Confirmed: Obama WAS a member of the Socialist New Party - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 


But I don't want an iPhone. Why would I get something I don't want? Because everyone else has one and tells me I have to get one? That's not a good enough reason. Yet no compelling reason is offered except "at least it's not an Android".

You'd get it because you go buy the Blackberry and discover the cell provider is adding a surcharge for access to Blackberry services. Then when using the phone you have warranty issues and have to drive further out because there are fewer dealers. Finally two years from now you realize the warranty won't even matter because the company is gone. Rinse and repeat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Well, then you're getting an Android! Make sure that security system at your Mom's place has been updated!  

By getting a BlackBerry I'm really getting an Android? What?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

You'd get it because you go buy the Blackberry and discover the cell provider is adding a surcharge for access to Blackberry services. Then when using the phone you have warranty issues and have to drive further out because there are fewer dealers. Finally two years from now you realize the warranty won't even matter because the company is gone. Rinse and repeat.

No, I wouldn't. Not if it cost too much or wasn't what I really wanted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

No...in the election analogy (which has now gone too far), you can't GET a Blackberry.   You can only get the murderous, raping Android or the pricey iPhone that you don't really like.  Ergo, you're buying an iPhone.  

 

Let's look at this factually:  

 

1.  You think Obama is a terrible President and is bad for the country.  Therefore, you won't vote for him.  

 

2.  You don't like Mitt Romney and think he is only marginally better than Obama.  You don't want to vote for him at all.  

 

3.  You want to vote for Ron Paul or a suitable libertarian-esque candidate.  

 

4.  Neither Ron Paul or said 3rd party candidate has any chance of winning.  

 

5.  Due to the political realities (which voters vote for which candidates/parties), if substantial number of people vote for a third party candidate, this will help Obama.  The vast majority of these voters would never vote for Obama anyway.  All they will do is take support away from the man who would normally be at least somewhat closer to their views in the absence of a third party candidate.   

 

6.  Therefore, voting for a third party increases the likelihood that Obama wins a second term.  

 

 

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.  

Yes, let's look at this factually.

1. Agreed.

2. Partially agreed. I don't like Romney and I will not vote for him.

3. I will vote for Ron Paul or a suitable candidate.

4. Disagree. A lot can happen between now and Election Day.

5. Disagree. The liberty movement is bigger than one man, party, political ideology, or philosophy. It has united people from all across the political spectrum and will continue after Ron Paul fades into history. You either do not or cannot comprehend this because you are stuck in the contrived partisan rhetoric designed to distract and divide. It's either liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican to you. Nothing exists outside the false dilemma for you.

6. Which is the only conclusion you can arrive at if you believe in the false dilemma.

There's a broad assumption being made here by SDW2001 and that is that it's all about who is President. I think this assumption is faulty. I don't mean to say that who is President is unimportant, but there are other factors that are just as important. Such as who is controlling Congress and the respective parties of Congress and President.

As I see it, the Founding Fathers (while not gods or imperfect), very wisely tried to establish a system of checks and balances among the branches (oh...and between federal and states too BTW).

Recent history (say the past 50 years or so) seems to suggest that when one party hold control of both Congress and the Presidency the checks and balances between them begin to "soften."

One side could be proposing nearly exactly the same policy or fiscal approach as another guy, but for the letter next to there name, opposition is stronger or weaker.

I contend that to the extent that there is at least some infighting between the two branches of the ruling party, it would be helpful for the two branches of government to be split between them in order to slow down or even stop some of their activity. I've pointed back to the Clinton era as an example that seemed to work fairly well (though we now see that some of that was actually a Fed induce monetary and credit high)...and suggest that that time was better because the Republicans controlled Congress while Clinton was President.

While I agree to some extent with trumptman that Clinton was smarter and a much better politician than Obama is, and was wise enough to pivot where Obama may dig in his heals, there's at least some chance that some level of "gridlock" (a term incorrectly used pejoratively in the realm of politics) may occur and get the federal government to stop meddling and let the private sector recover from the wounds that have been created (and kept open) over the past several (yes...more than 3) years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

You'd get it because you go buy the Blackberry and discover the cell provider is adding a surcharge for access to Blackberry services. Then when using the phone you have warranty issues and have to drive further out because there are fewer dealers. Finally two years from now you realize the warranty won't even matter because the company is gone. Rinse and repeat.

 

No, I wouldn't. Not if it cost too much or wasn't what I really wanted.

