The Smiley Smile Message Board

92 Million Americans are not working???    :o :o :o

This is truly unbelievable.  Last I heard, there was only 350 million people in the country -- of which how many are kids, elderly, etc?  This is staggering.  Even for me, and I understand the evil goals of the President and his Communication Department (formerly known as "The Press"). 

But this is sickening.  Each one of those blips, are a family, a Mom, a Dad out of work.  I know folks in my neighborhood looking for work -- for MONTHS.  Cashing out 401ks to keep their homes. I've seen MASSIVE layoffs at my current and previous employer -- a few of which have resulted in suicides.  But even with all that -- I still find these numbers unreal.
. 
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/01/LFP%20Participation_0.jpg)

What's Obama doing about it?  Well, he's out there lying - saying it's a "recovery."

The media?  Covering "the Bridge Scandal."  What bridge scandal?  Exactly. 

It is because they are not real. B(L)S is at it again. All markets and all statistics are rigged to keep the current system going another 5 years or so.

Everyone knows it. And everyone is playing along.

Of course the stats are rigged, it even came out that the Obama 2012 campaign which ran in part on better-than-expected jobs numbers were running on stats that were deliberately inflated and "rigged" to make the numbers better than they actually were.

But there is or was no retribution or consequence to be paid, so it just drifts into the dustbin of history that jobs statistics were artificially inflated, rigged, books were cooked, and a campaign used these lies to make things appear better than they actually were.

Now we get numbers which are looking pretty bleak.

The truth lies somewhere in between, where jobs and jobless numbers have been stagnant and pretty much dormant (and bad) for years.

And despite promises and speeches and rallies and the like, remember all those "shovel ready jobs" claims, nothing is improving.

And the claims of "recovery" are also being tied into the stock market, posting record highs and whatnot. But as anyone with a brain can understand, the health of the economy is not directly related to the health of the stock market, especially where you have a Fed that makes and sets policies designed to boost and enhance the health of said stock market.

Take it for what it's worth. I'll say again, you can keep your eyes shut as tightly as possible but because you choose to not see what's happening that doesn't mean it's not happening.

I don't know in the longer term how (near-) full employment in the U.S. at good wages can come about without significant political changes--changes that I don't claim to know, especially in that I am going to admit right up front that whatever knowledge of economics I have is secondary or common sense. I've never so much as taken an accounting course. (I can count! I can do basic math! But my education was music and journalism, and my profession is marketing. The theories of economics are outside of my experience.)

This is because the goal of businesses is not full employment, but making profits, and the former does not necessarily lead to the latter. In fact, it may well be contrary to the latter (in a mature "commoditized" industry that isn't likely to grow, anyway). The entire concept/expectation of indefinite annual profit growth when taken to an extreme would seem to be that the eventual resulting perfect company consists of one employee--an owner--making 100% of the profits with as low as possible expenses in all phases of the business. (Obviously that is mostly a theoretical ideal, not a typical reality.) So the typical libertarian/free market idea of just getting government out of the way and letting private businesses run their course doesn't seem to me remotely likely to result in full employment, but rather the increasing dominance of those companies or people already in a position to succeed.

If you're an American or European, free markets will result in jobs continuing to go to less developed areas where labor is cheaper. (As those countries' populations see the benefits of this and build middle classes, it repeats itself to other less developed countries.) The idea of the developed nations becoming "knowledge economies" sounds great, as if eventually everyone in the developed nations would be the owner of some Internet startup or consulting firm while low-to-middle wage jobs in sectors like manufacturing traditionally but increasingly others are all that we lose. But concept doesn't apply to everyone. Not everyone can or will be in that professional class, that startup class, etc. What seems most likely to me is what we see, which is a gap between the successful ownership class in a "knowledge economy" and the service job class to, well, serve them. And anything that can be outsourced or automated will be.

A libertarian position might be that this is fine--that how it works out is how it works out--and I'm not really trying to argue the political-philosophical aspect of it, but rather just what I see as the reality of it: that the goal is not full employment, and thus we ought not be surprised when we do not have full employment.

