Random Political Thoughts

[onan]

You're firing on all cylinders, Nowhere Man ~  a few observations:
On reading that --and as usual, not getting the joke or allusion--  all the righties went clicking over to tunein or whatever they use to try to find where they can hear that dirty, dirty girl "Connie."
When the capitalists or their proudly brainwashed lackeys and cannon-fodder say "freedom" or "liberty," they only ever mean capitalists' unrestricted freedom to exploit anybody or anything in the world.   Only they should have rights; if the rest of us are to be granted any at all, it's only the freedom to choose which collusively identical capitalist master to serve in hopes of catching some rotten table scraps.
I've been pointing out the double standard in here for a long time, and consistently getting called yet more names for pointing it out.
The right-wing bomb-throwers in here can write anything and it's forgiven as "just healthy free speech;"  Katie bar the proverbial door if you respond to it with anything like the fervor they bring to the game.   At best, you'll be permitted to register a polite difference of opinion.    Under no circumstance are you to suggest that a rightie in here could be fundamentally wrong; they're entitled not only to their opinions but also to their own facts, whether those be in regard to the day's news, century-old historical events, or established sociopolitical theories and definitions.
Of course.    Every "adult" knows that the important hallmarks of really being one are:
-- fear of people outside your reference groups
-- hatred of people outside your reference groups
-- sadism toward people lower in power and status
-- blind obedience  to people higher in power and status
-- obedience to unseen mystical beings  and/or voices in your head
In other words, tribalism, authoritarianism, superstition and just a touch of crazy: marks of a great American!
To attain outward maturity without developing and cultivating these traits is just pitifully juvenile, anti-'Mercan, and vaguely threatens all these right-wingers' children.

Your last 2 exchanges with/from Sardondi --and more generally, Sardondi himself-- are great examples of the last 2 main points.   First, he is this forum's most-energetic (I would even say main) self-appointed enforcer of the double standard of political harangues, quick to point out your "transgressions" of "decorum," but --like a pro-wrestling referee-- somehow always "missing" whatever you are responding to.   And his perpetually officious demeanor leaves absolutely no doubt that he considers himself the --if not "Sole," then Superior and Reigning Adult in the Room, and that scum like you or me post here strictly at HIS sufferance.

I am pretty much staying out of this forum anymore. It does little to further any discourse. More often it just allows for digging in heels deeper.

But I do have to say that I see much more derision from the "conservative" side. The problem is I am too lazy to go dig it all up. Reality means nothing here. And I direct that towards the "conservative" side. No matter what is posted there is little to no consideration. Hell I have seen points honestly and completely refuted here only to see the same argument brought up again some time later.

I knew it was a lost cause when one here posted they wanted a civil war more than anything. I really respect NWIT and you Ben. I also respect some on the other side.

I just can't see the point in snarling anymore. I agree with your points and I think you are masterful in your points. But there is no meeting of minds here. Any semblance of that left when Karl showed up.

So good luck.

[Ben Shockley]

I am pretty much staying out of this forum anymore. It does little to further any discourse...
So good luck.

You're totally right, Onan.   I have no illusions about "convincing" anybody here about political differences.   You can document stuff 'til the cows come home and these folks won't bend.    Just like they'd rather see their kids choke on polluted air or drown from coastal flooding than to admit that them smart-alecky lefty sissy bastards with all that book lernin' might be right about the environment ... just like they'd rather die screaming from pancreatic cancer than get some early prevention paid for by a program that someone stuck that GODDAMN KENYAN's name on ~ you know what I mean.
(Uh,  Oh-Nayun -- whur's Kinyur?  'Zat nexta Porter Reeco?  'Ey say 'at Obommer's from Kinyur, but he looks 'bout as dark as a Porter Reecun, so Ah reckoned it mus be nex ta thar.)

Absolutely brainwashed AND "vengefully nihilistic," which is a working term I've been using lately in some theorizing ~~~

No--- notice that, in that last post, I wasn't addressing any of the loons; I was addressing N(w)IT for some commiseration and general bonmomie.   I aim to make that my style from now on (when I can remember to).    "Observe and comment" -- about, not to.    I admit that I slipped a few nights ago and actually addressed P*B, and did the same a week or so earlier to stevesh, but both were biting my ankles so needily that I had to give a little kick.

[Juan]

I'm generally staying out of this thread, too.  I'm sure the intelligent people here make good points, but it's simply too hard to see them for all the name-calling.

[PB the Deplorable]

Since my comments are portrayed as incredibly wrong, then the opposite must be right.

That would be new taxes and hiking up existing taxes even more, encourage the politicians and bureaucrats to waste even more of our tax money, continue to print and borrow money, increase the deficit and national debt, continue building the bureaucracy, continue to destroy what's left of our health insurance system, shred more of the Constitution, hand over the rest of the decision making power to Obama that he hasn't already grabbed, keep doing what we've done to destroy our schools and inner cities, continue to hollow out the middle class, continue to implement policies designed to discourage new jobs.

Maybe we should even create a new agency that pays people to join Occupy and support them when they are camped out in our public spaces.  We can then have a larger presence tearing things up when the misfits want to throw tantrums.

[PB the Deplorable]

Here is an article about how a problem is being addressed in the Berkeley School System.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24362362/berkeley-focuses-black-student-discipline-problem

Due to a complaint from the US Depart of Education it turns out that blacks are 20% of the school population in Berkeley, but 60% of the suspended kids were black.

The issue was studied and it turned out most of the suspensions were for disrupting class and 'talking back' to teachers when they are in front of the class trying to teach. 


Now here I would note a couple of things.  There are no impoverished neighborhoods in Berkeley.  Across the border and a few miles away in Oakland, yes, but not Berkeley.  These are mostly middle class kids we are talking about.  The other thing is how much disruption it must take to finally be suspended - especially if one happens to be black in Politically Correct Berkeley.


Back to the story.  So the school administers, teachers, the two competing local political parties (one ultra-Liberal, one 'Progressive'), and all the usual annoying local organizations that seem to always come out when there is a racial or other divisive issue to seize upon and exploit, decide the only possible reason for the disparity in the suspensions is 'Racism'.  In the government schools in Berkeley, mind you.

They decide that interruptions and 'talking back' - to he point of drawing suspensions - is 'cultural', that it's a 'communication style'.  These kids are just trying to have a conversation with the teacher.

So to address the problem, they've spent valuable school time and money on training the teachers to 'understand' and 'accept' what the students are doing, and are continuing to do so.  There are no more suspensions for 'defiance', 'talking back', disrupting class, or any of it.

This, instead of just telling the kids to behave as they like at home, but at school they need to act civilized.