You've got it backwards. The minority solutions are the ones that end up being much more expensive and overtime, that much harder to stomach. When paying a third more for an experience that in a lot of ways is basically a preference if there are hardware or other issues, it just becomes intolerable. I saw that with the Amiga. I think the little Curve I bought my soon and quite a cute and capable phone but the experience on it and the hardware itself is not worth anywhere near what an iPhone or Android happens to be. If it were available as a smartphone lite or dumbphone plus for $10 extra a month they might have a chance. Instead you pay full price for a data plan and depending upon the provider, a surcharge for BES services. That kills choice twice as fast. Why can't RIMM as an example charge less for such service or give it away as Apple is doing with iMessage? They can't because they need the fees to survive because they were making so much off crappy hardware for so long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

No...in the election analogy (which has now gone too far), you can't GET a Blackberry.   You can only get the murderous, raping Android or the pricey iPhone that you don't really like.  Ergo, you're buying an iPhone.  

 

Let's look at this factually:  

 

1.  You think Obama is a terrible President and is bad for the country.  Therefore, you won't vote for him.  

 

2.  You don't like Mitt Romney and think he is only marginally better than Obama.  You don't want to vote for him at all.  

 

3.  You want to vote for Ron Paul or a suitable libertarian-esque candidate.  

 

4.  Neither Ron Paul or said 3rd party candidate has any chance of winning.  

 

5.  Due to the political realities (which voters vote for which candidates/parties), if substantial number of people vote for a third party candidate, this will help Obama.  The vast majority of these voters would never vote for Obama anyway.  All they will do is take support away from the man who would normally be at least somewhat closer to their views in the absence of a third party candidate.   

 

6.  Therefore, voting for a third party increases the likelihood that Obama wins a second term.  

 

 

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.  

 

Yes, let's look at this factually.

 

1. Agreed.

 

2. Partially agreed. I don't like Romney and I will not vote for him.

 

3. I will vote for Ron Paul or a suitable candidate.

 

4. Disagree. A lot can happen between now and Election Day.

 

5. Disagree. The liberty movement is bigger than one man, party, political ideology, or philosophy. It has united people from all across the political spectrum and will continue after Ron Paul fades into history. You either do not or cannot comprehend this because you are stuck in the contrived partisan rhetoric designed to distract and divide. It's either liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican to you. Nothing exists outside the false dilemma for you.

 

6. Which is the only conclusion you can arrive at if you believe in the false dilemma.

1. Agreed

2. MJ hits on this a bit below and I'm going to come at it from a different angle.

3. Suitable means electable. He isn't. You don't see me still trotting out Gingrich at this stage because I'm not the only voice or concern out there.

4. A lot CAN happen but most likely will not happen in any broad or dynamic way. Could Romney have a heart attack and die tomorrow? Sure. Could Obama have a brain embolism and become even more a vegetable? Absolutely. Possible and probable are not the same though.

5. It isn't a false dilemma and here is the bigger issue you do not comprehend yourself. The liberty movement ISN'T big enough yet to make a difference at the presidential level. If something is truly grassroots as so many of these smaller parties claim, then why not start at that level? Why not elect a sizable group of Congressmen or a few Senators? Hell try for a few State Assembly members in some smaller states where the same money can actually educate people about more than two choices. Grab a decent chunk of a few select states and then perhaps people will become aware of the platform and entrust the fate of the free world to one man or woman as president. People don't go with a start up when they need a massive order of something and need it guaranteed on delivery. They go with what is established even if it costs a bit more because in some areas of life, we need more assurances.

Most third party runs really are splinter movements within a major party and in that regard SDW is completely correct. A vote for the splinter stops what would have been a win for the major party. Be they Dixiecrat, Bull Moose, John Anderson or Ross Perot, none have won and many have altered elections in opposition to what they wanted.

6. Since number five is not just a false dilemma number six does not follow. Now if the election ends up being a runaway with Obama fading badly and Romney putting space between him and Obama, then do what you want. However the reality is the top of the ticket matters most and that is why reform of major parties won't be on the tip of many people's tongues.

I always personally find it odd that movements that are supposedly grassroots can't elect a governor but they want to be elected president. Start smaller and pile up some wins and momentum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

There's a broad assumption being made here by SDW2001 and that is that it's all about who is President. I think this assumption is faulty. I don't mean to say that who is President is unimportant, but there are other factors that are just as important. Such as who is controlling Congress and the respective parties of Congress and President.

 

As I see it, the Founding Fathers (while not gods or imperfect), very wisely tried to establish a system of checks and balances among the branches (oh...and between federal and states too BTW).

 

Recent history (say the past 50 years or so) seems to suggest that when one party hold control of both Congress and the Presidency the checks and balances between them begin to "soften."