In case I am coming off as an anti-free market capitalist--which admittedly would be my leaning, though I'm not subscribed to any doctrines and usually end up exactly the kind of pragmatist/compromiser that people love to hate--I'll also say that in my profession I spend* a lot of time navigating government regulations and wholly agree that they do not favor typical businesses (though I'd strongly, strongly, strongly suspect most such labyrinths were created by and for favored businesses). While government theoretically may be of assistance in such matters as jumpstarting or maintaining an economy (and in this conversation, full employment), that doesn't mean it is.

Hope that was remotely coherent.

*waste

What's an anti-free market capitalist? A capitalist is per definition a free market person.

It's an incoherent run-on term that probably should have included a slash. Anti-free market/capitalist. Or anti-free marketer/capitalist. Point being I am not a disciple of free markets or of unfettered capitalism.

Well brace yourself. You are in a lions den of "free market" religious zealots here, long on rehtoric and bluster but short on coherent thought or logic. Guitarfool, for instance, seems to think that if you spill enough (virtual) ink on a given topic you can sell a guy a flamethrower in hell, while Bean Bag just skips ahead to the pictures.

I thought you were above that kind of thing, but I guess not. Totally uncalled for. What a dick move, seriously. What the f***?

Hey, the guy deserves to know what he's in for: ANYONE WHO DOES NOT BOW DOWN TO FREE MARKET CAPITALISM AND DOES NOT SEE IT AS PERFECT AND INFALLIBLE IS A STATIST/COMMUNIST/MARXIST!!!!!!!!

I keep my eyes on the political threads around here, I just rarely feel like contributing. So I know what I'm in for, more or less. But I appreciate the concern.  ;D

Straw man.

Never said that.  But, as a boss of mine said, you're either growing or dying.  Learning and getting better or not.  And the country is certainly in the latter column.  Shrinking and withering. 

America's Dwindling Economic Freedom
Regulation, taxes and debt knock the U.S. out of the world's top 10 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303848104579308811265028066?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303848104579308811265028066.html)

This is either good or bad.  I say bad.  But some would say its good, and those people should be fired.  Sorry to be so "scary black n' white" about this crap.  But gee-whiz, Pinder.  I'm just being decisive.  Debate and nuance is fun to a degree, for some.  But at some point you gotta man up and stay in the game or fold.

I'm not calling everyone who is unable (or unwilling) to see the truth, "a Statist."  I'm simply calling Statists, "Statists."  They exist.  I'm pointing them out -- and their results.  And trying to get people to make a decision -- do you want more of this?  Or would you like to try heading in the other direction... the free market.  More freedom.  More choice.  Power to the people.  OR, shall we stay the course of more government, more control, more taxes -- less freedom.

And you have made a decision, more or less.  And I think you agree with me.   :)

Debate and nuance is all we have and they are abilities we are lucky to have, otherwise the world would be as black and white as you've decided that it is. Sorry that poking little holes in your cave drawings upsets you, but you and your free market nazi cohorts are extremely dangerous individuals who welcome the end of human evolution just because it makes your kool-aid taste better ...... Do you really think human freedom is a subject that can fit so neatly into your little kindergarten definitions such as "free market" "government" "Marxism"? I'm sure you do think that and it's what keeps you smug and dismissive, but too many people around the globe know better and it's a massive insult that some fat and ignorant American thinks he knows better. I agree with you on some things as I've always pointed out, yet you just keep on going, calling people names and reducing reality to a few stupid pictures pulled up from Google because it makes you feel tough and superior...... News flash: you are neither. And your sad and angry yes-men aren't either..... You're like a guy being gang raped on the floor by the government and the "free market" and due to the stress and horror, you've imagined that one of the rapists is your friend. Pathetic.

Oh really? I guess if you're in the habit of selectively editing what you take in from these threads, which is your right as a "moderator"

Ahhhh....capitalism.... ;D

(http://0.tqn.com/d/golf/1/0/e/2/1/wilson_staff_eco_carry.jpg)

Wilson Staff is touting its new "Eco-Carry" golf stand bag as "the first golf bag on the market made from 100-percent recycled polyester fabric."