Anyway, the reason I posted this is to point out a few things.  Now that these brats know they won't be suspended for disruptions, how will they behave in school now?  How much respect will the teachers receive?  What will the atmosphere be for the kids who are actually there to learn? 

How does this new policy prepare kids for life as adults?  What will they be like on the job and toward their bosses? 


These are the people that have ruined our schools.  For decades now the teachers unions and the federal, state and local educrats have been implementing their lousy policies.  One policy at a time, little by little, school district after school district.  These stupid policies aren't generally reported by the Media - the Media is on the same side as the unions and educrats.  They must be especially proud of this one for it to have gotten out.

Every once in awhile we read about some very stupid thing a school has done, and think it's an isolated incident that will be corrected because it is so dumb.  Each time it's actually the tip of the iceberg.


This is why we spend vast amounts of money on 'education', yet the schools remain lousy.  This is why every time we vote to increase school spending, nothing changes.  How would giving the Berkeley School District more money improve things?  It wouldn't.  It can't.  Not with these people making the decisions.  It's more or less the same in most places. 


This is just one example.  Consider that these same Liberals and 'Progressives' are running the bureaucracy in nearly all departments and agencies at all levels of government.  Does anyone think they are making better decisions at those places, out of the spotlight?  Of course not.  Look no farther than ObamaCare.  Look at any project - how much it costs and how long it takes to get anything done.

We need to drastically reduce the size of government at all levels, eliminate and consolidate.  There is no reason to continue with this when we are running $1.5 Trillion annual federal deficits, and our state and local governments are at the tipping point of not being able to meet their obligations.  Yet we still have half the country thinking the answer is to raise taxes and keep doing what we're doing.

[ItsOver]

I'm generally staying out of this thread, too.  I'm sure the intelligent people here make good points, but it's simply too hard to see them for all the name-calling.

Same here.  I peek in every once in awhile to see if any reasonable progress is being made, shake my head, and leave.  Typical of Politics threads everywhere.  They seem to be an exercise in frustration.  At least I get plenty of laughs in a lot of other threads.
PaperBoy, IMO, you make some very reasonable and rationale posts but I'll admit to being of your thinking to begin with.

I'll leave now before I'm covered in mud.

[NowhereInTime]

You're absolutely right: unfairness was clearly not your context. You were obviously talking about the price of pork bellies.

Want to take a shot at what the meaning of "is" is, Mr. Civilty? Wait - let me get some popcorn...

Oh, and BTW...
Nice ones. And you came up with them in just a matter of minutes. These, and all the other many examples of the putrescent imprecations you spew daily at those you want to shut up and drown out, must be the result of that "morality" which you, as a liberal, have told us you have by your very nature. I bow before an obviously superior moral being.

Scrape low.
If you take a breath, it really isn't "fairness" I'm talking about, after all I'm not some whiny conservative media watchdog, it's hypocrisy and double standards, at which you excel.
I am not like the classic liberal "turn the other cheek"  (and for that I am often ashamed) and will return invective with invective.
Last, and be fair about this, 'Dondi, I don't drown anyone else out - most of my posts are a few paragraphs and I only ever return discourtesies - I don't initiate (except Q. Karl, who, again you really should be ashamed of defending. - you want to spend time reading posts? Read his.)

[NowhereInTime]

You're firing on all cylinders, Nowhere Man ~  a few observations:
On reading that --and as usual, not getting the joke or allusion--  all the righties went clicking over to tunein or whatever they use to try to find where they can hear that dirty, dirty girl "Connie."
When the capitalists or their proudly brainwashed lackeys and cannon-fodder say "freedom" or "liberty," they only ever mean capitalists' unrestricted freedom to exploit anybody or anything in the world.   Only they should have rights; if the rest of us are to be granted any at all, it's only the freedom to choose which collusively identical capitalist master to serve in hopes of catching some rotten table scraps.
I've been pointing out the double standard in here for a long time, and consistently getting called yet more names for pointing it out.
The right-wing bomb-throwers in here can write anything and it's forgiven as "just healthy free speech;"  Katie bar the proverbial door if you respond to it with anything like the fervor they bring to the game.   At best, you'll be permitted to register a polite difference of opinion.    Under no circumstance are you to suggest that a rightie in here could be fundamentally wrong; they're entitled not only to their opinions but also to their own facts, whether those be in regard to the day's news, century-old historical events, or established sociopolitical theories and definitions.
Of course.    Every "adult" knows that the important hallmarks of really being one are:
-- fear of people outside your reference groups
-- hatred of people outside your reference groups
-- sadism toward people lower in power and status
-- blind obedience  to people higher in power and status
-- obedience to unseen mystical beings  and/or voices in your head
In other words, tribalism, authoritarianism, superstition and just a touch of crazy: marks of a great American!
To attain outward maturity without developing and cultivating these traits is just pitifully juvenile, anti-'Mercan, and vaguely threatens all these right-wingers' children.

Your last 2 exchanges with/from Sardondi --and more generally, Sardondi himself-- are great examples of the last 2 main points.   First, he is this forum's most-energetic (I would even say main) self-appointed enforcer of the double standard of political harangues, quick to point out your "transgressions" of "decorum," but --like a pro-wrestling referee-- somehow always "missing" whatever you are responding to.   And his perpetually officious demeanor leaves absolutely no doubt that he considers himself the --if not "Sole," then Superior and Reigning Adult in the Room, and that scum like you or me post here strictly at HIS sufferance.

Then suffer he shall, because I no longer accept the "Sardondi as Wise Statesman" veneration. Even his avatar is misdirection; he should replace it with Pat Buchanan.

[Quick Karl]

You're firing on all cylinders, Nowhere Man ~  a few observations:
On reading that --and as usual, not getting the joke or allusion--  all the righties went clicking over to tunein or whatever they use to try to find where they can hear that dirty, dirty girl "Connie."
When the capitalists or their proudly brainwashed lackeys and cannon-fodder say "freedom" or "liberty," they only ever mean capitalists' unrestricted freedom to exploit anybody or anything in the world.   Only they should have rights; if the rest of us are to be granted any at all, it's only the freedom to choose which collusively identical capitalist master to serve in hopes of catching some rotten table scraps.
I've been pointing out the double standard in here for a long time, and consistently getting called yet more names for pointing it out.
The right-wing bomb-throwers in here can write anything and it's forgiven as "just healthy free speech;"  Katie bar the proverbial door if you respond to it with anything like the fervor they bring to the game.   At best, you'll be permitted to register a polite difference of opinion.    Under no circumstance are you to suggest that a rightie in here could be fundamentally wrong; they're entitled not only to their opinions but also to their own facts, whether those be in regard to the day's news, century-old historical events, or established sociopolitical theories and definitions.
Of course.    Every "adult" knows that the important hallmarks of really being one are:
-- fear of people outside your reference groups
-- hatred of people outside your reference groups
-- sadism toward people lower in power and status
-- blind obedience  to people higher in power and status
-- obedience to unseen mystical beings  and/or voices in your head
In other words, tribalism, authoritarianism, superstition and just a touch of crazy: marks of a great American!
To attain outward maturity without developing and cultivating these traits is just pitifully juvenile, anti-'Mercan, and vaguely threatens all these right-wingers' children.