 

One side could be proposing nearly exactly the same policy or fiscal approach as another guy, but for the letter next to there name, opposition is stronger or weaker.

 

I contend that to the extent that there is at least some infighting between the two branches of the ruling party, it would be helpful for the two branches of government to be split between them in order to slow down or even stop some of their activity. I've pointed back to the Clinton era as an example that seemed to work fairly well (though we now see that some of that was actually a Fed induce monetary and credit high)...and suggest that that time was better because the Republicans controlled Congress while Clinton was President.

 

While I agree to some extent with trumptman that Clinton was smarter and a much better politician than Obama is, and was wise enough to pivot where Obama may dig in his heals, there's at least some chance that some level of "gridlock" (a term incorrectly used pejoratively in the realm of politics) may occur and get the federal government to stop meddling and let the private sector recover from the wounds that have been created (and kept open) over the past several (yes...more than 3) years.

The point which you hit on a bit is that there is a system of checks and balances. That is why unless you find someone that can work with in some fashion the other branches, you aren't going to change anything. Gridlock can be a negative when many systems are on autopilot for radically negative outcomes. There hasn't been a budget in three years due to gridlock and we are borrowing a trillion a year. Something needs to change that. There is a good chance the Supreme Court might rule against Obamacare and might have several cases in line to begin pulling back some of the problems with immigration enforcement, etc. Gridlock is the norm but we need to get rid of the uncertainty in at least a few areas and get some solutions out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

You've got it backwards. The minority solutions are the ones that end up being much more expensive and overtime, that much harder to stomach. When paying a third more for an experience that in a lot of ways is basically a preference if there are hardware or other issues, it just becomes intolerable. I saw that with the Amiga. I think the little Curve I bought my soon and quite a cute and capable phone but the experience on it and the hardware itself is not worth anywhere near what an iPhone or Android happens to be. If it were available as a smartphone lite or dumbphone plus for $10 extra a month they might have a chance. Instead you pay full price for a data plan and depending upon the provider, a surcharge for BES services. That kills choice twice as fast. Why can't RIMM as an example charge less for such service or give it away as Apple is doing with iMessage? They can't because they need the fees to survive because they were making so much off crappy hardware for so long.

I don't think you have fully informed yourself on the alternatives. Were you aware that you can get a BlackBerry Curve with prepaid carriers like Virgin Mobile? Plans start at $35/mo. I pay $45/mo for 1200 minutes and unlimited data & texting. See, you don't have to settle for what is presented to you as reality. If you make the effort, you realize that reality is very different from what you thought it was.

I watched the film "The Truman Show" yesterday for the first time since I've really gotten into libertarianism, voluntarism, and other liberty oriented philosophies. It's always been one of my favorite movies, but last night I saw that movie in an entirely new light. I actually found an interesting blog post that describes much of what I felt and realized:

Freedom, Socialism, and the Truman Show

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

I don't think you have fully informed yourself on the alternatives. Were you aware that you can get a BlackBerry Curve with prepaid carriers like Virgin Mobile? Plans start at $35/mo. I pay $45/mo for 1200 minutes and unlimited data & texting. See, you don't have to settle for what is presented to you as reality. If you make the effort, you realize that reality is very different from what you thought it was.

Sorry but I spend $45 a month for unlimited talk, text and data with my iPhone 4S on Straight Talk. That means you are spending more for less. I have fully informed myself thanks. :-P

It was an interesting read. The more interesting point though would be to ask yourself how you are going to wake up half a nation of "Trumans" when you can't even wake up enough "Trumans" to win a state assembly seat. In his analogy (not the best example btw) Truman is placated by everyone because there is an entire enterprise built around watching him go through the motions of his day. In real life, no one tries to force libertarians back into a box out of financial interest on their part. Likewise while people can be in denial about reality, they are still in reality. Unlike the Truman show, no one is going to save them from themselves and the results could be quite ugly.

Can they be ugly for pretty much anyone counting on entitlements. I'm betting it will be and that will be true regardless of who is president. The real issue then becomes who will sacrifice or harm fewer of us while letting the delusional ones come down from their delusion? Romney is close enough for me to get my vote in that regard. Does it suck that he won't be able to make every change that is needed. Absolutely but the ones who proclaim they would make every change that would be needed can't get elected and even if they could, at this stage they have no additional support at the state level or within other branches of the Federal government. You can't be grassroots from the top. It simply won't work.

