Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
4 Pages<1234>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline porky88  
#16 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:09:54 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Posts: 3,029
Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 177
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Good Point about the "southern strategy". However, I would suggest that strategy was a product of the political reality - then and now - that winning the black vote is hopeless for the Republicans - for the reasons I suggested in the earlier post - mainly blame the God damned leftist media, but also the gullibility of the huge majority of blacks - voting AGAINST their own interests and beliefs - allowing themselves to stay enslaved on the liberal plantation, thanks to the black liberal overseers who dutifully deliver the vote. Looking at the situation and seeing the hopelessness, Republicans invoked the Southern Strategy, basically re-enfranchising southern Democrats who were disrespected and ostracized in their own party.

It was definitely logical politics for the time, though Reagan and Bush41 both would‘ve won the presidency without the south. Regardless, the changing dynamics of politics has taken a great strength among Republicans -- from a political perspective -- and made it a weakness. For the first time in 100 (give or take) years, the Democrats don’t need the south to win the presidency.

I do have to say, though, that I think the influence of the liberal media is overstated. If you’re a Democrat, you read Huffington Post, the N.Y. Times, and watch MSNBC. If you’re a Republican, you read Drudge, listen to talk radio, and watch Fox. In today’s age, most partisans live inside their own bubble.

The parties use racial divisiveness to divide the country. It shouldn’t be about the black community or blue-collar workers. Why can’t a black man or black woman be a blue-collar worker? I never understood that. The first party to get over those stereotypes may just win the next generation.
thanks Post received 2 applause.
DakotaT on 6/20/2013(UTC), dfosterf on 6/20/2013(UTC)
Online DakotaT  
#17 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:32:15 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 7,245
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 622
Applause Received: 1,296

The Republicans have already lost this generation, and if they keep up their caveman social ideas, they'll lose the next one too. What I can't believe is there are women out there that would actually vote for people hell bent on suppressing their rights. But then again, there are a lot of stupid people in the world.
UserPostedImage
Online DakotaT  
#18 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:38:01 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 7,245
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 622
Applause Received: 1,296

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Yeah, like I said, the Dakota Doctrine. I don't disagree with you; I just wouldn't make it a blanket indictment of all on the Republican/conservative side. Small minority, big minority, majority of those on our side, basically on the side of good, I don't know and you don't know what's in people's hearts - where the dividing line is between greed/jealousy and political reality that they aren't gonna win that vote anyway, so fuck 'em. The sick thing is that the God damned liberal Democrats USE that minority vote to ram through a bunch of crap that those minorities hate as much as the good people - stuff which really ain't good for their own cause.

What we need is a Good-Hearted Populist Conservative, first and foremost for a strong America, also with the good people in terms of social/moral stuff - opposing the gay agenda, abortion, etc., but generous - I HATE to use the word "liberal" in terms of injecting government money to help those needing help - and ideally, doing so with low taxes/mainly deficit spending. If somebody like that came along, would you support him (or her), Dakota?


First of all you blanket anyone who votes for Democrats. You do realize there are Democrats who make huge contributions to this country. They are not all Nancy Pelosi-like.

And yes I want moral conservatives to run the show. People who have real ethics. But until they get out of bed with the thieves, it is all a joke. The Tea Party is more or less wannabe tax evaders without any courage, sprinkle in some self righteousness, and add some bigotry and wallah, you have a movement.
UserPostedImage
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#19 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:08:03 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Posts: 2,527
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 224

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
First of all you blanket anyone who votes for Democrats. You do realize there are Democrats who make huge contributions to this country. They are not all Nancy Pelosi-like.

And yes I want moral conservatives to run the show. People who have real ethics. But until they get out of bed with the thieves, it is all a joke. The Tea Party is more or less wannabe tax evaders without any courage, sprinkle in some self righteousness, and add some bigotry and wallah, you have a movement.


Dakota, name me one or two or three of those phantom "good" non-Pelosi-like Dems you spoke of. I really can't think of any. Joe Lieberman kinda was the last, and he's finished - and he really wasn't good on much except foreign policy stuff anyway.

And while you're straining your brain, name me one or two of those "moral conservatives" you say you wish there were more of. The Tea Party's big thing is balancing the budget - more so than cutting taxes. That is one thing I really don't like about them. If it came down to a choice, raise taxes or go into more debt, they'd actually raise taxes. How stupid! The other big thing about the Tea Party is they are people like Formo and Wade and Steve who would sacrifice security for paranoid worries about their rights being usurped. If you're gonna hate on people, Dakota, you at least should hate on them for the primary or secondary items they believe in, not the anti-tax stuff and ethics stuff YOU like to talk about. What you're describing - an unethical tax cheat - is ME, Not the Tea Partiers.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#20 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:23:18 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Posts: 2,527
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 224

Originally Posted by: porky88 Go to Quoted Post
It was definitely logical politics for the time, though Reagan and Bush41 both would‘ve won the presidency without the south. Regardless, the changing dynamics of politics has taken a great strength among Republicans -- from a political perspective -- and made it a weakness. For the first time in 100 (give or take) years, the Democrats don’t need the south to win the presidency.