Your last 2 exchanges with/from Sardondi --and more generally, Sardondi himself-- are great examples of the last 2 main points.   First, he is this forum's most-energetic (I would even say main) self-appointed enforcer of the double standard of political harangues, quick to point out your "transgressions" of "decorum," but --like a pro-wrestling referee-- somehow always "missing" whatever you are responding to.   And his perpetually officious demeanor leaves absolutely no doubt that he considers himself the --if not "Sole," then Superior and Reigning Adult in the Room, and that scum like you or me post here strictly at HIS sufferance.

I had a girlfriend that used to have vivid hallucinations. Even the people that loved her were left with no choice but to shun her because any endeavor to have any conversation would result in wild accusations and vitriol and watch out if you could prove that something she was saying, was false.

No matter how hard anyone tried, it was impossible to reach her.

[NowhereInTime]

I had a girlfriend that used to have vivid hallucinations. Even the people that loved her were left with no choice but to shun her because any endeavor to have any conversation would result in wild accusations and vitriol and watch out if you could prove that something she was saying, was false.

No matter how hard anyone tried, it was impossible to reach her.

You cut your own hand off?!?  You're crazier than I thought!

[West of the Rockies]

Hey, folks... haven't posted here in weeks.  I don't know that I'll actually post these words -- if you're reading them, then I am breaking my own self-imposed exile from these threads.  But I've read a few things that I feel like responding to, so here goes....

Onan, Nowhere, Ben, I think you all make some very good points, points that have undoubtedly been made before here -- maybe by members from "both sides".  Onan, I concur regarding your observation that none of us ever seem to really change anyone's mind -- nothing you post will cause QuickKarl to reconsider his positions; nothing he posts will likely inspire a change in perspective in us.

I have not been reading and participating in these threads from page one -- I've been a member here, however, since January of this year and a lurker for much longer.  However, I think the tone and diction changed here significantly when QK showed up -- he posts so often (does he work?) that his voice has largely dictated the direction and nature of these threads.  Ruteger shows up, lobs a bomb into the room and scampers off.  Nowhere, I love you, man; I respect your views... but you engage in more name-calling than anyone I know of here.  Calling someone a cunt smacks of misogyny.  I know you are NOT a misogynist, but terms having to do with pedophilia and beastiality... they're not helping.  I know -- I am a hand-wringer, a concern troll, a pusher of the "both-sides-do-it" meme (when, honestly, I think the right's rhetoric is far more toxic than the left's).  Members of the right here do plenty of name-calling as well.

You probably, NiT, will tell me that your goal on these threads is NOT TO HELP but to return fire.  And, shit, I see lots of reasons to return fire with both barrels.  I do!  When Ruteger openly declares he HATES liberals and democratic voters, he is not offering a nuanced perspective.  He is seeing the world in black and white.  He is NOT called on such behavior.  Indeed, once, when I called on the conservatives here to chastize him for some inane comment he had made, I was informed that Ruteger consistently offers far more correct views than I do.  For me, that was the beginning of the end.  I knew that when this observation came from a conservative poster whom I admire, it was pointless for me to continue posting -- we were not truly engaging in debate anymore.  We were instead WWI soldiers shooting blindly into each other's trenches.

There are cons here I genuinely admire:  PB, UFOFill, Sardondi (who I think is something of a WWF referee as described by you, Ben).  When QK showed up, I wrote that I thought his was an "interesting new voice".  The moment I disagreed with him on something, he lamented that I was not nearly as smart as he had thought.  Ruteger I have no use for.  I think he is the far-right equivalent of the sort of liberal knucklehead who posts a picture of George W. Bush next to a chimp.  Clever in a very 7th-grade sort of way, and utterly incapable of reasoned debate.

There are members of both political parties I admire; there are members of both parties I think are corrupt and incompetent.  However, in these forums, over and over and over and over people will post an example of someone from party A doing/saying something stupid -- with the goal of revealing the absolute corruption and stupidity of EVERYONE in that party. 

I see members here post a more nuanced comment, an example of, say, a Republican doing something illegal or immoral.  Rather than everybody exploring that transgression, those on the other side will instead hold up an example of a Democratic party member doing something illegal or immoral.  This dynamic goes both ways, too, of course.

You have your facts.  I have mine.

You have your sources -- they're all shit.  My sources are all good, credible, fair and balanced.

The media is a vast liberal puppet of the left -- or right, depending on one's perspective

Left, right... Hmmm... I just had a silly idea.  If we are to march together forward as a country, we need the left and right foot.  If the right wants to keep shooting the left foot, if the left wants to keep shooting the right foot, we're not going to go very far, are we?

Oh, well... that's what I think today.  Continue the gun fight.

[Yorkshire pud]

Oh, well... that's what I think today.  Continue the gun fight.

I want your babies W o t R... I know I can't technically, as I haven't a womb. Dammit.
Beers all round?

[West of the Rockies]

Beer it is, Yorkie!

[West of the Rockies]

I want your babies W o t R... I know I can't technically, as I haven't a womb. Dammit.
Beers all round?

Oh, I forgot... fag.

[NowhereInTime]

...  Nowhere, I love you, man; I respect your views... but you engage in more name-calling than anyone I know of here.  Calling someone a cunt smacks of misogyny.  I know you are NOT a misogynist, but terms having to do with pedophilia and beastiality... they're not helping. ...

I stand duly chastised.  Even on an unmoderated forum, I should not use such language for the very reason you point out.

[Yorkshire pud]

Oh, I forgot... fag.

You now owe me a new laptop...I spat out a robust red over it! Bastard 

[Ben Shockley]

... I no longer accept the "Sardondi as Wise Statesman" veneration. Even his avatar is misdirection; he should replace it with Pat Buchanan.