The fabric is called GreenPlus, and it's made from 12 one-gallon plastic bottles. The production process is explained by Wilson Staff thusly:

    In the initial manufacturing phase, the plastic bottles are crushed into plastic flakes. The flakes are then transformed into a stable fiber through a process called de-polymerization and re-polymerization. Lastly, the stable fibers produced from this process are woven into a filament yarn that is used as the fabric for the final product.

Sticking with the green theme, the Wilson Staff Eco-Carry comes in a moss green color scheme. The bag weighs in at 3.7 pounds and comes with a built-in, paddle-activated stand; double strap and ergonomic hip pad; a six-way divider top and a soft neoprene handle.

The Wilson Staff Eco-Carry golf bag debuts with an MSRP of $129.99. Visit wilsonstaff.com for more info.

And your point is?

I'm a fan of anything ...... when it works...... and will be critical when it doesn't.... Once again: that's life. Quit trying to reduce it to a child's notion of black and white.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, with everything else going on including the dismal employment situation and the health care mess, this is what a group of democrats chooses to focus on:

By Daniel Arkin, Staff Writer, NBC News

A group of senators on Tuesday sharply criticized a comedy bit during the Sunday broadcast of the Golden Globes that featured actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus puffing on an electronic cigarette, accusing the awards show of "glamorizing" the controversial devices.

"In light of studies showing that exposure to on-screen smoking is a major contributor to smoking initiation among youth, we are troubled that these images glamorize smoking and serve as celebrity endorsements that could encourage young fans to begin smoking traditional cigarettes or e-cigarettes," the lawmakers said in an open letter to the producers of show.

The senators — Dick Durbin, D-IL, Richard Blumenthal, D-CT, Sherrod Brown, D-OH, and Edward J. Markey, D-MA — called on the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and NBC Universal to "take action to ensure that future broadcasts" don't make light of the health risks associated with tobacco.

Louis-Dreyfus — nominated at the ceremony for her roles in the film "Enough Said" and the television series "Veep" — was seen drawing from an "e-cigarette" and blowing smoke out of her mouth as part of a gag skewering haughty Hollywood behavior.

"She has really changed," co-host Amy Poehler deadpanned from the stage, as Louis-Dreyfus, wearing cat-eye sunglasses, caricatured a snooty star.

Leonardo DiCaprio, who took home a statuette for his performance in "The Wolf of Wall Street," could also be seen taking a drag from an e-cig during the broadcast.

The HFPA and NBC Universal did not have an immediate response to the letter.


Did anyone tell these idiots that E-cigs have no tobacco in them?  :)

I wonder if DiCaprio's E-cig was green.

My point is you need to seriously chill out, and don't fall into the usual trap of calling people who don't agree with you a "nazi" or anything of the sort. That's the entire fucking problem in a nutshell, as soon as it goes into that territory it offends more people than will ever be won over, even if it's trying to find common ground. And it makes the whole notion of various politicians and pundits bemoaning a "lack of civility" in political discourse look even more hypocritical than it already is.

But you see, I consider calling people statists just as awful as calling someone a Nazi, and just as much of a misrepresentation.

But you won me over with the E-cig thing.

I used to work for NBC/Universal and can assure you that, yes, they are that stupid :)

NBC has some issues for sure! But I think it's more on the group of senators in this case, who are not only trying to regulate and ban something which is totally legal and has no tobacco content whatsoever based on their "perception" of the E-cig possibly leading to children wanting to try smoking.

It's pure, unbridled, government-control stupidity and hypocrisy at it's most ridiculous. It was the senators who are trying to pressure NBC and the groups behind the awards show to "limit" such images from their broadcast...that's f***ed up. What are they going to do next, write a "law" to keep the image of smoking an E-cig from being shown on TV? Please.

Consider this past month, if you watched most newscasts you were bombarded by images of marijuana smokers in Colorado toking up, along with the usual gang of clueless college-age stoner types extolling the virtues of being able to smoke legally. As much as I favor decriminalizing it, I wish they would keep these goofballs off the radar and find better spokespersons for issues like this. 