If Ron Paul, or the Liberty Party who whatever labeled or claimed philosophy can't make their change in their own backyard, they aren't going to be entrusted with my backyard. That's just the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Sorry but I spend $45 a month for unlimited talk, text and data with my iPhone 4S on Straight Talk. That means you are spending more for less. I have fully informed myself thanks. :-P

How much did you pay for your iPhone 4S? Probably several times what I paid for my BlackBerry, I'd guess.

I paid $450 but that proves my point. Your less expensive and be honest inferior hardware (We aren't talking a Torch or Bold here) needs to pay more for less on service. That is where the money is made up.

You want to address how we are going to wake up half a nation of Truman's when we can't get them to elect a third party dog catcher yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

I paid $450 but that proves my point. Your less expensive and be honest inferior hardware (We aren't talking a Torch or Bold here) needs to pay more for less on service. That is where the money is made up.

I paid $80 for my BB. And it absolutely does have slower hardware, old OS, and fewer apps than the iPhone 4S.

I'm paying the same dollar amount for my plan that you are for yours, yes. But here is the reality: my phone still has features that yours is perfectly capable of having, yet doesn't - at least not by default.

The iPhone still doesn't have the level of customization BBs do for notifications, security, and other features. I didn't realize how much I'd love the "Phone Calls Only" sounds setting until I had a BB.

And ever heard of BlackBerry Bridge? Paired with my BlackBerry PlayBook tablet, I get tremendous value from my phone.  I can manage my phone's contacts, emails, texts, calendar, and tasks via my PlayBook. I can surf the web on my PlayBook over my inferior phone's data connection - no "hotspot" or "tethering" features needed. I can control my PlayBook from my phone via Bluetooth, which is great for presentations or hooking the tablet up to an HDTV and watching YouTube or Amazon Prime (the PB runs Flash beautifully).

And frankly, I type much faster on a physical keyboard than a touch screen.

Many people like the iPhone's features and are willing to pay more for them.

Some people get an iPhone for the sake of appearance or prestige because it's popular, even if they don't really like it. A co-worker of mine constantly complains about his iPhone. I keep suggesting he get a different phone, but he refuses.

I've witnessed this same phenomenon with politics and government. Our nation has been steadily deteriorating over my three short decades of lifetime. Sure, there have been periods of relative prosperity, but averaged over time there has been a marked decline in the value of the dollar, steady inflation, erosion of civil liberties, and increase in military actions around the world. This has occurred regardless of which political party controls the White House or has a majority in Congress.

People see this decline and complain about it, yet they keep doing what they've done for decades: vote for the "lesser of two evils". They keep rationalizing that at least their guy isn't as bad as the other guy.

Yet when a small, tireless minority stands up and points out "you know...voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is still voting for evil. It's obviously not working, let's try something different." ("why don't you get a different phone?"), they are ignored ("yeah, whatever"), mocked ("pfft, you want me to get a crappy BlackBerry like you, cheapskate?"), marginalized ("what do you know about phones, anyway?"), etc.

Yet the complaints continue, and people scratch their heads wondering why things are the way they are...or just blame it on anyone but themselves.

Simple. Get the media to give equal attention to third party candidates. People don't support third party candidates because they are systematically ignored, demonized, marginalized, etc. by the establishment media - which most people still get their information from.

To quote a line from The Truman Show: "We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented."

And you're right, I don't see "dog catcher" on this list. Maybe a different third party has someone in that position somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

I paid $80 for my BB. And it absolutely does have slower hardware, old OS, and fewer apps than the iPhone 4S.

 

I'm paying the same dollar amount for my plan that you are for yours, yes. But here is the reality: my phone still has features that yours is perfectly capable of having, yet doesn't - at least not by default.

 

The iPhone still doesn't have the level of customization BBs do for notifications, security, and other features. I didn't realize how much I'd love the "Phone Calls Only" sounds setting until I had a BB.

 

And ever heard of BlackBerry Bridge? Paired with my BlackBerry PlayBook tablet, I get tremendous value from my phone.  I can manage my phone's contacts, emails, texts, calendar, and tasks via my PlayBook. I can surf the web on my PlayBook over my inferior phone's data connection - no "hotspot" or "tethering" features needed. I can control my PlayBook from my phone via Bluetooth, which is great for presentations or hooking the tablet up to an HDTV and watching YouTube or Amazon Prime (the PB runs Flash beautifully).

 

And frankly, I type much faster on a physical keyboard than a touch screen.

 

Many people like the iPhone's features and are willing to pay more for them.

 

Some people get an iPhone for the sake of appearance or prestige because it's popular, even if they don't really like it. A co-worker of mine constantly complains about his iPhone. I keep suggesting he get a different phone, but he refuses.