I'm not sure about that.   At least old Buchanan cracks a joke and a smile now and then.  My image of Guy Behind "Sardondi" is a perpetually worried, angry guy, jumping and probably grabbing a gun at every little sound (both literally, and in a larger sociopolitical sense); living in a gated community with additional security monitors in his house and the deluxe service of having mimumum-wage sluggos drive a security-co. vehicle past his house every half-hour; getting what little joy he does by berating any and every common prole he has the misfortune to interact with -- no service they provide is good enough or fast enough, nor any prole obsequious or grovelly enough -- he's constantly calling home offices to demand that some poor slob be fired.

For his avatar?  How about "General Jack D. Ripper" or, if we have to stay real-world, the '72-'74 version of Richard Nixon?  Because the main vibe I get from Sardondi is gut-wrenching paranoia.  Fear of something --of somebody, to be realistic.
"Of whom?"  Someone that he thinks is going to take something from him.  "Take what?"  I've addressed this before in here as pertains to "conservatives" generally, but comprehensively speaking, they fear losing that which makes them "superior;" something that they perceive themselves as having more of than others.  By definition, you must have something, or at least believe that you do, in order to rationally want to "conserve" it.  Of course, that makes sense when you really have something; but when you just pathetically believe that you do, that's what Karl Marx called "false consciousness."

Exactly what things people want to keep varies, but, according to Conflict Sociology, it boils down to wealth (material stuff), power (the ability to control others), and prestige (other people's subjective perception of you --which to dramatically simplify, amounts to judgements of "the rightness / correctness" of both you and your public lifestyle).
"Conservatives," then, might be interested in any or all of:
1) holding onto their "material stuff"
2) retaining their structural positions of control 
3) dissuading acceptance of "types of persons," or lifestyles, other than those the Conservatives seem to be, or display

Threats to those interests are most often met with emotions of fear, hatred, and resentment.   Those emotions seem to be common threads in the garments the righties in here wear.   Mix and match, a little bit.
Staying with our pal, Sardondi: some of his absolute Patrician fear that someone is going to somehow git some of his stuff, or somehow elevate themselves vis-à-vis him or his kind in regard to power or prestige, percolates through tired old molecules of last-gasp testosterone, memories of conversations with guys who once had manly-man jobs, and favorite kick-ass passages from Tom Clancy novels, to be expressed in here as pathetic, wanna-be-threatening rage.  See, it manifests differently depending on the person.   I imagine that Sardondi was never a religious freak, so we don't get Fundie apocalyptic talk from him, nor the knee-jerk hatred of Moslems; but he claims to have been in a career (Fed. prosecutor) that would naturally cause some others to hate and resent him, so we feel his visceral fear that there's an angry ex-con lurking around every corner, and he just projects that up to the society-wide level, trying to get others to join him (to sociopolitically legitimate him) in his private fears.

I'll never forget the time, back before the last general election, when Sardondi told us about his paranoid friends; clearly a "reference group" for him, of about a dozen people (I believe he said), whom he respected as intelligent, rational professional folks.  He told us in apparent grave earnest about how these folks were scared shitless of the Obama administration, which they were certain was monitoring them.  They wouldn't answer phone surveys regarding the upcoming election (a topic that I believe elicited this story from Sardondi) because they were sure that, if they admitted their real political opinions, the goddamned Obama-ists would somehow persecute them --a fear that Sardondi apparently sympathized fully with.  Sardondi never told us, though I'm pretty sure I asked, whether these folks actually voted in that election.  I mean: that's the "political poll" that counts, right?  The Obama Gang that was supposedly stalking these folks to learn their political opinions was nonetheless powerless to find out how they actually voted?
Holding common cause with, and expressing great respect for, a group of what I imagine are clinical paranoids, and fairly irrational ones at that.   Let that speak volumes.

Anyway, as a purely-politically-oriented avatar: sure, Buchanan works.  That "Southern strategy" thing was a beauty to behold, right boys?
By the way, N(w)IT, regarding what I said about the righties being entitled to their own facts: I recall being stunned, some time back, upon reading the absolutely science-fiction-ish portrayals of what some of these loons thought "the Southern strategy" had been.  I don't remember the thread this particular flurry happened in; it's probably happened multi times.  But I'll concede that if some of these people truly believe the versions of history they occasionally regurgitate in here, I guess it's understandable that they have formed the opinions they espouse.
About "the Southern strategy," I recall noting how NONE of the usual rightie suspects around here demonstrated any  understanding of what it had been: a deliberate Republican strategy to garner in perpetuity the votes of previously-Democratic-voting racist Southern Whites.  Several folks here vaguely thought it had been some sneaky, noxious thing that Democrats had tried and botched, and thereby alienated Southern Whites.

This is significant.  When we get into specific discussions of events and strategies from history, you'll find these righties in here always carefully distancing themselves from the more noxious stuff.  In this they demonstrate at least some acknowledgement of the fact that most Americans think that things like "racism," "sexism," "homophobia," "environmental destruction," "genocide," "war" -- that all those are "bad things."  But they just can't bring themselves to admit that the modern American policies they support, and the living, breathing demagogues they so admire and vote for, have ANY relation to things like that.
Mind you, I don't doubt that a lot of these righties have any compunction about actually effecting policies like those, personally nor nationally, but they are JUST HIP ENOUGH to know that you're not supposed to admit it.  And in trying to deflect blame for those "bad things" from any political philosophy or party that they would ever belong to, they tie themselves into senseless rhetorical- and logical pretzels.

Paper*Boy is the purest, most-consistent example of this.  For him, it is simple: anything from history that by general consensus smacks of "good" is an example and/or result of "conservative policy" --and by wild extension, is to be credited to the modern U.S. Republican Party.   Anything from history that is generally held to be "bad" is an example and/or result of "liberal- or progressive policy" --and by time-warping extension, is the fault of the modern U.S. Democratic Party.
(I said "simple," not even "consistent.")
By this "logic," innovation can be "conservative."  Curing polio?  Good thing!  Thus, discovery (changing things) must be a result of keeping things the same (conservatism).
By this "logic," stagnation or regressiveness can be "liberal / progressive."  The United States,  pre-19th Amendment; women can't vote?  Bad thing!  Thus, the forces for keeping the original Constitution: "liberals / progressives!"
Allowing women to vote?  Good thing!  Thus, those wanting to change the Constitution: "conservatives!"
When you take this to the extreme that P*B personifies, and act accordingly, you become literally socially paralyzed:  can't work to change anything, must oppose any and all "change," because even the tiniest effort at "social progress" --such as improving health coverage by private insurance-- is ideologically held to lead necessarily and sufficiently, and probably rather quickly, to mass murders in rice paddies.
Look for exactly ZERO rhyme or reason in right-wing ideology and argument.   And it's another example of the Perpetual Double Standard:  "situational ethics" when perceived on the Left = bad, shifty, and immoral; when identified on the Right = um, ~ indicates "flexibility of concept!"