I do have to say, though, that I think the influence of the liberal media is overstated. If you’re a Democrat, you read Huffington Post, the N.Y. Times, and watch MSNBC. If you’re a Republican, you read Drudge, listen to talk radio, and watch Fox. In today’s age, most partisans live inside their own bubble.

The parties use racial divisiveness to divide the country. It shouldn’t be about the black community or blue-collar workers. Why can’t a black man or black woman be a blue-collar worker? I never understood that. The first party to get over those stereotypes may just win the next generation.


Porky, the huge flaw in your logic is that we are NOT talking about the 10-15% hard core Dem/libs or the 20-30% dedicated conservatives. We're talking about the 55-70% of know-nothing/care very little people who casually/almost by accident get their political "knowledge" from the God damned leftist mainstream media - the 21st century equivalents of Walter Cronkite - that stinking Commie anti-American piece of crap.

What does this have to do with a black man or woman being a blue-collar worker or not? Very little. What it has to do with is that black man or woman being 94% likely to vote for whatever leftist piece of garbage their overseer on the liberal plantation i.e. "black leader" tells them to vote for, never mind that the black man or woman may have outstanding pro-American pro-Christian morality views, much more like most Tea Partiers than like the leftist assholes they vote for. You don't see anything horribly wrong with that picture?

I will concede that conservatives Republicans don't do much to rescue that situation - basically giving up on the black vote, but black gullibility and corruption of that black overseer class are the primary reasons for this sick situation.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline porky88  
#21 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 12:15:29 AM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Posts: 3,029
Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 177
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Porky, the huge flaw in your logic is that we are NOT talking about the 10-15% hard core Dem/libs or the 20-30% dedicated conservatives. We're talking about the 55-70% of know-nothing/care very little people who casually/almost by accident get their political "knowledge" from the God damned leftist mainstream media - the 21st century equivalents of Walter Cronkite - that stinking Commie anti-American piece of crap.

What does this have to do with a black man or woman being a blue-collar worker or not? Very little. What it has to do with is that black man or woman being 94% likely to vote for whatever leftist piece of garbage their overseer on the liberal plantation i.e. "black leader" tells them to vote for, never mind that the black man or woman may have outstanding pro-American pro-Christian morality views, much more like most Tea Partiers than like the leftist assholes they vote for. You don't see anything horribly wrong with that picture?

I will concede that conservatives Republicans don't do much to rescue that situation - basically giving up on the black vote, but black gullibility and corruption of that black overseer class are the primary reasons for this sick situation.

There's so much information available that I don't think one person (let alone an entire race) can go without hearing the viewpoints from conservative media or liberal media. You can't honestly think the entire black community just happens along a liberal blog or news site and not a conservative blog or news site.

Information, including everyone's opinion, is just a click away.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#22 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 4:54:51 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Posts: 2,527
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 224

Originally Posted by: porky88 Go to Quoted Post
There's so much information available that I don't think one person (let alone an entire race) can go without hearing the viewpoints from conservative media or liberal media. You can't honestly think the entire black community just happens along a liberal blog or news site and not a conservative blog or news site.

Information, including everyone's opinion, is just a click away.


It's two separate issues - black voting patterns and the influence in general by the horrendously leftward biased mainstream media.

It's a statistical fact that blacks vote is around 94% for the Dem/libs. I didn't even say that fact is because of the media. Instead, I blamed the corrupt influence of the "black overseers" keeping black voters "enslaved" on the "liberal plantation". From damn Jesse Jackson on down to the pastors in most black churches, virtually anybody who has the status of a black leader dutifully delivers the black vote to the Dem/libs - and it obviously is not just since one of their own kind ran for president. Many many of these people have pristine pro-American, pro-Christian values, pro-free enterprise capitalism beliefs and values. Many of them are among the worst affected by illegal immigration policies. Many are diametrically opposed issue by issue to the God damned Dem/lib candidates they vote 94% for, but those black overseers are able to consistently deliver that black vote just the same. That's just sick and disgusting, but it's a fact.

The percentages I stated in the previous post are reasonably accurate. A solid majority of voters in general just don't know or care to know beyond what they hear on the evening news or CNN or read in news services getting items from Associated Press, Reuters, Yahoo, etc., all of which are indisputably left-leaning. Sure, all it takes is a click to get whatever viewpoints, but to most people, politics is boring. They don't even do that one click. They just settle for the subtle leftist crap that is most easily accessible. Throw in the equally horrendously left-biased educational establishment and entertainment community, and what do you get? A piece of shit like Obama - for two terms - that's what.