 

I've witnessed this same phenomenon with politics and government. Our nation has been steadily deteriorating over my three short decades of lifetime. Sure, there have been periods of relative prosperity, but averaged over time there has been a marked decline in the value of the dollar, steady inflation, erosion of civil liberties, and increase in military actions around the world. This has occurred regardless of which political party controls the White House or has a majority in Congress.

 

People see this decline and complain about it, yet they keep doing what they've done for decades: vote for the "lesser of two evils". They keep rationalizing that at least their guy isn't as bad as the other guy.

 

Yet when a small, tireless minority stands up and points out "you know...voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is still voting for evil. It's obviously not working, let's try something different." ("why don't you get a different phone?"), they are ignored ("yeah, whatever"), mocked ("pfft, you want me to get a crappy BlackBerry like you, cheapskate?"), marginalized ("what do you know about phones, anyway?"), etc.

 

Yet the complaints continue, and people scratch their heads wondering why things are the way they are...or just blame it on anyone but themselves.

A few points......if you are supplementing your Curve with a Playbook, you are pretty much attempting to sidestep the issues created by the Curve. In otherwords the Curve doesn't have the apps, games, touchscreen, etc. so you carry around a $200 tablet to make up for the phone shortcomings. I don't spend $80 on a phone and then $200 on a mini-tablet. I spend more on one device that does more and does it better than both of those two solutions together. I have heard of Blackberry Bridge. You still are tethering your Playbook. The fact that they give it their marketing term doesn't change what is being done. My Straight Talk plan was originally under a Nokia E71 and it had a very nice tethering app Joikuspot that was great. My Nokia had similar profiles but the reality is that most people don't feel the need to manage how their phone rings and when it will to that degree. That said iOS6 will have a few treats there as well.

As for decline, some yes and some no. Most people love nostalgia but for the most part, a lot of things stunk in the past. In fact many of the problems of today and the non-solutions being used to address them relate to how much better things have gotten. The U.S. government didn't need to worry about entitlements and companies didn't sweat pensions too much because the point was, you died. These snide asides about 50 being the new 30 and so forth. If you take care of yourself they are true. The average life expectancy when Social Security was founded was 65. If they made you wait until 75 to collect it now then no one would be worried about entitlements making us broke. Also as I've discussed in my boomer blindspot posts, the boomers group up with the U.S. as the only truly well functioning country post-WWII (basically it wasn't blown to bits.) They cannot imagine yet that this has changed. The will be deluded until their deaths.

It isn't about the media, especially at the local level. That is why some of these self-financed or splinter candidates manage to rise up for some period of time but never make a change or never even establish a true third party. It has to grow from the bottom up. You don't see dog catcher but I looked through a decent chunk of that list and don't see much there beyond small town city counsels, water boards and library boards. That said, it is a beginning.

Microsoft talked about "riding the bear" aka before you get big, you've got to take certain steps to exist with what is there otherwise you will attract too much attention and be eaten. You see the moves by Rand Paul or even Ron Paul with his Social Security position as riding the bear moves. You don't start building a big tent by burning it down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

You don't start building a big tent by burning it down.

The Republican Party was once a third party that rose from the ashes of the self-destruction of one of the "major" parties.

I think that can (and should) happen again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

You don't start building a big tent by burning it down.

 

The Republican Party was once a third party that rose from the ashes of the self-destruction of one of the "major" parties.

 

I think that can (and should) happen again.

The Whig's were destroyed by the question of supporting the expansion of slavery into the territories. What major issue is big enough go destroy a major party today? What issue is so divisive that 75% of the party would rather bolt than agree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

The Whig's were destroyed by the question of supporting the expansion of slavery into the territories. What major issue is big enough go destroy a major party today? What issue is so divisive that 75% of the party would rather bolt than agree?

True enough, but you imply that's the only way a party could be destroyed. It could also be destroying more slowly like a cancer.

Parties change a lot over time (you know this of course). The "brand names" cease meaning what they once did. You've previously identified that neo-con (now commonly attributed to modern Republicans) is really old Democrat. True enough.

The country also changes. It seems we have more people today that:

a) Feel the compulsion to tell everyone else (but not be told themselves) how they ought to be living (and enforcing these edicts through law), and...

b) Feel entitled to live at everyone else's expense.

c) Are simply dumb.

Getting elected is about somehow appealing to these mindsets. Yikes! These are the factors that give me pessimism about the future of the US (or maybe anywhere).