And it's amazing to me to have these democrats getting on their moral high horses over E-cigs considering just how much of a wasteland Hollywood culture really is, especially within a culture that sees drug abuse, alcohol abuse where getting ripped at trashy nightclubs in LA is glamorous, and where the real "hard drugs" like cocaine and heroin are accepted as part of the scene, if not glamorized as well.

And the image of an actress playing a staged comedy bit where she puffs on steam vapor from an E-cig is what enraged the politicians enough to send a threatening letter to the broadcaster and the awards show producers? And to also play the "protect the children" card and link a product which contains no tobacco to an anti-tobacco fetish a lot of these folks seem to share?

I'm sorry, that's just messed up.  :)

Statistics aren't needed.  All any American has to do is open their eyes and look around them to see how f***ed we are.   Running on empty, exhaust and grit.  This has been happening slowly over time for quite a while, increment by increment.  Obama was never going to be able to do anything to change the inevitable, for he is just another cog in a very well established and gargantuan wheel.  He, like Bush before him and Clinton before him and Bush Sr. before him (etc) are all part of the same machinery, the same problem.   Looking for leaders is no longer viable.  People need to start looking to themselves. 

You could argue statistics are exactly what is needed because if people open their eyes, they only see what is in front of them, and from their own perspective, to boot. In other words, without statistics (or some other more broad gathering, aggregating, and inevitably interpreting) of information, one man's f***ed is another man's heaven is another man's in-between. This isn't an advertisement for the infallibility of statistics, by any means. It's just saying there is more than one reality at any given time, and "one's eyes" only give one (at most).

That, I agree with.

That, I disagree with, because people "themselves" without leaders are disorganized messes of conflicting interests. If everyone looks to himself, the result is chaos. The status quo (in my opinion, if that doesn't go without saying) isn't great by any means, much less ideal, but it beats a leaderless mass of self-interested rebels.

just raise the minimum wage and more people will be motivated to work. DUH!

I agree! We all want freedom and we don't want cops beating unarmed people to death in the street, but we also want them to come quickly when we call them. We love and want free enterprise and hate regulation yet we want to be able to feel safe getting on an airplane knowing someone doesn't have the freedom to cut corners on it's maintenance. We want to be able to drive as fast as we want but we don't want the guy behind us to have the freedom to ram us off the road because he wants to go faster.... It's really quite simple, and I think we can all get along here.... Someone needs to revel in and fight for our freedoms be they "market" freedoms or social things, and someone needs to fight to keep greed and laziness from costing lives.

No, we need a total crackdown and ban on E-cigarettes, that's the most pressing issue of the day. At least according to those four senators.  ;D

Way to spend our money. Worthy of a "Solyndra" award for best overall fucking-over of the taxpayers.

Can't argue here!

Did you see that these same folks (well, the E! Network floor of the same building) put up a "Fun Fact" during the Golden Globes which said "Michael J Fox was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease in 1991"? ....... Really? This is a "Fun Fact"?????

In other pressing news.... these issues are troubling our "Leaders"...

House Dems demand government study on Internet hate speech... (http://"http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/technology/195647-dems-demand-government-study-on-internet-hate-speech")

Al Franken Demands Answers on GPS Tracking............... by FORD MOTOR CO... (http://"http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/01/15/sen-franken-demands-answers-on-gps-tracking-credit-card-security/")

 :wall

Whew...... This'll sure help:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/14/wisconsin-republicans-propose-7-day-work-week-at-behest-of-business-lobby/

There is something in the recent Slavoj Zizek book "Violence" about how the "other" himself is nothing compared to the stereotyped idea of the other, which incorporates a diverse set of motivations, traits, and a full history and context that is actually unrelated to the person himself. Unfortunately that is what seems to be true in reality and even more so on boards including this and assorted media (which I struggle to think of as reality, though I suppose they are in a sense). Nothing seems quite so hope-draining to me as digging in and villainizing the other in broad terms, making it easy to mock, questioning motivations, and basically dumbing down everything to an almost tribal rivalry. Whittle it down to two opposing sides, lump things into one of those camps, and turn it into an oversimplified sport.