Would you really argue anything contrary to what I'm saying?
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Online DakotaT  
#23 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 6:21:35 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 7,245
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 622
Applause Received: 1,296

Texas, what do you call wealthy Republicans who get the votes of the rubes by giving them stupid social issues like guns or gay bashing. The right and left do the same thing: use the middle class but don't represent them. You can type your opinions until your fingers fall off - I won't agree with you when you say liberals are evil and conservatives are righteous. It is a load of bovine fecal matter that your are selling.
UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#24 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 9:19:15 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,762
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 629
Applause Received: 647

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
For a self-proclaimed Libertarian/Anarchist, Wade, you say some interesting things - some of which are very unlike that label. Prime Example: the line about "everyone can't have power; if some have it, others don't". That is as well grounded a statement as anybody could make, but it sure as hell ain't anarchist and almost as surely ain't libertarian.



Sure it is. It is (in significant part) because of the relationship between politics, government action, and power that I am an anarchist. [or, in any event, that variety of anarchist called a minarchist]. Government acts through coercion; it is abie to force or threaten force to get people to do things they wouldn't do voluntarily. In other words, it works through power. And politics is the process(es) whereby that power is distributed. Unless one sees the people being forced by state action as children, needing of a wise father (Republicans/conservatives) or mother (Democrats/liberals), the result is going to be a zero-sum one.

IF we do things through the mechanisms of government/politics, we can't avoid power and its zero sum "some have it, others don't" character. The anarchist, however, believes that power need not be the basis for decisionmaking. The anarchist is not a Hobbesian who believes self interest will, absent the state's power, degenerate into a situation where all are warring against all. Nor does he believe that it will operate according to some social Darwinist survival of the fittest role. (Both of these visions look at life as a zero-sum game of contesting for power.) Rather, the anarchist (and some libertarians) believes that self-interest will lead to sympathy and social cooperation (Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments)

As a minarchist, I recognize that there are some things for which state action (and its basis in power and its inevitable zero-sum character) is a necessary evil. Most particularly, the need for a common defense in a world where there are other states. (I believe we need national defense against state-sponsored terrorists, I am much less certain we need it for defense against individual extremists who lack the power of a state behind them.)

And I believe there are some individuals who can't be trusted with full freedom to decide what is valuable for them or who may need "protection" from those who would take advantage of their incompetence. Children and those without sufficient mental capacity.

But the list of those situations I consider far, far shorter than most would. The list of rules that would require state action is very, very short.

Contrary to the myths of popular culture, anarchists are almost never nihilists devoted to chaos and the absence of rules. They are merely believers that rules arising out of self interest and voluntary cooperation are vastly preferable to rules that are imposed via the exertion of power.

And such rules arise all the time. Most people in markets deal openly and honestly with each other, not because there are laws against fraud, but naturally out of self-interest.

Indeed, if you look closely, you'll discover that most "unfair" or "manipulative" or "exploitative" or "evil" "market activities" that people complain of (e.g., cable TV, the phone company, insurance companies, medical care, "Corporate America", unfair trade, and suchlike) are invariably happening in places where prior state action has attempted to establish/control/force the rules of the game.

Take "big business". Contrary to myth, empirical historical evidence is pretty clear that most production and distribution does not exhibit the economies of scale claimed as a rationale for big companies. Those economies of scale come because of the securities and taxation and consumer protection and etc etc etc laws that make it prohibitive for a small enterprise to "play by the rules." And those securities and taxation, etc rules all developed because in the nineteenth century states decided that incorporation (with its limited liabliity, its grant of separate existence as a person, and, especially, the potentially infinite lifespan of that person) was somehow "necessary" to economic growth. Which of course it wasn't and still isn't: despite all that morass of expensive regulation, 99% of businesses today *still* need less than 20 employees!

Quote:



I like what you say about a Zero-Sum economic situation the pie keeps getting bigger with economic growth - one person's piece doesn't have to get bigger if someone else's gets smaller. I don't think Dakota or Formo or a lot of others in here have a clue about that, and hell yeah, SOMEBODY has to provide structure and rules - your "everybody can't have the power" thing, for the system to work and keep working. I suppose it could be called "Minarchy" hahahaha. The big question is what is that minimum.



Yes. But the even bigger, the even more important, question, is the one that should be asked before we start making the list. The question of whether the presumption should be that state action is a "necessary evil" or the presumption should be that state action is "something to do good".

IMO, it is the former. Always. That is why I am an anarchist. And it is why I believe that the specific burden of proof should always be on those who would have the state act in a particular way. It is not the individuals' burden to prove that he/she should be free of exertion of power through the state. It is the burden of those who believe he/she should not be.

