, education. They are the most undervalued assets these days. Thank you for bringing them up. Life is not worth living without beauty and thought. There's no point to all the technology and time-saving advances if we can't use some of that time for creative expression.

This is a really long conversation, or it's a place to stop talking, so I'll quit there for now. Great post, Face.

Quote: Mission146

QFP.

Wow.

And I occasionally worry about taking my bias against certain White Evangelicals too far. Guess not.

Good thing the Founding Fathers weren't big on religious freedom, or anything. Are you sure you don't think the #ConstitutionSucks?

I have seen enough of islam that I am comfortable is stating this. Trying to kill a guy over a few cartoons? Save me the "just a few radicals" thing, as the islamic radicals seem to be EVERYWHERE islam is. I have met people who were almost killed over it. Their priest was, when a bunch of muslims blasted into their church and killed him for not converting to islam on the spot. They then had to walk thru the desert to safety, many drinking their own piss to survive (yeah, I know it may kill you faster, but they did it.)

Met another, pinned down in Lebanon. Almost killed for not being muslim. Had a guy worked for me, saw all the human bombs in Israel late-1990s. Or look at the rape culture imported to northern Europe with all those "refugees."

It is a culture problem, and societies who ignore it will be overrun and destroyed. Europe may be already too far gone.

Oh, how about how they treat their women? Yet liberal American women defend islam! It is so funny that the same people who get upset over anything religious will defend islam to the death.

Ignore the problem at your own risk. Sure, there may be a few good muslims. But the average Indian probably never saw a white person, and most whites never saw an Indian. Ask them how another culture infiltrating worked out.

Quote: AZDuffman

Islam itself is radical and if you look at islamic societies, you will find a violent, intolerant sewer. Islam cannot exist side by side with other religions. Using it is a bad example.

The best man in my wedding was muslim. You could not meet a more thoughtful, supportive, person. Really stand up guy. Through him I got to know a few different muslim people. They arent all woman beaters, queer killers, and terrorist like the media portrays.

Oh and FYI, his family immigrated here legally from Pakistan through a lengthy process. If you want to find somebody who is adamant against illegal immigration, he is your man LOL

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

The best man in my wedding was muslim. You could not meet a more thoughtful, supportive, person. Really stand up guy. Through him I got to know a few different muslim people. They arent all woman beaters, queer killers, and terrorist like the media portrays.

Oh and FYI, his family immigrated here legally from Pakistan through a lengthy process. If you want to find somebody who is admit against illegal immigration, he is your man LOL

As I said earlier, there are "good muslims." That does not mean that islam itself is not radical.

Note that he left an islamic society!

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

The best man in my wedding was muslim. You could not meet a more thoughtful, supportive, person. Really stand up guy. Through him I got to know a few different muslim people. They arent all woman beaters, queer killers, and terrorist like the media portrays.

Oh and FYI, his family immigrated here legally from Pakistan through a lengthy process. If you want to find somebody who is adamant against illegal immigration, he is your man LOL

AZD posts from inside the bubble. Please don't let him sour you on having a conversation with the rest of us.

Quote: AZDuffman

As I said earlier, there are "good muslims." That does not mean that islam itself is not radical.

Note that he left an islamic society!

Is that kind of like your "good black"?

Quote: AZDuffman

Oh, how about how they treat their women? Yet liberal American women defend islam! It is so funny that the same people who get upset over anything religious will defend islam to the death.

Yeah, when Religion tries to inform social policies.

People can adhere to whatever they want in their own homes and places of worship, as long as nothing illegal is happening. I've never held any other position, in that regard.

What is the Islamic position on abortion and gay marriage, just out of curiosity?

Here you go:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-31/same-sex-marriage-why-have-muslims-been-so-quiet-in-debate/8860486

Quote:

"Unfortunately, in the current climate, the right and conservative side has attacked Muslims as terrorists and extremists, and naturally the left side has been allies in defending us for a long period of time," he said.

"We are afraid if we come out with our opinion then the left may abandon us for going against their view and we can't be friendly with the conservatives because they have been bashing us for 15, 20 years every chance they get … and that includes some Christian sects as well."

Holy crap, they agree with the Conservatives? Who would have guessed that? Except, they say, "You know what? We've got this one side that we perceive as tolerating our existence, whereas the Conservatives don't, so we're just going to sit quietly over here."

Brief research shows they have different branches (or whatever you would call them) with differing views on abortion. In all cases, four months is the cutoff (because that is when the fetus gets a soul) unless there is extreme danger to the mother if the pregnancy is not terminated. It looks like many of the sects or denominations have varying views prior to the four month point.