I don't know if Romney will be better (or different) than Obama. I have begun to put less stock in a) one person, b) political saviors...and more in the hopes that somehow the system might provide some salvation from the kingly and imperial aspirations of people like Obama and (possibly) Romney.

I get your points about trying to work within the system to change it as, for example, Rand Paul is (maybe) trying to do. And trying to govern 300M+ people by appealing to a broader swath of them. However I wonder if the system can be changed from the inside at all. I also wonder where appealing to the broader swath is going to lead us when that broader swath appears to call for less freedom (for others) and living at the expense of others. This, of course, is why we had a written constitution that outlined the guiding principles (and constraints) that everyone should govern by essentially hemming political leaders (and the government in general) in. But it's only a piece of paper and pieces of paper don't enforce themselves.

I don't know...perhaps I'm too much of a pessimist. Starting to believe there are probably better places to be. Like the US has become too big and powerful for its own good. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

It has to be changed from the inside. 

Saying that is has to be doesn't mean that it can be. You realize that right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

You might be right, but I don't think our current problems are because we're too big and powerful.  It's that we're slowly becoming more of a quasi-authoritarian welfare state over time.  We could be even bigger and more powerful and avoid both of those...in theory.  The problem with government, of course, is that it never shrinks itself in size and scope.  It keeps regulating and taxing and growing in perpetuity, unless it is forced to stop.  I think this can be accomplished if the right people are elected and if the public demands it.  In some ways, I think we've seen the beginning of this with the 2010 GOP victories, as well as the recall failure in Wisconsin.   

I think you should re-read what you wrote and see if you can find the contradictions within it and with your apparent assumptions that the system can be changed from within.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

The country also changes. It seems we have more people today that:

 

c) Are simply dumb.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I know we've been disagreeing a lot lately, but damn...that was funny.  

It's actually not funny. The demise of the (Christian-built) North American public education system has been a key goal of those who aim to convert our countries to socialist values. It's no coincidence that the unions responsible for strangling school budgets are all left wing. Ditto for university professors who teach nonsense and waste years of students' time.

In the end, arguments about 'which political parties/candidates are better' is irrelevant if the voters don't understand what's truly at stake.

The left has always understood this better than the right. The revolution begins with the classroom. We must fix education before anything else gets done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

The Whig's were destroyed by the question of supporting the expansion of slavery into the territories. What major issue is big enough go destroy a major party today? What issue is so divisive that 75% of the party would rather bolt than agree?

 

True enough, but you imply that's the only way a party could be destroyed. It could also be destroying more slowly like a cancer.

I'm not saying it is the only way it could be destroyed. I've already addressed probable vs possible with you. We are talking about the ONLY instance in which one party has been destroyed and another has risen in it's place here in the United States. We only have a sample of one. Every other time nothing has happened with regard to major parties. The point is that it required something extraordinary to become the exception. There have been other third party candidates and I've addressed them for what they happen to be, self-financed personalities or more often splinter movements within the main party that cost them the election and then are re-absorbed when those particular interests realize that being on the outside looking in at power is much worse than negotiating how the power that is held should be used.

That last point is worth repeating. It is much easier to have elements of the Republican/Libertarian party argue about spending within a Romney administration than it is to not even have the majority power, the ability to control committees, the ability to appoint judges who will limit power, etc. If you are on the outside looking in you get just about zero of what you want.

Well that is a faction of the Republican Party. There are also paleocons and the point is I'd rather have paleocons arguing with neocons than have Democrats running the show with both sides shut out.

Well the reality is that there are mechanisms that allow those three factors to work right now and if we can somehow force a return to reality, then reality will educate those folks as to the errors of their ways pretty quickly. If we can't then go enjoy yourself and shrug. Everything reverts to the mean. Even we as life revert to the mean in that we become dust again. Even if those folks find a way to steal or finance their lives, I wouldn't want to be them or live them. I couldn't imagine loathing life and myself to such a degree or spending all my time in some petty pout about how unfair and intolerable everything happens to be. I'd rather live my life.

I don't think anyone on here has declared Romney any more than a band-aid at best. I don't think SDW would even label him as some sort of political savior. I think most merely hope he can stop the bleeding and get the spending and borrowing down to something far less than a trillion plus a year while basically engaging in economic war with the country.