If someone doesn't trust me to decide, then it's their burden to prove to me that they are entitled to make a choice for me as if they were my father or my mother.
Quote:

The aspect of Keynesian Economics I am mainly talking about is related to that - multiplied GROWTH through expansion of money. It has limits to its effectiveness in general, but when combined with the beauty of our dollar being the Reserve Currency, hence debt not being a problem, the benefit is basically unlimited - IMO.

In economics, this is sometimes called the "real effects" question: Can the expansion of the money supply by itself have "real" effects in terms of increased production and employment?

And my answer is: Only in the very limited situations where producers and employers and other users of money can be fooled into not seeing the increase of the money supply. For example, if some medieval king decided to shift from pure gold coins to coins that were half gold and half nickel, but was able to keep the "debasement" secret. Then that king would be able to push twice as much money into the system, people would accept it and buy and produce and employ more than before.

Of course, invariably, the people figure out that pure gold coins and nickel/gold coins don't weigh the same even if they look exactly the same. And then the nickel/gold coins start buying less and less and people demand more and more of them for the same stuff.

The demand for money, reserve currency or otherwise, is always going to be dependent on how well it is perceived to store value. As long as people around the world see the dollar as a store of value, people will continue to accept it, and, as you say, we can continue to borrow and pay people back with our Ben Franklins.

But you, and Keynes and Bernanke, are making the same error that those medieval kings made. You're assuming that people are going to be unaware that the money is being debased. Medieval merchants made and destroyed many a king who forgot that you can't borrow indefinitely if you're using the funds solely to destroy productive resources (e.g. by fighting wars), to fund consumption (solid gold tableware and aristocratic gambling), and to make transfer payments (from the poor to the rich, or from the rich to the poor).

Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, Turkish -- these merchants are no less savvy to what is happening than the medieval merchants were....even more, since they have both more information and quicker information.

You and Keynes and Bernanke do have it partly right: Deficit financing by itself isn't bad. As long as there is no doubt of the borrower dying (and, like the corporation, the state has the potential for infinite life), the USA can borrow as long as it can pay the interest. But how much interest it can pay is not changed by printing more money, and it is REDUCED when the money is spent transfering itself from pocket to pocket rather than increasing production (growth).

Quote:


Your very first paragraph, I think you totally misunderstood my question for you. when I asked what you thought about the "conspiracy theory" thing, I wasn't referring to the concept I call the Dakota Doctrine - the rich/middle class basically keeping the poor people down intentionally. I was referring to the ILLUMINATI thing - the concept which I used to laugh at, but I am rapidly coming around to belief in - that there are INSIDERS - maybe not all or primarily Jewish bankers, but people behind the scenes pulling the strings on politicians of both parties, basically controlling everything. And lest you turn the tables and call ME paranoid, my point of view is not the traditional conspiracy theorist John Birch Society one. I LIKE IT LIKE THAT. My position is that IF indeed this INSIDER group exists, it is NOT to put down/keep down regular people. It is to preserve our wonderful way of life. Think about it, those bankers and big-shots, those INSIDERS whatever/whoever they are would NOT do well in a Communist or Sharia Law situation. They need America to stay on top, same as we, the Good Normal people do.



I don't believe altruistic conspiracies are any more likely than evil ones. But if they did exist, I'd expect them to be self-interested first and foremost. That if they did things to preserve our way of life it would only be because they thought our way of life was best for them.

Quote:


Which brings us to the concept of STATUS QUO. I can only conclude, Wade, that we have a problem with definition of terms. Sure, we need Dynamism in some areas - Technology at the top of the list, also, arguably - even though I would and do argue strongly against it, social/moral ideas, BUT when I talk about the STATUS QUO, I mean first and foremost, America stays on Top in the world. We - America - are the primary if not only force preventing a wide variety of evil forces from taking over and reeking havoc on the lives of people everywhere. It is arguable - the Isolationist argument that "who cares what shit happens to the rabble of the rest of the world" - I'm kinda 50/50 on that hahahha, but it is UNTHINKABLE for the Status Quo to be disrupted here in America - loss of our freedom, loss of our comfortable life, loss of our security. I can't believe that when you so casually dismiss the Status Quo, you are talking about MY concept of the Status Quo - hallmarked by freedom, comfort, and security, and supported by American military power, the Constitution, and free enterprise capitalism - ALL of which are seriously under attack from the left in this country today.


Won't disagree with you on the "attack from the left" part.

But "comfort"? "Security"? These parts of the status quo have never been the driving part of American growth. Nor, for that matter, is "capitalism". (A bastard of a word, in my opinion.) I believe in markets, trade, and the "creative destruction" of entrepreneurship. Capitalists merely own stuff in a particular. Entrepreneurs, they take existing wealth and convert it into new and greater forms of wealth.