This thread begins with a topic of some importance to Americans, at least, and quickly becomes a place to broadly paint the opponents as the problem. Call names, hurt feelings, and get your digs and points in when you can. More than conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, blahblahism, I'd say it's that which is the problem: turning reality into nasty spirited sport.

Amen to that.....

Makes me think about the "indie" rock 90's heyday. People who were "oh so indie" and anti-corporate-labels would in turn, sign with some little indie outfit and then get just as f***ed over as their friends on "majors: did because the little indie label turned out to be nothing but a tax write-off for the same big labels they were avoiding like the plague .... So, you ended up with guys who were being f***ed of all they had strutting around acting like Mick Jagger because they were signed to a major, and then you had guys getting f***ed of all they had strutting around like Steve Albini because they were signed to an "indie" label.....

Expect a bunch of Obama bashing pictures to follow.....

My liberal friends are ever bit as bad as the conservatives, both in terms of the oversimplifications of things and the requirements of their allies to speak the party line. (Small-P party, if you will, as most liberals I know don't particularly care for the Democratic party.) I don't say this as a part of the mainstream media's "both sides are equally responsible for all problems, both sides are just fringe lunatics" messaging, which I don't accept at all. I mean it not politically, but ... (trying to think of a word that accomplishes "partisanally, which isn't a word) (came up empty). So sure, I'd be disappointed if the response to that kind of post is to throw out some (small-P) party line mockery or jibes, but I'm just as disappointed that you expect "this" from "them."

While this is all true... the sport of which you speak is not actually played in national politics.  It's not.  The liberals/left do.  And that's why they win.  They play.

The Republicans?  Don't make me laugh.  They sck monkey nutts.  In those terms.  The only conservative and libertarian opinions you hear are on "fringe radio" and by ... us.  The people.  The tea party.  Bloggers.  Posters.  Who are quickly turned into monsters by the powerful media.

Point is this -- Republicans would HATE me.  Hate me.  They hate conservatives and libertarians.  We're not invited to the "party."  Big p or little p.  Not invited.  And the goal of the left (one of the goals) is to make John Boner, and the rest of the Republicans believe we're "bad."  Toxic.  Poison.  And John Boner goes along, cuz John Boner likes monky sack.  I guess.



Now... back to yer point.  Yes, it stinks that things erode so quickly in these high-minded discussions.  Yes, it's juvenile.  But, you need to understand -- they started it.  They started ALL OF IT.  You can quote me on that.

The Left fcks us.  Everyday.  And folks like me are only pointing it out.  I'm just reacting to the mindless, dckless sht they do EVERY FICKING DAY to this country.  They did it.  Not us.  They're the fcks shitting in your coffee.  They're the fcks, shtting in the sand box -- every fcking morning.  So to speak.

So... I'm just pointing it all out.   ;)

I guess this is like trying to plead some evolution argument with a fundamentalist Christian who sees Jesus in mold stains under the sink.... It's pointless....

Someone's "started" every awful thing in human history, yet it's been the arrogant and vicious aggressors who've leapt on the opportunity to be "righteous" that have done the most damage........

And the train rolls on.

(http://i43.tinypic.com/ay0r3s.jpg)

I want to say this as honestly and humbly as possible. Do you realize that this exact paragraph could be written and is regularly said by liberals I know? Literally every single thing (in reverse). That's the funny and/or pathetic part. Two camps, both playing, both saying they aren't playing, both saying the other is playing. It is so pathetic. I'm reminded why I don't want to have these conversations very often. If you can't talk about specific things and instead have to talk about the other en masse as some block of inferred motivations and deviances (I think I just made up that word), it can't possibly be productive. It starts from a position of impasse.

Just between you and me, Cap'n... of course I realize this.  But don't tell... "them."  :lol  Perhaps that's the difference with me and some?  Who really knows.  But no... it's not going to be "productive."  Not as you mean it.  Clearly, the handwriting is on the wall regarding those pipe dreams, is it not?  If you've seen otherwise, do tell. 