I don't think you are a pessimist at all. Humans and life in general is a big mess. There are certainly places in the world where you could enjoy some snapshots of time that are better than where we are now. It is hard to say if they would be that way if the U.S basically fails. I live in California and there are many retirees who go live in Mexico. The dollar buys 14+ pesos right now and especially with advances in cell technology, satellite and so forth, it can be quite a nice way to live. I've mentioned Canada and Australia as examples of places doing it better for right now. I don't think big and powerful have much to do with it though. Bad solutions are bad solutions no matter the scale. The problem with scale is people believe it can somehow make a bad solution a good one due to.... I guess going big. I suspect Romney or Obama will be among the last boomer presidents, the first having been Clinton in 1992. There are a lot of fresh faces out there that are riding the backs of various bears and trying to help escort the boomers off the stage so that hopefully, their mess can be cleaned up.

In the meantime, it is about limiting damage. The less damage now, the easier the clean up later. I do believe Romney will limit the damage rather than add to it. He isn't a savior or possibly even a solution. I'd love to be wrong there and strangely enough I could be because it might take someone with a real understanding of funny money to fix funny money problems. It could be enlightening.

An aside because this seems very paradoxical but I basically cede expertise at times to folks who play outside the rules because sometimes part of fixing the rules involves rule breakers knowing how easily they can be manipulated or broken. This is much like how companies hire hackers to help with security. I'm a married guy who is faithful to his wife. I couldn't really design a good system for preventing cheating on a spouse because my brain doesn't work like a cheater. Cheaters might be able to design a better system because they know what they did to get all those spouses into bed. Likewise a Wall St. guy who knows how play money creates false wealth might actually be the best person to reform such a system because they really understand the motivations and actions there. I'm trying to keep an open mind and be positive in some very negative times. Romney could through us under the bus at a slightly slower rate than Obama too. That would only suck less. There is no choice to not suck at this stage though. Every solution has limits even buying gold and living in a bunker has limits to effectiveness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

I'm not saying it is the only way it could be destroyed. I've already addressed probable vs possible with you. We are talking about the ONLY instance in which one party has been destroyed and another has risen in it's place here in the United States. We only have a sample of one. Every other time nothing has happened with regard to major parties. The point is that it required something extraordinary to become the exception. There have been other third party candidates and I've addressed them for what they happen to be, self-financed personalities or more often splinter movements within the main party that cost them the election and then are re-absorbed when those particular interests realize that being on the outside looking in at power is much worse than negotiating how the power that is held should be used.

 

That last point is worth repeating. It is much easier to have elements of the Republican/Libertarian party argue about spending within a Romney administration than it is to not even have the majority power, the ability to control committees, the ability to appoint judges who will limit power, etc. If you are on the outside looking in you get just about zero of what you want.

 

Well that is a faction of the Republican Party. There are also paleocons and the point is I'd rather have paleocons arguing with neocons than have Democrats running the show with both sides shut out.

 

Well the reality is that there are mechanisms that allow those three factors to work right now and if we can somehow force a return to reality, then reality will educate those folks as to the errors of their ways pretty quickly. If we can't then go enjoy yourself and shrug. Everything reverts to the mean. Even we as life revert to the mean in that we become dust again. Even if those folks find a way to steal or finance their lives, I wouldn't want to be them or live them. I couldn't imagine loathing life and myself to such a degree or spending all my time in some petty pout about how unfair and intolerable everything happens to be. I'd rather live my life.

 

I don't think anyone on here has declared Romney any more than a band-aid at best. I don't think SDW would even label him as some sort of political savior. I think most merely hope he can stop the bleeding and get the spending and borrowing down to something far less than a trillion plus a year while basically engaging in economic war with the country.

I don't think you are a pessimist at all. Humans and life in general is a big mess. There are certainly places in the world where you could enjoy some snapshots of time that are better than where we are now. It is hard to say if they would be that way if the U.S basically fails. I live in California and there are many retirees who go live in Mexico. The dollar buys 14+ pesos right now and especially with advances in cell technology, satellite and so forth, it can be quite a nice way to live. I've mentioned Canada and Australia as examples of places doing it better for right now. I don't think big and powerful have much to do with it though. Bad solutions are bad solutions no matter the scale. The problem with scale is people believe it can somehow make a bad solution a good one due to.... I guess going big. I suspect Romney or Obama will be among the last boomer presidents, the first having been Clinton in 1992. There are a lot of fresh faces out there that are riding the backs of various bears and trying to help escort the boomers off the stage so that hopefully, their mess can be cleaned up.

 

In the meantime, it is about limiting damage. The less damage now, the easier the clean up later. I do believe Romney will limit the damage rather than add to it. He isn't a savior or possibly even a solution. I'd love to be wrong there and strangely enough I could be because it might take someone with a real understanding of funny money to fix funny money problems. It could be enlightening.