And, don't some Religious guys advocate, "A woman's place is in the home." Have you not hinted towards those leanings? I think the Islam is on board with you guys there.

That's just how some White Evangelical Christians work:

Contrary to almost literally everything that The Bible says, they can't help but essentially hate everyone who is not exactly like them...even, you know, people who are very much like them who just happen to not be Caucasian and call their god something else.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Is that kind of like your "good black"?

Are you saying you want to live in a black ghetto area because there is nothing wrong with that area? High crime. etc. are "just a few bad apples?"

Quote: beachbumbabs

AZD posts from inside the bubble. Please don't let him sour you on having a conversation with the rest of us.

My "bubble" is called the biosphere. Just that some people cannot handle reality.

Quote: AZDuffman

Are you saying you want to live in a black ghetto area because there is nothing wrong with that area? High crime. etc. are "just a few bad apples?"

I am saying there is nothing inherently wrong with being Muslim no more than the is nothing inherently black. You seem to have prejudged both groups. I generally will judge each person on an individual basis.

Quote: AZDuffman

My "bubble" is called the biosphere. Just that some people cannot handle reality.

There are some people who cannot even perceive reality.

To the extent that, "Reality," is really nothing more than an agreement of terms as to what is actually the case v. what is not the case...you're not going to find too many people who agree with your terms, I'm afraid.

Quote: AZDuffman

Has zero to do with trying to make a more equal outcome in the USA, which is what social programs are mostly about.

If conservatives want to preach equal opportunity than they have to provide the same starting line. Even if a kid in the worst ghetto makes it as far as one of Trump's kids, the starting line was way back. The kid does not succeed because he was given a fair start, but because he had to work way harder than a Trump kid to get to the same point.

The BS about equal opportunity is a lie from the right until they make sure it happens.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

I am saying there is nothing inherently wrong with being Muslim no more than the is nothing inherently black. You seem to have prejudged both groups. I generally will judge each person on an individual basis.

And I said the problem is that "islam is radical." You seem to be unable to tell the difference between an individual and a society.

So, are you moving to East LA? Detroit? Harlem? Probably some good properties and you can judge the people there on an individual basis.

Quote: rxwine

If conservatives want to preach equal opportunity than they have to provide the same starting line. Even if a kid in the worst ghetto makes it as far as one of Trump's kids, the starting line was way back. The kid does not succeed because he was given a fair start, but because he had to work way harder than a Trump kid to get to the same point.

The BS about equal opportunity is a lie from the right until they make sure it happens.

You could just shorten this and say you believe in equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity.

Quote: AZDuffman

And I said the problem is that "islam is radical." You seem to be unable to tell the difference between an individual and a society.

So, are you moving to East LA? Detroit? Harlem? Probably some good properties and you can judge the people there on an individual basis.

AZ, I do understand what you are getting at. I really do. All I want to know if if you meet a black dude do you assume that he is a contributor to the corruption of inner citys with a bunch of baby mommas, or do you wait to get to know him and go from there?

If you see a person of middle eastern heritage do you assume he is a violent person who wants to implement shira law, or that he is just a person of a different faith trying to get by in America.

I am the later in each of these scenarios.

Quote: AZDuffman

You could just shorten this and say you believe in equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity.

I pointed out a flaw in your conservative ideology and am awaiting you to dispute it. You don't provide or believe in equal opportunity until you actually provide it.

If I race Usain Bolt in a 100 yd dash by taking a 50 yard lead, no matter who wins equal opportunity was not provided.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

AZ, I do understand what you are getting at. I really do. All I want to know if if you meet a black dude do you assume that he is a contributor to the corruption of inner citys with a bunch of baby mommas, or do you wait to get to know him and go from there?

If you see a person of middle eastern heritage do you assume he is a violent person who wants to implement shira law, or that he is just a person of a different faith trying to get by in America.

I am the later in each of these scenarios.

So, I assume you see the dangers of East LA even if many "individuals" are "good people?"

In either case, I know the difference between an individual and a larger society. I have seen Blacks act totally different when they are alone with a group of whites than when they were among even a few other Blacks. One worked for me, totally proper most of the time. My other manager was out on a meeting with him and said she could not believe how he acted when he met another Black guy. Said he went in the words of Joe Biden, into using "his negro dialect." She was amazed. I was less so because I had seen it happen with other Black guys. Almost as if they spoke some other language at work, but could relax at home.

The same thing happens with muslims. As the percent of muslims in a non-muslim society increases, so does violence. Eventually you get the no-go zones that EU leaders said "do not exist" until they said they really exist.

You are an idealist. I am a realist. Realists will out-survive idealists every time.