I'm convinced that P*B really believes this stuff.  Doesn't understand it; just believes with all his heart.  It was telling, but predictable, when a few days ago he admitted that he didn't know much about Romney's health-coverage law in Massachusetts, and thus (for once) was withholding judgement.  Of course!  The 50- or 60-year old Bircher tracts where he finds most of his Deep Beliefs had nothing to say about a 1990s law, thus, P*B had no Official Line to toe.
Several righties in here are pretty much like this, though I imagine that their "deeply-held personal beliefs" are of more recent vintage, and more amenable to changing tastes:  Chateau Limbaugh, Chateau Savage Weiner, Chateau Levin; pressed, allowed to sour to varying levels, bottled accordingly, then distributed and sold according to changing daily orders.

Those agents of True-Belief Creation and Distribution are important for motivating those lacking in resources to lend their energies to "conservative" political work.  In other words, right-wing TV and talk radio (among other forces) perpetuate false consciousness among Americans with right-wing tendencies.
I can only suspect from various hints that they drop and the general milieu here, that most "right-wing" / pro-conservative posters in here are not and cannot be "capitalists" nor do I imagine that many are in social-structural positions of power.  To the extent that they can be motivated toward "conservative" politics on any rational basis of "defending their own resources," the "resource" at issue would almost have to be "prestige."  Thus, the easiest way to motivate lower-end righties toward political action is by appeal against "types of people," and lifestyles and behaviors.  Lacking material or structural resources of their own, "what they are" and "how they live" is about all the lower-class righties have to defend.
This is why so much right-wing media focuses on "outrageous" issues regarding easily-identifiable Others --to simultaneously maintain lower-class conservatives' sense of community while also creating a siege mentality among those same people.
I would suggest that any particular value that lower-class "conservative" Americans perceive in their persons and lifestyles -- to the extent that such is "in danger of loss" and "worthy of or needing defense" is an example of profound false consciousness.

For the record, and after expounding on him this far: I don't put Sardondi in the "false consciousness" camp, at least not in a sociopolitical sense.  I am confident that he could lay out objectively rational (read: cost-benefit) reasons for his political behavior.  However, I suspect that elements of his "consciousness" may be "false" in a mental-health sense, but that's beyond my abilities.


West of The Rockies, Onan, Nowhere:  y'all give special mention to Quick Karl, but he's barely on my radar, chiefly because -- let me quote Andy Griffith's "Will Stockdale" in the movie No Time For Sergeants.  Responding to the Air Force psychologist at the induction facility, who has provocatively interrogated him and then asked Will whether he was angry at that provocation, Will responds "No," and explains "I couldn't get too much sense out of it!"
QK reminds me a little bit of a freakazoid who used to be in here, called "Zircon."  Zircon was the first guy in here to say he wanted to kill me, and --you know, you always remember your first.

[West of the Rockies]

I recall Zircon... I swore off the political threads for a while when he posted regularly.  Did he get the boot from MV or just move on to greener pastures? 

[Quick Karl]

I'm not sure about that.   At least old Buchanan cracks a joke and a smile now and then.  My image of Guy Behind "Sardondi" is a perpetually worried, angry guy, jumping and probably grabbing a gun at every little sound (both literally, and in a larger sociopolitical sense); living in a gated community with additional security monitors in his house and the deluxe service of having mimumum-wage sluggos drive a security-co. vehicle past his house every half-hour; getting what little joy he does by berating any and every common prole he has the misfortune to interact with -- no service they provide is good enough or fast enough, nor any prole obsequious or grovelly enough -- he's constantly calling home offices to demand that some poor slob be fired.

For his avatar?  How about "General Jack D. Ripper" or, if we have to stay real-world, the '72-'74 version of Richard Nixon?  Because the main vibe I get from Sardondi is gut-wrenching paranoia.  Fear of something --of somebody, to be realistic.
"Of whom?"  Someone that he thinks is going to take something from him.  "Take what?"  I've addressed this before in here as pertains to "conservatives" generally, but comprehensively speaking, they fear losing that which makes them "superior;" something that they perceive themselves as having more of than others.  By definition, you must have something, or at least believe that you do, in order to rationally want to "conserve" it.  Of course, that makes sense when you really have something; but when you just pathetically believe that you do, that's what Karl Marx called "false consciousness."

Exactly what things people want to keep varies, but, according to Conflict Sociology, it boils down to wealth (material stuff), power (the ability to control others), and prestige (other people's subjective perception of you --which to dramatically simplify, amounts to judgements of "the rightness / correctness" of both you and your public lifestyle).
"Conservatives," then, might be interested in any or all of:
1) holding onto their "material stuff"
2) retaining their structural positions of control 
3) dissuading acceptance of "types of persons," or lifestyles, other than those the Conservatives seem to be, or display

Threats to those interests are most often met with emotions of fear, hatred, and resentment.   Those emotions seem to be common threads in the garments the righties in here wear.   Mix and match, a little bit.
Staying with our pal, Sardondi: some of his absolute Patrician fear that someone is going to somehow git some of his stuff, or somehow elevate themselves vis-à-vis him or his kind in regard to power or prestige, percolates through tired old molecules of last-gasp testosterone, memories of conversations with guys who once had manly-man jobs, and favorite kick-ass passages from Tom Clancy novels, to be expressed in here as pathetic, wanna-be-threatening rage.  See, it manifests differently depending on the person.   I imagine that Sardondi was never a religious freak, so we don't get Fundie apocalyptic talk from him, nor the knee-jerk hatred of Moslems; but he claims to have been in a career (Fed. prosecutor) that would naturally cause some others to hate and resent him, so we feel his visceral fear that there's an angry ex-con lurking around every corner, and he just projects that up to the society-wide level, trying to get others to join him (to sociopolitically legitimate him) in his private fears.

I'll never forget the time, back before the last general election, when Sardondi told us about his paranoid friends; clearly a "reference group" for him, of about a dozen people (I believe he said), whom he respected as intelligent, rational professional folks.  He told us in apparent grave earnest about how these folks were scared shitless of the Obama administration, which they were certain was monitoring them.  They wouldn't answer phone surveys regarding the upcoming election (a topic that I believe elicited this story from Sardondi) because they were sure that, if they admitted their real political opinions, the goddamned Obama-ists would somehow persecute them --a fear that Sardondi apparently sympathized fully with.  Sardondi never told us, though I'm pretty sure I asked, whether these folks actually voted in that election.  I mean: that's the "political poll" that counts, right?  The Obama Gang that was supposedly stalking these folks to learn their political opinions was nonetheless powerless to find out how they actually voted?
Holding common cause with, and expressing great respect for, a group of what I imagine are clinical paranoids, and fairly irrational ones at that.   Let that speak volumes.