Holding wealth ("holding" is a "status quo" word) doesn't do anything. It's how you use the wealth that matters. What has made America great is not how we own stuff, but how we put what we own to use. Except for a few among the capitalist class (the occasional Hearst or Carnegie or Rockefeller), we didn't use our wealth to build castles and gardens that will be tourist attractions for centuries. We used it to build roads and canals and machine tools and railways and steel mills and semiconductor plants, each one of them making obsolete some of what came before.

And I do think you are wrong about the degree of importance you give to military power. The military is there to secure the blessings of our iiberty and to ensure that outside forces do not interfere with those processes of creative destruction. It is not there to project power upon others and it is not something valued intrinsically

Spain, Portugal, England, Russia -- they all found that the projection and maintenance of power was more destructive in the end than anything else. Even the greatest of military empires, one with a degree of superiority over its contemporaries far greater than our own -- that of Genghis Khan -- died because it couldn't afford the projection of power that GK's successors tried to maintain.

I'm not an isolationist. We can't avoid living in a global economy, and I for one wouldn't ever want to. But I also don't believe that our country, despite is military superiority AND despite what I consider its moral superiority, has the wherewithal to be the world's policeman. I would put the Marines (supplmented by the Navy and Army and Air Force and Coast Guard) up against any other country's military capacity, even China's. But it is a far cry from being able to defeat any enemy to being able to police the entire world.

I am not an isolationist. But I do agree with the sentiments of George Washington, by far our wisest of Presidents, in his Farewell Address:

Quote:
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.






None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#25 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 10:24:27 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Posts: 2,527
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 224

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
Texas, what do you call wealthy Republicans who get the votes of the rubes by giving them stupid social issues like guns or gay bashing. The right and left do the same thing: use the middle class but don't represent them. You can type your opinions until your fingers fall off - I won't agree with you when you say liberals are evil and conservatives are righteous. It is a load of bovine fecal matter that your are selling.


Actually, I'm satisfied if you say they are both evil - just in different ways. Putting people down for reason of greed and jealousy is evil. However, the GREATER EVIL IMO, is trying to tear down America as we know it, screwing up the great life we all have.

Your example above is flawed. The Republicans - in your own words - GIVE those "rubes" what the rubes sincerely want in order to get their votes on issues keeping money in the pockets of those greedy bastards - did I state your opinion correctly? The Dem/libs employ shills - black preachers or whatever - what I call the "overseers" on the liberal plantation to capture black people's votes; Then they do NOT give them what they want; They diametrically oppose the good normal moral positions of most black people against abortion, against the gay agenda, for a strong military, against loose enforcement of illegal immigration.

You don't see a difference? The Republicans may bribe and give what those rube voters want, but the Dem/libs steal the votes, then "in your face" to the voters electing them.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#26 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 10:40:34 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 25,632
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,834
Applause Received: 1,991

I'm thinking you guys could buy a $3 ticket and winning $350 million dollars and instead of enjoying the $190 million, you'd spend your remaining days bitching and complaining about the taxes paid.

And .... nothing wrong with that ... just not how I choose to roll.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DakotaT on 6/21/2013(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#27 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 11:50:29 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Posts: 2,527
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 224

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
Sure it is. It is (in significant part) because of the relationship between politics, government action, and power that I am an anarchist. [or, in any event, that variety of anarchist called a minarchist]. Government acts through coercion; it is abie to force or threaten force to get people to do things they wouldn't do voluntarily. In other words, it works through power. And politics is the process(es) whereby that power is distributed. Unless one sees the people being forced by state action as children, needing of a wise father (Republicans/conservatives) or mother (Democrats/liberals), the result is going to be a zero-sum one.

IF we do things through the mechanisms of government/politics, we can't avoid power and its zero sum "some have it, others don't" character. The anarchist, however, believes that power need not be the basis for decisionmaking. The anarchist is not a Hobbesian who believes self interest will, absent the state's power, degenerate into a situation where all are warring against all. Nor does he believe that it will operate according to some social Darwinist survival of the fittest role. (Both of these visions look at life as a zero-sum game of contesting for power.) Rather, the anarchist (and some libertarians) believes that self-interest will lead to sympathy and social cooperation (Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments)

As a minarchist, I recognize that there are some things for which state action (and its basis in power and its inevitable zero-sum character) is a necessary evil. Most particularly, the need for a common defense in a world where there are other states. (I believe we need national defense against state-sponsored terrorists, I am much less certain we need it for defense against individual extremists who lack the power of a state behind them.)

And I believe there are some individuals who can't be trusted with full freedom to decide what is valuable for them or who may need "protection" from those who would take advantage of their incompetence. Children and those without sufficient mental capacity.

But the list of those situations I consider far, far shorter than most would. The list of rules that would require state action is very, very short.

