Talk-Polywell.org

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/ ... recession/


Far greater. Just keep watching the effects. (Unemployment, Economic Collapse, etc.)



David

I believe that our representative democracy works. In fact, the media has no ultimate power over the Constitution. (So that precludes "vote early, vote often" and "no, you can't vote" because they are illegal.)

However, it is interesting that Americans are willing to decide based on such little things as "I heard it on TV." I think that increasing catastrophes (why did a reasonably intelligent CEO of Bear Sterns decide to essentially crash his company into the ground?) eventually lead to the Americans waking up and deciding on a better basis.

But this country is run by Americans, not the media.

ravingdave wrote:http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/ ... recession/

Far greater. Just keep watching the effects. (Unemployment, Economic Collapse, etc.)

David

I agree with the premise. Not the solution.

In fact we are getting the government we deserve. If only the people had faith in the fiscal sobriety of the Republicans. Well I don't have faith in them either. Any of them.

Any way we need one of these lessons every 30 years or so to educate the kids.

MSimon wrote:

ravingdave wrote:http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/ ... recession/

Far greater. Just keep watching the effects. (Unemployment, Economic Collapse, etc.)

David

I agree with the premise. Not the solution.

In fact we are getting the government we deserve. If only the people had faith in the fiscal sobriety of the Republicans. Well I don't have faith in them either. Any of them.

Any way we need one of these lessons every 30 years or so to educate the kids.

A great argument for term limits. The freshman Republican class of 1994 did do a lot of fiscal reforming, but by the time 2000 came along, many of them had gone from restraining Government to enabling Government.

The answer is hardcore Republican Freshman. The only way to keep them hardcore and "Fresh" is to turn them out before they go bad. I.E. Term limits.

An organization that is not explicitly right-wing will become left-wing over time.''

~ John O’Sullivan –

Apart from that, many people go to Washington to "DO" something. The idea that doing nothing would be an improvement simply doesn't occur to most people. Government mindset is normally ACTIVIST, not custodial.
And there's the rub!



David

You shouldn't vote for anyone who wants to be in office.

dch24 wrote:I believe that our representative democracy works. In fact, the media has no ultimate power over the Constitution. (So that precludes "vote early, vote often" and "no, you can't vote" because they are illegal.)

However, it is interesting that Americans are willing to decide based on such little things as "I heard it on TV." I think that increasing catastrophes (why did a reasonably intelligent CEO of Bear Sterns decide to essentially crash his company into the ground?) eventually lead to the Americans waking up and deciding on a better basis.

But this country is run by Americans, not the media.

Imagine the people of America as one large crowd. The Media people have a stage and public address system. Who will sway the opinions of the crowd, the people on the stage with the microphone or the people out in the crowd without one?


The constitutional idea of Freedom of speech came about when people spoke to crowds from the courthouse steps. Nowadays the stage is the broadcast system, and the left wing has total control of the Microphones.


David

MSimon wrote:You shouldn't vote for anyone who wants to be in office.

More to the point, you should be able to vote AGAINST anyone who wants to be in office!

If the ballot included the "Against" option on all candidates, it may just turn out that the "silent majority" isn't silent, it's been muzzled. If the 60ish percent who don't vote could actually vote the rascels out, I suspect they would, in droves.

Allow voters to "Just Say No"!!

PS: This is called "full option voting".

KitemanSA wrote:

MSimon wrote:You shouldn't vote for anyone who wants to be in office.

More to the point, you should be able to vote AGAINST anyone who wants to be in office!

If the ballot included the "Against" option on all candidates, it may just turn out that the "silent majority" isn't silent, it's been muzzled. If the 60ish percent who don't vote could actually vote the rascels out, I suspect they would, in droves.

Allow voters to "Just Say No"!!

PS: This is called "full option voting".

My option can be done with out changing anything except one's mind.

I believe that our representative democracy works. In fact, the media has no ultimate power over the Constitution.

We have one example of how they have power right there. We're a republic, not a democracy, no matter how they try to twist the words(I heard the term representative democracy in intro to politics, it's a misnomer).

Add to that if they don't question the gov's authority, or the constitutionality of an action, then they can convince people that a move is perfectly legal, regardless of what the constitution says. Add in a gov controlled education system that doesn't teach our kids what the constitution actually says, or where it came from, and you have a bunch of people that think Obama's the Messiah.

Look at the Media spin on the Holocaust Museum shooter.