Anyway, as a purely-politically-oriented avatar: sure, Buchanan works.  That "Southern strategy" thing was a beauty to behold, right boys?
By the way, N(w)IT, regarding what I said about the righties being entitled to their own facts: I recall being stunned, some time back, upon reading the absolutely science-fiction-ish portrayals of what some of these loons thought "the Southern strategy" had been.  I don't remember the thread this particular flurry happened in; it's probably happened multi times.  But I'll concede that if some of these people truly believe the versions of history they occasionally regurgitate in here, I guess it's understandable that they have formed the opinions they espouse.
About "the Southern strategy," I recall noting how NONE of the usual rightie suspects around here demonstrated any  understanding of what it had been: a deliberate Republican strategy to garner in perpetuity the votes of previously-Democratic-voting racist Southern Whites.  Several folks here vaguely thought it had been some sneaky, noxious thing that Democrats had tried and botched, and thereby alienated Southern Whites.

This is significant.  When we get into specific discussions of events and strategies from history, you'll find these righties in here always carefully distancing themselves from the more noxious stuff.  In this they demonstrate at least some acknowledgement of the fact that most Americans think that things like "racism," "sexism," "homophobia," "environmental destruction," "genocide," "war" -- that all those are "bad things."  But they just can't bring themselves to admit that the modern American policies they support, and the living, breathing demagogues they so admire and vote for, have ANY relation to things like that.
Mind you, I don't doubt that a lot of these righties have any compunction about actually effecting policies like those, personally nor nationally, but they are JUST HIP ENOUGH to know that you're not supposed to admit it.  And in trying to deflect blame for those "bad things" from any political philosophy or party that they would ever belong to, they tie themselves into senseless rhetorical- and logical pretzels.

Paper*Boy is the purest, most-consistent example of this.  For him, it is simple: anything from history that by general consensus smacks of "good" is an example and/or result of "conservative policy" --and by wild extension, is to be credited to the modern U.S. Republican Party.   Anything from history that is generally held to be "bad" is an example and/or result of "liberal- or progressive policy" --and by time-warping extension, is the fault of the modern U.S. Democratic Party.
(I said "simple," not even "consistent.")
By this "logic," innovation can be "conservative."  Curing polio?  Good thing!  Thus, discovery (changing things) must be a result of keeping things the same (conservatism).
By this "logic," stagnation or regressiveness can be "liberal / progressive."  The United States,  pre-19th Amendment; women can't vote?  Bad thing!  Thus, the forces for keeping the original Constitution: "liberals / progressives!"
Allowing women to vote?  Good thing!  Thus, those wanting to change the Constitution: "conservatives!"
When you take this to the extreme that P*B personifies, and act accordingly, you become literally socially paralyzed:  can't work to change anything, must oppose any and all "change," because even the tiniest effort at "social progress" --such as improving health coverage by private insurance-- is ideologically held to lead necessarily and sufficiently, and probably rather quickly, to mass murders in rice paddies.
Look for exactly ZERO rhyme or reason in right-wing ideology and argument.   And it's another example of the Perpetual Double Standard:  "situational ethics" when perceived on the Left = bad, shifty, and immoral; when identified on the Right = um, ~ indicates "flexibility of concept!"

I'm convinced that P*B really believes this stuff.  Doesn't understand it; just believes with all his heart.  It was telling, but predictable, when a few days ago he admitted that he didn't know much about Romney's health-coverage law in Massachusetts, and thus (for once) was withholding judgement.  Of course!  The 50- or 60-year old Bircher tracts where he finds most of his Deep Beliefs had nothing to say about a 1990s law, thus, P*B had no Official Line to toe.
Several righties in here are pretty much like this, though I imagine that their "deeply-held personal beliefs" are of more recent vintage, and more amenable to changing tastes:  Chateau Limbaugh, Chateau Savage Weiner, Chateau Levin; pressed, allowed to sour to varying levels, bottled accordingly, then distributed and sold according to changing daily orders.

Those agents of True-Belief Creation and Distribution are important for motivating those lacking in resources to lend their energies to "conservative" political work.  In other words, right-wing TV and talk radio (among other forces) perpetuate false consciousness among Americans with right-wing tendencies.
I can only suspect from various hints that they drop and the general milieu here, that most "right-wing" / pro-conservative posters in here are not and cannot be "capitalists" nor do I imagine that many are in social-structural positions of power.  To the extent that they can be motivated toward "conservative" politics on any rational basis of "defending their own resources," the "resource" at issue would almost have to be "prestige."  Thus, the easiest way to motivate lower-end righties toward political action is by appeal against "types of people," and lifestyles and behaviors.  Lacking material or structural resources of their own, "what they are" and "how they live" is about all the lower-class righties have to defend.
This is why so much right-wing media focuses on "outrageous" issues regarding easily-identifiable Others --to simultaneously maintain lower-class conservatives' sense of community while also creating a siege mentality among those same people.
I would suggest that any particular value that lower-class "conservative" Americans perceive in their persons and lifestyles -- to the extent that such is "in danger of loss" and "worthy of or needing defense" is an example of profound false consciousness.

For the record, and after expounding on him this far: I don't put Sardondi in the "false consciousness" camp, at least not in a sociopolitical sense.  I am confident that he could lay out objectively rational (read: cost-benefit) reasons for his political behavior.  However, I suspect that elements of his "consciousness" may be "false" in a mental-health sense, but that's beyond my abilities.


West of The Rockies, Onan, Nowhere:  y'all give special mention to Quick Karl, but he's barely on my radar, chiefly because -- let me quote Andy Griffith's "Will Stockdale" in the movie No Time For Sergeants.  Responding to the Air Force psychologist at the induction facility who has provocatively interrogated him, then asked Will whether he was angry at the provocation, Will responds "No," and explains "I couldn't get too much sense out of it!"
QK reminds me a little bit of a freakazoid who used to be in here, called "Zircon."  Zircon was the first guy in here to say he wanted to kill me, and --you know, you always remember your first.

I sure am happy that I have more pressing things to occupy my mind than writing novelettes about the people that refuse to prostrate themselves to my intellectual, philosophical, and political superiority...

[Ben Shockley]

I sure am happy that I have more pressing things to occupy my mind than writing novelettes about the people that refuse to prostrate themselves to my intellectual, philosophical, and political superiority...