Anyway, it's a little bit like asking a piston what his day's like.  Mostly, he's gonna say, "back n' forth."  And he's probably gonna sound quite angry about it -- as if he's looking for more.  However, don't expect the piston to know where the car's going, you know?  What I mean is, I've never -- almost never -- gotten anywhere with anybody on these topics.  That's not a dig against my tactics, but a realization that people need to decide for themselves.  So I proceed accordingly.   :p


I digress... There's countless metaphors about the permanence of the "sides" -- good/evil, black/white, right/wrong.  Yin/yang.  You name it.  I don't think those are going away in this reality.  Do you?

Regardless.  Since you're here, and have lifted the hood -- you have made certain choices.  Decisions.  I'm not an expert on engines, but... I don't think there's much accomplished -- even less -- with engine parts that are wishy/washy and uncertain.  Outside of dirt and contaminants, I don't believe useless items are placed in engines in the first place.  What I'm trying to say is, most people pretend "they're above it."

Right?  Whether they are or not...  ;D

Man, everything you write is really just about yourself and how you see yourself..... You have nothing to contribute, nor do you merely point things out as you claim. Rather, you spew your highly personalized view of things based upon an imaginary decision you made that veers dangerously close to paranoid psychosis.......

There is no need to respond to anything you might fart out from here on out. You show nothing but delusional disdain toward anyone who does not share your same relentless "views" regardless of the manner in which they communicate their input.

I might bust Guitarfool's balls but I highly respect that he puts a lot of research and effort into pleading his case and his high intelligence is more than obvious..... You basically just repeat your same one opinion but with pictures.... Yawn.

My problem with this is that the political-philosophical possibilities can't be boiled down to two mutually exclusive issues. The scopes of options are bigger than that. Further, a person might have an opinion more aligned with one (of two, of four, of ten) options on one issue, but with another one on another. We are not up-and-down pistons with no flexibility for left, right, forward, and back. The false dichotomy is a marketing tool that plays on people's arrogance and fear.

Do I see things changing? Sadly, no. But maybe the worst part about it is, people could get along. Things could change. (I'm not talking about some kind of utopia, I'm talking about diverse people agreeing to make practical, functional, incremental adjustments to improve problems.) But the system functions for the groups that run it as it is, and so they don't want to change it. Low approval ratings? Gridlock? Mudslinging? Platitudes? Artificial oversimplification just to stick to the talking points? It's fine for them.

Right.  I understand.  Everyone has different opinions on everything.  Diversity is under no threat of extinction.  But to win anything on a big scale -- you must form a team that presents a stark contrast from your opponent.  Because, eventually, it comes down to one or the other.  Without a contrast, people start to comment on silly things, like who has the best hair.  Who looked sleepy.  Or whatever.  Where's your diversity then?

Yes, individualism is key to our existence.  For example, I don't expect anyone to agree with me 100% of the time, even though I'm balls-on, accurate as hell on pretty much everything I say on these subjects.  :drumroll

But... good/evil, black/white, up/down -- those are real forces, too -- are they not?  Individualism has its opposite, too.  And despite Pinder's best efforts to make it about me, it's not all about me.  Hence, my piston analogy.  My point is it's ALSO about things much, much larger.  And it has nothing to do with me wanting it to be that way.  I'm just addressing reality as best I can.  The full scope of it.  And as flattering as Pinder's attempts are, I understand why he feels the need to do that.

To have any kind of direction and momentum, people need to get together.  Form a team.  And that team, to be successful, must present a streamlined force.  That's what should happen in the big leagues.  And that's what's not happening on the Republican side.  The Republicans are listening to the Pinders of the world -- thinking they should "cool it" and play nice.

To form a team, is to create a force larger than self.  To become a can of concentrated balls-on.  The Republicans (can I get a witness!) have not done this.  They do the opposite and form a soft, vague, flavorless Pinder-composite.  And what does that do?  Nothing.  It loses.  By design.