 

An aside because this seems very paradoxical but I basically cede expertise at times to folks who play outside the rules because sometimes part of fixing the rules involves rule breakers knowing how easily they can be manipulated or broken. This is much like how companies hire hackers to help with security. I'm a married guy who is faithful to his wife. I couldn't really design a good system for preventing cheating on a spouse because my brain doesn't work like a cheater. Cheaters might be able to design a better system because they know what they did to get all those spouses into bed. Likewise a Wall St. guy who knows how play money creates false wealth might actually be the best person to reform such a system because they really understand the motivations and actions there. I'm trying to keep an open mind and be positive in some very negative times. Romney could through us under the bus at a slightly slower rate than Obama too. That would only suck less. There is no choice to not suck at this stage though. Every solution has limits even buying gold and living in a bunker has limits to effectiveness.

Don't have time to go point-by-point (and not sure it's worth it). You've made some good points. I agree about limiting the damage and maybe Romney is the best way to achieve that right now. I didn't mean to imply anyone was considering Romney a savior so much as I was trying think beyond just who is president and beyond just one person. I agree with much of what you have to say. I'd say we're generally in agreement about a lot of how we view the world and its problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

He is by far the best option we have, and has been since the GOP primary schedule got going.  As for solutions, I think he will be able to implement some, particularly with regard to spending.  I don't expect sweeping tax reform from him, though we need it.  That said, he'll get us going to right way in terms of taxation.

And what you appear to not get is that some don't share such an optimistic outlook.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Of course I get it.  I'm simply sharing my opinion.  You're welcome. 

Fair enough. I misinterpreted a tone in your posts that seemed to imply this was more than merely your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Fair enough. I misinterpreted a tone in your posts that seemed to imply this was more than merely your opinion.

Perhaps he erroneously assumed it was common knowledge that anyone who supports Ron Paul is a "Paultard".

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

 

It depends by what you mean by "socialism". If you take it to an extreme, you get Marxism, which requires fascism to enforce on a large scale system, (such as a nation) because the majority of people don't want it. Look at the USSR - it was a failure before it got started. True communism only works in small scale situations - intentional communities - where all the participants are OK living in that system, and are free to leave at any time if they find its not to their liking.  

 

Then look at capitalism. In theory, it's about all meritocracy and a free, totally unregulated market. In theory that is. Very good. Unfortunately, just like pure socialism and its failure to take human nature to account, pure capitalism also falls prey to human nature. Nepotism, cronyism, privilege, connections, influence peddling and bribery all conspire to destroy the notions of a free market. What happens when everything is de-regulated as regards business practice? If you're honest, you'll go bust, because your competitors who break the rules, or can garner special favors (influence, privilege etc) - will undercut you, or worse. 

 

In my book, if we are to remain civilized while indulging in the benefits that moderation in capitalism can provide, then we have to pay a penalty of socialism.. or we end up living in a Blade Runner type society, where resources and wealth is methodically transferred from the middle and working classes, towards a 1% super élite. Who's for a Mafiocracy? Who wants plutocracy? Who wants oligarchy?

 

Oh wait... that's where we're headed.... look out everyone. And faux "socialist" Obama - the King of Corporate Welfare - is at the wheel.

You are describing "corporatism" which has taken over both parties, Democrat and Republican. Neither party adheres to the Constitution, both parties are in bed with the military-industrial complex, the financial sector, insurance companies and so on. A free market hasn't really existed in the US for a long time. Bailouts, favors and laws that favor the biggest contributors (which includes unions, incidentally) is the norm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I wanted to highlight this point: 

 

 

 

 

This is absolutely correct.  I like Romney.  I'm going to enthusiastically support him.  That is about as far s it goes.  He is by far the best option we have, and has been since the GOP primary schedule got going.  As for solutions, I think he will be able to implement some, particularly with regard to spending.  I don't expect sweeping tax reform from him, though we need it.  That said, he'll get us going to right way in terms of taxation.  Moreover, I think Romney has something Obama never had:  Real leadership skills.  This should not be discounted when we are talking about the chief executive and head of state.  

 

 

I already know my candidate won't win (hint: it's not Obama), but you don't yet know that yours won't either. Romney is the second face of the coin that is Obama and voters will not vote for a candidate that essentially looks and sounds the same as the guy currently sitting in the White House. A change of hair and skin color are irrelevant. Obama has virtually the same big donors Bush had and Romney has. Where are you seeing significant differences between these fellows?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

You're kidding me, right?  

Obamacare is the federal version of Romneycare.

Some Republicans were for an individual mandate before they were against it.

I don't trust ANYONE who believes it is okay to use government to force peaceful people to do what he/she wants.