Damn, he got me!   I've been taken down by a fucking MASTER FORENSIC TACTICIAN!  See, it requires explanation:  he used the fact that I put effort into something ...okay?... to show what a low-life bum I am!   The logic is perfect!   His short, sarcastic delivery: the perfect Successful-Man counterpoint to my low-life wordiness.

Okay: no, really Karl.  I get it.  You're just trying to be helpful in my conduct of my daily life.   So tell me, Arbiter of Worthwhile Activity: what should I have been doing instead of writing sociopolitical thoughts for people other than you in a thread called "Politics?"

[RealCool Daddio]

I won't quote your post, Mr. Shockley, in deference to those on mobile devices.  But it was truly epic.  Thanks for livening the place up.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Paper*Boy is the purest, most-consistent example of this.  For him, it is simple: anything from history that by general consensus smacks of "good" is an example and/or result of "conservative policy" --and by wild extension, is to be credited to the modern U.S. Republican Party.   Anything from history that is generally held to be "bad" is an example and/or result of "liberal- or progressive policy" --and by time-warping extension, is the fault of the modern U.S. Democratic Party.
(I said "simple," not even "consistent.")...

... When you take this to the extreme that P*B personifies, and act accordingly, you become literally socially paralyzed:  can't work to change anything, must oppose any and all "change," because even the tiniest effort at "social progress" --such as improving health coverage by private insurance-- is ideologically held to lead necessarily and sufficiently, and probably rather quickly, to mass murders in rice paddies...

... I'm convinced that P*B really believes this stuff.  Doesn't understand it; just believes with all his heart.  It was telling, but predictable, when a few days ago he admitted that he didn't know much about Romney's health-coverage law in Massachusetts, and thus (for once) was withholding judgement.  Of course!...

LOL, wow dude.  I guess I hit a bulls eye when I suggested you exist in an echo chamber of far Left foolishness.

A 'vibe of gut wrenching Paranoia'?   You are half right, there is that here.  But anyone reading through the above post of yours would likely suggest it's coming from you.  Feel free to project though - we are here for you.


Let me give you the real reasoning behind my 'extremism'.  The government - at all levels - taxes, spends, and borrows too much.  It's become a vast intrusive, unresponsive, incompetent bureaucracy of duplication and waste that needs to be substantially reduced. 

I know, that is really waaay out there. 



You have been a consistent proponent of Collectivism, Socialism, Statism, whatever you want to call it.  Fortunately, we can learn from history.  You are still supporting ObamaCare.  To me that confirms you aren't interested in learning by observing, supporting policies based on an analysis of them, rejecting what doesn't work.  Your posts confirm you are an ideologue, hell bent on forcing us along to Utopia. 

You mention rice paddies.  That must have hit a nerve as well.  Anyone that actually does observe, analyze, learn from the examples out there understands there is no Utopia, but the road along the way leads through places like those rice paddies in Cambodia.  You left them out, but it also leads through places like the killing fields, Tian-a-men Square, East Berlin, re-education camps, concentration camps, gulags, and prison work/starvation camps like those in North Korea.   The lucky few can sometimes make a run for it or flee on rickety wooden boats.  A person has to be in complete denial to have missed this.  That's ok, we will defeat the Left in this country without you, and save you from yourself anyway.



You mention my opposition of 'improving health coverage by private insurance'.  I'm guessing you mean ObamaCare.  Oh my yes, what a success that is.  Are you really still supporting that?   Is that really the example you want to use?  Yes indeed, the Fascists that gave us that sure have improved things, thanks so much.  Talk about out of touch.  Talk about being an ideologue.  Onward to Utopia.  Do not look back.  Do not question anything.


About Romney's health coverage legislation.  I'm not a political operative.  I'm not running for office.  Why do I have to know what they are doing in some state on the opposite side of the country? 

I did mention 2 things about it at you didn't comment on.  #1 - our Founders meant for the states to be incubators of new ideas.  The locals have a much better idea of what they want and need than does faraway Washington DC.  It if goes bad, well, at least it wasn't forced on the whole country.  #2 - I somehow doubt it's much like ObamCare.  At least the worst features of it.  I'm not hearing about it standing in the way of economic growth, like ObamaCare does.  I'm not hearing about people losing their jobs or their full time status, like with ObamaCare.  I'm not hearing about millions of people losing their healthcare insurance because what they were promised they could keep was outlawed, like ObamaCare did.  I'm not even hearing that every single person behind it knew about all that and purposely lied through their teeth about it for 3 years in order to get it passed, like the President and the Democrats in Congress did with ObamaCare.   In fact, I bet they didn't intentionally delay implementation of the worst of it until as many elections as possible had passed, so that when it finally did come on line it would be vey difficult to trash it and return to what we had, like they did with ObamaCare.

I think trying to claim ObamaCare is 'just like' 'RomneyCare' is just another typical lie in a long string of lies - about ObamaCare and about much of the rest of their agenda.

[PB the Deplorable]

...  what should I have been doing instead of writing sociopolitical thoughts for people other than you in a thread called "Politics?"

I'd suggest some books on economics, but I doubt you'd get much out of them.


By the way, I've always been curious about brainwashing.  Is one time all it takes, or do you have to go in periodically for touchups?

[NowhereInTime]

I won't quote your post, Mr. Shockley, in deference to those on mobile devices.  But it was truly epic.  Thanks for livening the place up.

Please let me second this sentiment.  I am humbled to read a true master of political science deftly, astutely, and comprehensively deconstruct the inane and insane that is conservatism.

[NowhereInTime]

I'd suggest some books on economics, but I doubt you'd get much out of them.


By the way, I've always been curious about brainwashing.  Is one time all it takes, or do you have to go in periodically for touchups?

Oh stop. You were whupped. Take it like a man.

[PB the Deplorable]

Oh stop. You were whupped. Take it like a man.

Maybe, if it made any sense. 

What is it about you guys that you simply cannot understand not handing over more and more of our freedom and liberty to a bunch of people whose main talents are getting themselves into office? 

How can anyone stand next to the smoldering crater called 'ObamaCare' and still not get it? 

[Yorkshire pud]

Maybe, if it made any sense. 

What is it about you guys that you simply cannot understand not handing over our freedom and liberty to a bunch of people whose main talents are getting themselves into office, and handing out whatever they manage to take from others in order to buy votes? 

I have said previously PB and I mean it in a purely philosophical way; But your persuasions politically are not that far removed from communism. Small/ next to no administration deciding your fate etc..The people (and only the people) decide what's good for them. Communists despise what you despise. Embrace it..If you don't like the moniker, we'll call it something else: What about Laminar flow politics? Whats in a name?

How can anyone stand next to the smoldering crater called 'ObamaCare' and still not get it?