Seriously... the reality of any situation must be present in any decision to address said situation.  And the reality of this situation is ONE or the OTHER.  People are going to the polls like a piston -- up or down.  And there's two ways to present your side -- flavorless, not to offend.  Or bold, to present clarity.  And if there is room for an engine-analogy in this grand discussion, which approach do you think will work best?

It's not my efforts to make it all about you. It's your own efforts.....

And you're right. I completely agree with what you say here, black white, up, down, good, evil are all real forces! Well, up, down are. Good/evil...... those are basically our own inventions just like "the left" and "the Pinders of the world" ....

Once again, you simply can't refrain from trying to quantify people, ideas, views, reality into black and white boxes to fit your own world view. Fair enough, but just quit proclaiming how correct you are about everything because then, aside from the basic lack of modesty, you can't grow or develop as a person because you've already decided you know it all and are correct...... which makes it easy to see how in your mind, you're simply pointing out facts and don't come off as messy and confused, and indoctrinated as those you look down upon..... But please understand, I agree with the meat of what you wrote.

I don't know why we can't just understand and accept that even though we might be "right wingers" or whatever and cocksure that we are correct, it does not mean no one has the right or even the duty to present an opposing or merely different view.... This endless harping on "the left" and "they started it" gets us nowhere. Especially on a board/thread like this where basically even the most extreme "leftie" in your view still opposes Obama and just about all he's done. Just because they won't denounce their core beliefs in order to do so, does not make them just another flea on the back of "the problem" .... If that makes any sense.... If everyone you accuse of being part of the "left" went "right" then you'd just end up with different factions of "the right" who don't agree with each other..... Just like religion and every other con game mankind has dreamed up in order to pat themselves on the back for being "correct"

Can we ever truly separate ourselves -- from anything?  I think the answer is no.  Everything you just wrote was about you -- how you feel about how you want me to discuss things.  I do accept the way you discuss things.  And my response is to discuss things how I best discuss things.  Right?  If I didn't accept your methods, I would, like you, be demanding that you start attacking things in the manner in which I do.  So clearly, I'm demonstrating acceptance, while you are not.  Very ironical.

Yes, I enjoy attacking the Left and the Stupid, Play-Along, Wishy-Washy, Mushy Republicans.  Because, I see them as the problem with all government.  So why should I not attack that which I see as the problem?  Just to appease you?  I would appease, if you held the keys to fix all this... but you don't (do you?).  So, I want others to understand the real issues that I have identified.  If you think I'm the real issue, then by all means... continue to alert people about the threat I pose.


So... yes, I see government as a very strong agent -- limiting choice.  Thus, it should be used very sparingly -- only because you, me and everyone else is flawed.  And people no better than you (but not me, clearly) are seeking government positions -- and using this extremely powerful agent to make people do things their way.  The Left and their Republican friends are all too eager to use this government -- for every, fcking thing in the world.  That's bad for everybody.

So, I'm going to continue to point out this flaw in their logic.  How it is bad and wasteful, immoral and hurtful and destructive.  Because it is.  And one of the best ways, I think, to illuminate this, is to pick on the bullies that are doing this.  Obama is a bully.  I want people to understand that he is.  The things he says and does are mean and creepy.  He is using government to make the country into something he wants.  It's all about him.

But what's the point in endlessly just pointing out the same exact thing over and over and over and over well past the point of redundancy, with not a single idea presented? ..... Complainers are a dime a dozen.