Contrary to the myths of popular culture, anarchists are almost never nihilists devoted to chaos and the absence of rules. They are merely believers that rules arising out of self interest and voluntary cooperation are vastly preferable to rules that are imposed via the exertion of power.

And such rules arise all the time. Most people in markets deal openly and honestly with each other, not because there are laws against fraud, but naturally out of self-interest.

Indeed, if you look closely, you'll discover that most "unfair" or "manipulative" or "exploitative" or "evil" "market activities" that people complain of (e.g., cable TV, the phone company, insurance companies, medical care, "Corporate America", unfair trade, and suchlike) are invariably happening in places where prior state action has attempted to establish/control/force the rules of the game.

Take "big business". Contrary to myth, empirical historical evidence is pretty clear that most production and distribution does not exhibit the economies of scale claimed as a rationale for big companies. Those economies of scale come because of the securities and taxation and consumer protection and etc etc etc laws that make it prohibitive for a small enterprise to "play by the rules." And those securities and taxation, etc rules all developed because in the nineteenth century states decided that incorporation (with its limited liabliity, its grant of separate existence as a person, and, especially, the potentially infinite lifespan of that person) was somehow "necessary" to economic growth. Which of course it wasn't and still isn't: despite all that morass of expensive regulation, 99% of businesses today *still* need less than 20 employees!



Yes. But the even bigger, the even more important, question, is the one that should be asked before we start making the list. The question of whether the presumption should be that state action is a "necessary evil" or the presumption should be that state action is "something to do good".

IMO, it is the former. Always. That is why I am an anarchist. And it is why I believe that the specific burden of proof should always be on those who would have the state act in a particular way. It is not the individuals' burden to prove that he/she should be free of exertion of power through the state. It is the burden of those who believe he/she should not be.

If someone doesn't trust me to decide, then it's their burden to prove to me that they are entitled to make a choice for me as if they were my father or my mother.

In economics, this is sometimes called the "real effects" question: Can the expansion of the money supply by itself have "real" effects in terms of increased production and employment?

And my answer is: Only in the very limited situations where producers and employers and other users of money can be fooled into not seeing the increase of the money supply. For example, if some medieval king decided to shift from pure gold coins to coins that were half gold and half nickel, but was able to keep the "debasement" secret. Then that king would be able to push twice as much money into the system, people would accept it and buy and produce and employ more than before.

Of course, invariably, the people figure out that pure gold coins and nickel/gold coins don't weigh the same even if they look exactly the same. And then the nickel/gold coins start buying less and less and people demand more and more of them for the same stuff.

The demand for money, reserve currency or otherwise, is always going to be dependent on how well it is perceived to store value. As long as people around the world see the dollar as a store of value, people will continue to accept it, and, as you say, we can continue to borrow and pay people back with our Ben Franklins.

But you, and Keynes and Bernanke, are making the same error that those medieval kings made. You're assuming that people are going to be unaware that the money is being debased. Medieval merchants made and destroyed many a king who forgot that you can't borrow indefinitely if you're using the funds solely to destroy productive resources (e.g. by fighting wars), to fund consumption (solid gold tableware and aristocratic gambling), and to make transfer payments (from the poor to the rich, or from the rich to the poor).

Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, Turkish -- these merchants are no less savvy to what is happening than the medieval merchants were....even more, since they have both more information and quicker information.

You and Keynes and Bernanke do have it partly right: Deficit financing by itself isn't bad. As long as there is no doubt of the borrower dying (and, like the corporation, the state has the potential for infinite life), the USA can borrow as long as it can pay the interest. But how much interest it can pay is not changed by printing more money, and it is REDUCED when the money is spent transfering itself from pocket to pocket rather than increasing production (growth).



I don't believe altruistic conspiracies are any more likely than evil ones. But if they did exist, I'd expect them to be self-interested first and foremost. That if they did things to preserve our way of life it would only be because they thought our way of life was best for them.



Won't disagree with you on the "attack from the left" part.

But "comfort"? "Security"? These parts of the status quo have never been the driving part of American growth. Nor, for that matter, is "capitalism". (A bastard of a word, in my opinion.) I believe in markets, trade, and the "creative destruction" of entrepreneurship. Capitalists merely own stuff in a particular. Entrepreneurs, they take existing wealth and convert it into new and greater forms of wealth.

Holding wealth ("holding" is a "status quo" word) doesn't do anything. It's how you use the wealth that matters. What has made America great is not how we own stuff, but how we put what we own to use. Except for a few among the capitalist class (the occasional Hearst or Carnegie or Rockefeller), we didn't use our wealth to build castles and gardens that will be tourist attractions for centuries. We used it to build roads and canals and machine tools and railways and steel mills and semiconductor plants, each one of them making obsolete some of what came before.