It hasn't started yet has it, so how can you possibly form an assessment on something that hasn't been given a chance to show it's worth?

[PB the Deplorable]

... It hasn't started yet has it, so how can you possibly form an assessment on something that hasn't been given a chance to show it's worth?

You know, it's funny - last year around this time there were posters saying ObamaCare is here and everything is still ok, so what's the big deal.   That tells you how much effort people put into paying attention to major issues, and how susceptible they are to lying politicians.

Here's what's wrong:  companies have no idea what it's going to cost them for each new employee they hire, so they aren't hiring as many people as they normally would be.  This is the worst economic 'recovery' after a recession in the history of the US - by far, and this is a large part of why that is.  Businesses don't take on as much when there is uncertainty.  They don't like risk, or costs they can't predict or control.  We are also seeing people losing their jobs or having their hours reduced so they no longer qualify for full time benefits. 

Because the cost of insurance coverage is going up abruptly (the opposite of what the President and his toadies said, dozens of times each, for over 3 yeas), some spouses and dependents are no longer being covered by employers, some employers are dropping insurance benefits completely.  Others are offering cheaper, less beneficial insurance. 

Others are having the insurance companies cancel their insurance because it doesn't have everything the faraway DC politicians says it has to have.

The software doesn't work very well - it was designed stupidly, and the very few who manage to get through it end up seeing the product and not wanting it.  The Administration claims 100,000 people have signed up, but they are counting people that put the product into their 'cart' but ended up not buying it as having signed up.  So they are lying about how many signups they have.

The whole way it was sold the public - lies about keeping your insurance if you like it, keeping your doctor if you want. How much cheaper it was going to be.   Intentional lies told repeatedly for years by the top Democrats in our country.  Including the President, the then Speaker of the House (now Minority Leader), the Senate Majority Leader, every Democrat Senator and all but a handful of House Democrats.  Liars all.  For years.  And their accomplices in the Media backed them every step of the way.

The way it was implemented.  Over a period of years.  This had 2 'benefits' for these Fascists.  The first was timing specific implementation to the election cycle.  Some of the poplar parts of the law were implemented before the 2012 elections.  The rest - the shit sandwich - was scheduled to be implemented after (if they were so proud of it, why wait until Obama was safely re-elected to implement it?).

The second benefit was that since it would take a few years to destroy much of what was left of the market system in the Medical Sector, it had to be done quietly.  So they implied ObamaCare was mostly implemented, but it wasn't.  This lulled people into thinking the ObamaCare changes weren't so drastic.  After all, the President told us we could keep our policies, and we've kept them, so the people issuing warnings must be wrong.   

The whole idea was for ObamaCare to fail.  They knew they wouldn't be able to survive the uproar if they rammed through their true goal of National Socialized medicine, so they set up a plan to destroy much of what remained of the free market while offering a plan designed to fail after a short period of time.  The only answer then would be government run healthcare.  The only flaw was ObamaCare failed too soon. 

I'm not even going to go into the illegal way the legislation was pushed through.  Or how and why the Supreme Court ok'ed an unconstitutional bill.  Or how just a few weeks ago people stood up and tried to stop it and were hooted down, but now the same people who made sure it all went through as scheduled a few weeks ago are now trying to do damage control.

Or the cynical way Obama is giving waivers and delays to his cronies in Big Labor, Big Business, and Big Government, but not for the rest of us - you know, the Democratic Party that claims to be for the little guy.  And he does this arbitrarily and illegally (a President can't just ignore or change a law when he pleases).

Just look at these people.  'You can't sell that'.  'You have to buy this'.   Now that there is backlash they want to go back to the insurance companies and tell them 'forget what we said, now you must go back to selling that but just  a year'.  his is all so absurd, so un-American.



I don't know Pud, what else do I need to wait for and see?  Let's face it - Obama is a nobody.  He's way out of his depth.  He is deceitful and dishonest.  His worldview is wrong.  His goal is to destroy as much of the country as he can as fast as he can.  He really ought to be running a Marxist bookstore in a tiny dingy shop down some ratty alley in Chicago somewhere. 

But we knew all this.  His rapid rise in the corrupt Daley Machine, his chosen mentors were a 1960s domestic terrorist bomber, and the minister of a racist Marxist 'church'.  His Utopian comments like 'we are the ones we've been waiting for', 'yes we can', 'hope and change', 'a fundamental transformation of the United States', 'share the wealth', 'you didn't build that'.  The talk of how smart he is, how pragmatic he is.  This ALL says 'we are the ones who can finally make Communism work, and we're going to get started here in the US'.  It was as clear as a bell to many of us.  The hard Left certainly knew what they were getting - look how vociferously they still defend him. 

The people who voted for him in either election and gave us all this, but aren't far Leftists, also heard this and they ignored it all.  Those people should really reassess whether they should even be voting anymore.

[PB the Deplorable]

I have said previously PB and I mean it in a purely philosophical way; But your persuasions politically are not that far removed from communism. Small/ next to no administration deciding your fate etc..The people (and only the people) decide what's good for them. Communists despise what you despise. Embrace it..If you don't like the moniker, we'll call it something else: What about Laminar flow politics? Whats in a name?....

I do get what you are saying.  It's just that bothers me when someone says 'I'm a Liberal' or 'I'm a Communist', or whatever, and someone else looks the word up in the dictionary and then says the person claiming the label stands for the dictionary definition.  It doesn't work that way.  It can be very misleading.  It gets us leaders like Obama and the so-called Liberal and 'Progressive' Democrats. 

They aren't Liberals at all, they are Big Government Fascists and Globalists (as are most of the Republicans, if anyone is keeping score).  The 'Progressives' aren't progressive at all either - they are throwbacks to 1920s when the USSR was still new and exciting to some - from a distance.  They offer nothing that is 'new', or that advances society.  But they want people to think that by using the term.


As far as one meaning of Communism - living collectively on a farm, or maybe people owning a business together and running it collectively, I'm not against that.  I don't necessarily want to do it, but I'd be happy to live in a community where the main functions of a government body was providing public safety, enforcing contracts, maintaining infrastructure and so on.  Where what people earned is no one's business, and everyone contributed the same to the small unobtrusive government.  If people want to own collectively under those circumstances, fine with me.


Back in the day, the very successful people who had made their money built schools and hospitals for the community.  They were proud to have the means and be able to do so.  They helped the poor and supported people down on their luck.  It wasn't taxed away and wasted.  It wasn't given to people who weren't deserving.  They didn't give money that just further  enabled bums and whinos.  We should go back to a model where the government is not in the charity business.  It's just another thing government does not do well.

[Quick Karl]

"The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane." Mark Twain