Besides, I cry fowl on these views you endlessly push out there. You don't want limited government (OK, maybe not YOU, but those Libertarian "anarchists" you're so fond of and identify with: who are few in numbers but propped up by heavy corporate financial support mixed with electoral gerrymandering) you (they) just want government to impose no limits on concentrated, corporate/private power, and you (they) want a society subordinate to this power. You cry and moan about "The State" and "State Power" and you oppose any/all forms of it EXCEPT the current/reigning form which supports and enables those systems which sustain this concentrated private/corporate power. You hate Obama and bash him everyday, but you suck at the tit of the same power base which has enabled him. And they have you right where they want you: raging at the scarecrow-empty suit in The White House..... You talk all roses and flowers about your childlike fantasy of the free market. Which, I would happily support: if it existed, and your little illusion/delusion is good enough for you. Which once again brings us to your need to sit back and see yourself as just some inactive pointer outer of things.... Bullshite! You are a spokesmen for this corporate/private/state power, yes STATE power. Your reasons might be delusional, but it makes little difference. Do I hold the keys or answers to any of this? No, but at least I have ideas and don't just sit on my ass and "point things out" to the 3 or 4 fellow right wingers on this board and the rest who don't agree with a single damn thing you say. If you're just pointing things out or illuminating things, why not find a more positive venue in which to do so? Or take it to the streets. There are many many ways to put one's politics into action like I do (I won't bore you with those details) but I know it's so much easier to sit back and sink into internet fantasy where, in your mind, you really are not the biggest and worst form of a Statist.

Just a couple of quick comments in response before I bow out, because I don't think this is very constructive. I do appreciate your lack of name-calling, though. It's a start.  ;D

Oh, also, I've removed all and not responded to any of the Pinder insults because that's none of my business and not my fight.


You're correct in a way on some of this, but yet (to my perspective, which I wholly acknowledge, here) still coming at things from the wrong place. Yes, to win in a political environment, one must find stark contrasts--even when those contrasts are mostly artificial or trumped-up for the sake of fear-mongering or salaciousness--with one's opponent. Yet it would be possible (easy, even) to differentiate on more realistic and less prurient grounds. Instead we're prone to devolution. But the very mentality of "winning" is one that I think poisons our political environment. "Solving" would be a better word. As long as there are elections, there is winning and losing, but letting the game of elections supersede the reality of political progress is, to me, a horrific reality.

I don't believe that there are always such simple this-or-that forces, no. To play on your examples, there are only up and down when there is also gravity; there is only black and white when there are human capacities to filter certain frequencies of waves in our minds and eyes; and (the one that won't go over well) there are only good and evil when we, as a society over thousands of years, have decided what forms of behavior fit into those concepts (which we have created). And where those behaviors fall changes over time, depending on how society changes. (I fully recognize that a large percentage of people disagree with this idea.) Some critics of this idea say that this removes any reason to behave in what is generally considered a moral way, as there is no ultimate, overarching, objective morality. I disagree, saying that the wisdom and progress of a species, coupled with one's own convictions, is more powerful than an external concept imposed on us (typically in a religious context and under threat of eternal reward or punishment--meaning behavior is less governed by morality or ethics and more by desire for reward or fear of punishment).

This, I agree with. But we can make a bigger team with more people involved and behind it by listening to one another and finding more common ground, as opposed to spending so much time villifying our political or philosophical opponents, which aggravates both real and imagined differences, as well as hurting feelings (a know that sounds like a naieve way to say it, but that is what it comes down to: you called us this! we call you that! HA!).
 
Agree.

Disagree.

Agree.

Disagree.

I don't know sh*t about engines.  ;D

Anyway, as I said, I don't really think this discussion is going to bear fruit, especially since we're not actually addressing the topic of the thread at all. (I don't think anyone ever did respond to my initial comments on that.) So I'm bowing out. But it was nice talking to you. I hope you don't think I'm some flavorless, watered-down-so-as-not-to-offend, milquetoast liberal. Whatever nuance I'm seeking, trust me, it's not to exclude clarity or strength of message. Cheers.

Don't bow out, and be careful not to be TOO polite! The Bean won't go any easier on you for it, and he loves it when I get all steamed up.... ;)

"Pinder insults"? Ouch! But yeah, I do often take it too far, and for that I am not proud. But I think the lot around here can take it and actually get off on it a bit, So, it is what it is.... I think Bean gets to me mainly because I am basically jealous of the brilliant simplicity of his views and I can remember a time when I shared them to the T. No matter how much I might disagree, I love sparring with the guy. Smart folks talking politics are in short supply, which is why I keep coming back to these threads no matter how crazy it all drives me.