And I do think you are wrong about the degree of importance you give to military power. The military is there to secure the blessings of our iiberty and to ensure that outside forces do not interfere with those processes of creative destruction. It is not there to project power upon others and it is not something valued intrinsically

Spain, Portugal, England, Russia -- they all found that the projection and maintenance of power was more destructive in the end than anything else. Even the greatest of military empires, one with a degree of superiority over its contemporaries far greater than our own -- that of Genghis Khan -- died because it couldn't afford the projection of power that GK's successors tried to maintain.

I'm not an isolationist. We can't avoid living in a global economy, and I for one wouldn't ever want to. But I also don't believe that our country, despite is military superiority AND despite what I consider its moral superiority, has the wherewithal to be the world's policeman. I would put the Marines (supplmented by the Navy and Army and Air Force and Coast Guard) up against any other country's military capacity, even China's. But it is a far cry from being able to defeat any enemy to being able to police the entire world.

I am not an isolationist. But I do agree with the sentiments of George Washington, by far our wisest of Presidents, in his Farewell Address:



Thank you for your long and thoughtful commentary - I know you are a busy man, and basically you are writing a second book here without compensation hahahaha.

First Point: So you're saying that's the way it is, but you just don't like it - OK, I can see that. Some would make the Repub./conservatives the mother (protector) and the Dem/libs the father (provider) in the metaphor hahaha, but whatever.

I guess we also have a difference in definition/description of anarchist. It seems you basically see somebody like what you see in the mirror - calm, sincere, intellectual, rational, just detesting and distrusting government more than most people do. When I think of an anarchist, I think of some long haired unkempt wild eyed quite possibly meth head weirdo who indeed is a "nihilist devoted to chaos and the absence of rules". I fall back on what I posted a while ago: most government officials are just regular people - going to work to earn a paycheck, not much of an agenda. Those who do have an agenda are FAR more likely to be good-hearted Don Quixote types, thinking they can make a difference and make the country/world a better place than megalomanic tyrants out to usurp our rights and freedoms. Of course, I will concede, the effect could easily end up being the same (thinking of MY close-to-home detesting of government - stop lights, seat belt regs, city codes, etc.

Recipe for Minarchist: Take one anarchist, marinate in life experience, and add a pinch of Pragmatism. hahahaha

So you were basically saying Big Business more closely resembles government than s it resembles Small Business? If that was your point, a hearty YES - both in the good ways and the bad. Was your point that an anarchist (or minarchist) would therefore dislike/distrust big business? I would agree on that also.

Your Point about state action a "necessary evil" or "something to do good" and why you tend to be an anarchist: I am FAR from a liberal - even though I have my thing about deficit spending, but I would disagree with you here - it's actually two separate cases - result and intent. I think - as I stated about the nature of government workers - that the INTENT of government and all its works and all its ways is about 98% good. The RESULT of government action, however, while not quite as horrible as you and many on our side seem to think, is still only about 40-50% good - and that is before you subtract out the negatives of intrusion and cost. I guess that makes me a minarchist too, but just with the bar set a little bit lower as to what is necessary or beneficial.

Regarding the expansion of the money supply thing: production and employment in the modern era are two very different things. We obviously have seen extreme decreases in production in this country, and with it, factory employment. However, the Distribution Sector has more than made up for that loss quantitatively and even more so, qualitatively. This could only take place, however, if the goods NOT being produced here are still available for consumption WITHOUT economically negative effects - and THAT can only happen with my glorious scenario of the Reserve Currency Dollar rendering debt as moot in terms of ill-effects. While theoreticians may disparage that idea, we see it working wonderfully right before our eyes. Your thing about kings being brought down when they devalue the currency, it depends on whether you take a world view or a national view IMO as to whether that applies to our current situation. National view: We are NOT experiencing significant inflation; Life and Comfort and the Economy in terms felt by individuals is thriving. World View: Hey, those sneaky Americans are taking advantage of us, living the good life off our labor. American Response: Yeah, you want to make something of it? Thus, I refer to our Military Dominance and the inclination to continue it.

On the loosely related topic of Isolationism/Policing the World: I completely agree with what you say there. The Key is we need to have the continuing ability, both with strategic weapons and small-scale tactics and weaponry - which we most certainly do, and I'm confident that will continue (did you read where Bill Ayers of all people wants Obama tried as a war criminal hahahahaha?) even with the leftists in power for now.

And THAT transitions into the final topic: CONSPIRACY - who's pulling the strings - of Obama and the Republican/conservatives and everybody else. You don't believe in an Altruistic Conspiracy huh? Well, I suppose there is a large degree of self-interest in it too, but I see the Conspiracy - if in fact it exists - as similar to the Lord of the Medieval Manor or a benevolent King or Tyrant, looking after his people, making sure no real harm comes to them. Of course, it is implied that the Lord or King continues to have his absolute power - the only modern wrinkle in the scenario is we have the ILLUSION of freedom and democracy. THAT in my opinion, is the STATUS QUO - an illusion of freedom and democracy, which basically is good enough, considering the INSIDERS need us - America - as much as we need them hahahahaha.