They say he's a Racist, Right wing, Religious, gun totin vetran, that represents the people Janet Napolitano warned everyone about.

The facts are otherwise.

Registered Democrat
artist
Journalism Major
Christian hater
Jew Hater
FOX News’ O'Reilly hater
Weekly Standard hater
Bush hater
Neo-con hater
9-11 was an inside job nut

Stated that “SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West”
Stated that the Apostle Paul destroyed Rome by undermining its pagan virility.
Hated corporations

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/ ... brunn.html


And

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-right-wi ... ate-crime/


David

jgarry wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

I guess we can reasonably come to the conclusion that the shooter was not a True Scotsman.

jgarry wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

Brevity is the soul of wit and I applaud your argument for it's wit, but I think that it's misapplied.


I am not, nor do I think anyone else is asserting that Conservatives wouldn't behave like this, or the corollary that only Liberals would behave like this.

I would assert that people who advocate a particular philosophy, such as "love thy neighbor ...", or "thou shalt not steal" would be violating the tenets of their philosophy were they to do such things.

People have pointed out to me the "Crusades" in which Christians slaughtered thousands of Muslims, etc. I pointed out that this sort of behavior was inconsistent with the Christian philosophy, and it was far more likely that these were opportunists claiming to be Christians.

I guess it all depends on what you want to call something or someone.
People slaughtering innocent Muslims and looting their property, etc. Might call themselves Christians, but no objective observer could believe it.

Abraham Lincoln while defending a case (during the time he was a lawyer) asked a witness, "Suppose you call a tail a leg, how many legs would a sheep have? " The witness answered "Five." Abraham Lincoln said "No, only four. Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."


In any case, I believe in the bell curve model of people. I believe it is entirely possible for a bonafide conservative to do something like that man did, but he will be on the outer reaches of the curve. This type of behavior is very unlike the type of People who read George Will and Thomas Sowell, but it is not so out of character for the followers of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc.


During the Republican convention last year, which side was dropping bags of cement off of overpasses onto Republican busses almost killing the occupants ? Likewise, which group was arrested for having pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails at the same event ?

Which side puts steel shafts into trees to kill or injure lumberjacks who are sawing trees down. Which side burns down apartments to protest construction? Which side burns up SUV dealerships ? Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn built bombs and talked of killing millions of people.

That's just the obvious INTENTIONAL manufacture of Death. Liberals are
also good at manufacturing Death in other UNINTENTIONAL ways, but the end result of people dying because of their policies always remains. AIDS, Abortion, Gun Violence, Fatherless bastards growing up wild and dangerous in Urban areas because the Liberal Policies make this possible, Banning DDT which has killed and is still killing Millions around the world, Food programs causing massive starvation in Ethiopia and other third wold countries...


I'm sorry. I do tend to go on... the problem is that everything in this world is connected to everything else, and when a person wakes up and gets a good look at the Macroscopic pattern of everything that's going on, it's frustrating when you have to try to explain things as though you were looking at the world through a paper tube.


I'll shut up now.


David

I dunno Dave about the Fatherless bastard problem. Of course conservatives are against it while being the strongest proponents of a policy that promotes it and which policy looks very much like covert racism.

http://www.issues.org/13.2/courtw.htm

BTW George Schultz and Milton Friedman (RIP) have been trying to teach conservatives about this stuff for decades. But conservatives are a hard headed, hard hearted lot and seem to be incapable (in general) of seeing the unintended consequences of their policies.

Liberals think economics only applies in this one market and conservatives believe this is the one market where economics do not apply. How odd.

From a UK perspective -

Media -

They media give people what they want. They are motivated by money, and selling copy. (and in any democracy much the same could be said for politicians).

Greater threat than terrorism?

That is an easy one. the only clear threat greater than terrorism is the fear of terrorism, and all the misguided, terrorism-promoting, behaviour that it engenders.

Democracy (of the necessarily imperfect form found in the world today) has many virtues but one vice is the inevitable knee-jerk reaction to emotive threats.

In the prelude to the second world war the UK realised better than anyone else that appeasement did not work with Hitler. But stateless terrorism is quite a different matter from a direct military threat. All it needs is a few people whose life is so miserable that suicide in a glorious cause seems attractive. It can only be reduced by convincing the bulk of the population (in whatever country harbours them) that the terrorists are wrong. Military posturing tends to do the opposite.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the US had a great chance to reduce terror - it squandered this. To be fair - it would need a leader of bgreat courage to do otherwise.