Oh yeah, predictably, you wanted the Status Quo to include Freedom, but the hell with Comfort and Security hahahahahaha. OK, but MY Status Quo better include all three.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#28 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 11:52:10 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Posts: 2,527
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 224

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
I'm thinking you guys could buy a $3 ticket and winning $350 million dollars and instead of enjoying the $190 million, you'd spend your remaining days bitching and complaining about the taxes paid.

And .... nothing wrong with that ... just not how I choose to roll.


When did you ever hear ME complain? Read above about the Glorious Status Quo hahahaha.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline OlHoss1884  
#29 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 12:40:27 PM(UTC)
OlHoss1884

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 268
Joined: 5/8/2013(UTC)
Location: Waukegan, IL

Applause Given: 47
Applause Received: 140

What is apparent throughout this increasingly unreadable thread is that there aren't as many historians commenting as advocates. By that I mean the number of times people are making factual statements clearly colored by their political beliefs, not based on actual facts or even hypothetical suppositions with a basis in reality.

The shame of it is that for both the major political parties, their cynical clinging to their usual way of doing business has made it impossible for either one to satisfactorily make the country better for anyone, and the partisan bickering and heel-digging that has paralyzed the last few congresses has destroyed any hope of a better solution based on compromise.

Realistically, both parties have fallen short on issues related to minorities since they were at the top of the policy heap 150 years ago because both parties have, by nature of their being political parties, tried to think of short term success for the party not long term success for the country.

I would suggest that most of you give up on trying to make your arguments because your obvious partisan biases render you incapable of rational and realistic definition of the problem or solutions to it. The best thing any of you could do is read a lot more and do so without assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is biased toward the other side.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" --Albert Einstein
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Wade on 6/21/2013(UTC)
Offline porky88  
#30 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 1:25:36 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Posts: 3,029
Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 177
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
It's two separate issues - black voting patterns and the influence in general by the horrendously leftward biased mainstream media.

It's a statistical fact that blacks vote is around 94% for the Dem/libs. I didn't even say that fact is because of the media. Instead, I blamed the corrupt influence of the "black overseers" keeping black voters "enslaved" on the "liberal plantation". From damn Jesse Jackson on down to the pastors in most black churches, virtually anybody who has the status of a black leader dutifully delivers the black vote to the Dem/libs - and it obviously is not just since one of their own kind ran for president. Many many of these people have pristine pro-American, pro-Christian values, pro-free enterprise capitalism beliefs and values. Many of them are among the worst affected by illegal immigration policies. Many are diametrically opposed issue by issue to the God damned Dem/lib candidates they vote 94% for, but those black overseers are able to consistently deliver that black vote just the same. That's just sick and disgusting, but it's a fact.

The percentages I stated in the previous post are reasonably accurate. A solid majority of voters in general just don't know or care to know beyond what they hear on the evening news or CNN or read in news services getting items from Associated Press, Reuters, Yahoo, etc., all of which are indisputably left-leaning. Sure, all it takes is a click to get whatever viewpoints, but to most people, politics is boring. They don't even do that one click. They just settle for the subtle leftist crap that is most easily accessible. Throw in the equally horrendously left-biased educational establishment and entertainment community, and what do you get? A piece of shit like Obama - for two terms - that's what.

Would you really argue anything contrary to what I'm saying?

I don't think one person or institutions (media, education, or entertainment) has that much influence over the American electorate.

I think Obama's election to the presidency was similar to Ronald Reagan‘s election to the presidency. First, Obama was a better politician than his opponents were. As much as people loathe politicians, they sure seem to vote for the better one each time. The other reason is it was a reaction to the previous presidency. People judged Jimmy Carter as a disappointment and gave the car keys to Reagan. They did the same from Bush to Obama. I believe the voters that don’t pay attention tend to vote with that methodology.

Now the reason Mitt Romney isn’t President today is the Republican Party has yet to fully recover from this era. In addition, their social politics -- like the southern strategy -- has gone from a great strength to a major weakness. So while the Republicans positions on taxes, spending, and regulation, may very well appeal to most voters, it’s their other policies that don't as much. The voters simply weigh the level of importance, and I think now more than ever, younger voters are particularly more willing to vote on social and scientific issues than pocketbook issues.

On the other hand, perhaps it's as simple as Jesse Jackson and Modern Family. Cheers
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error



Recent Topics
7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / StarrMax1

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / porky88

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / packman82

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / musccy

16h / Random Babble / wpr

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Jul / Around The NFL / Dexter_Sinister

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Jul / Random Babble / Pack93z

23-Jul / Random Babble / DakotaT

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.