Can someone explain this to me

[Moose]

I stare down at my keyboard at the letter U, with my right eye closed.

 

Vertically one inch infront of my left eye is a length of wire from my headphones.

 

When I focus on the wire it is thick enough to block out the letter U.

 

When I focus beyond the wire it no longer blocks it and I can see the letter U. Yet the wires position has not changed and should still obstruct the letter.

 

I wear concave glasses.

 

So my question is this. Why is my country facing a 1 million housing shortage by 2020, yet none of the partys standing this election have the courage to make this their #1 issue. Surely nothing is more important than food and shelter?

[213374U]

It's a political illusion.

[I want teh kotor 3]

In before LoF.

[Orogun01]

So my question is this. Why is my country facing a 1 million housing shortage by 2020, yet none of the partys standing this election have the courage to make this their #1 issue. Surely nothing is more important than food and shelter?

Because politics is a fickle business and dealing with anything else but the right now won't get you votes. Unless you are Al Gore being cereal over the Manbearpig.

[Raithe]

Because democracy in action is about a popularity contest for the mob? And long term issues rarely appeal to the masses. Short term, shiny things work better during election times.

 

Or is that just me being a touch cynical?

[lord of flies]

So my question is this. Why is my country facing a 1 million housing shortage by 2020, yet none of the partys standing this election have the courage to make this their #1 issue. Surely nothing is more important than food and shelter?

Because the ruling class of the United States does not give a single **** about the broad masses. They have over the past few decades perfected forms of subtly appealing to the people's intrinsic and underlying desires while simultaneously having no need to actually satisfy any real issues. Political campaigns today are run on the same principles as marketing campaigns. They are not giving you a candidate who stands up for the issues you want or care about. They are not giving you a candidate with solid principles and character you can put your faith in. They are here to sell you something very vague, very shiny, and little else. They are here to appeal to your needs both basic (food, shelter, etc) and transcendent (popularity, meaning), while simultaneously satisfying none.

Because democracy in action is about a popularity contest for the mob? And long term issues rarely appeal to the masses. Short term, shiny things work better during election times.

Yes, it is all the plebe's fault. If only we had some smart, wise, rich people running this country, everything would be better. Oh wait, they already are.

 

Take a look at the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and tell me the leaders in this country are incapable of ever taking a long view or ignoring public will. Take a look at the bailout. Take a look at how they are cutting down on education. Here's a hint: they can, have, and will continue to indefinitely.

Edited April 23, 2010 by lord of flies

[Monte Carlo]

^ He's talking about the elections in the UK, brainiac.

[lord of flies]

^ He's talking about the elections in the UK, brainiac.

Oh I'm sorry, some people don't seem to put up their location under their avatar so I can tell which country they're talking about since I haven't memorized it (referring here to the OP).

 

The exact same principles apply to your country, brainiac. Your Labor party stole its campaign from Clinton, who was one of the early "psychological marketing" candidates in our country (after Reagan, of course). Your ruling class is perfectly capable of ignoring the general public in its own class interests too, e.g. the recent scandal regarding you folks torturing your own citizens.

Edited April 23, 2010 by lord of flies

[Monte Carlo]

Can anybody else spot the factual error in LoF's post? I know he specialises in them, but anyway.

 

And thanks for the lecture on my country's politics. The has-beens who run it were all, in their college days, rabid Marxists. That's what happens to them when they grow up.

[lord of flies]

Can anybody else spot the factual error in LoF's post? I know he specialises in them, but anyway.

Watch the Century of Self.

And thanks for the lecture on my country's politics. The has-beens who run it were all, in their college days, rabid Marxists. That's what happens to them when they grow up.

Really? Is this actually true, or is this some silly **** you've made up in some desperate attempt insult Marxism?

[Killian Kalthorne]

LoF, Marxism doesn't need to be more insulted. It has you.

[lord of flies]

LoF, Marxism doesn't need to be more insulted. It has you.

Hmm? Oh, it's Killian "Kill everybody who can't defend themselves" Kalthorne telling me my political views are bad. Quite hilarious.

[Raithe]

Really? Is this actually true, or is this some silly **** you've made up in some desperate attempt insult Marxism?

 

It's actually true. Although I can't quite define the term "rabid", but yes, during their college/university days they were all seriously socialist marxist followers...

 

Then it became the general political joke a decade ago that the UK no longer had a leftist government party and a rightist government party.. we just had three confused parties that met somewhere in the middle..

[I want teh kotor 3]

LoF, Marxism doesn't need to be more insulted. It has you.

 

I literally laughed out loud.

[Krookie]

LoF, Marxism doesn't need to be more insulted. It has you.

 

I literally laughed out loud.

 

You must not get out much

[Monte Carlo]

Yep. Apart from Tony Blair, who I suspect was never really a socialist in the way most of us would understand it. But most of the other members of the New Labour project were either members of the CPGB or other extreme left student groups. They did the whole thing, y'know, trips to Cuba, silly beards, marches, advocating nuclear disarmament whilst the Soviets had thousands of 'em and all the other stuff you associate with affluent middle-class students with self-loathing issues.

 

They've done a really good job of destroying the UK as we know it, I suspect the dead-hand of Frankfurt schoolers in there somewhere.

 

Many Neo-Cons were also former Marxists.

 

All I'm saying, LoF, is that unless you are already in your thirties and holding down a state-funded job as an academic, I suspect you'll grow out of the phase you're in. Kiddo.

 

Cheers

MC

[Raithe]

Now it might also be my paranoia running rampant But also half the cabinet the past decade were also scottish marxists...

 

Makes one wonder... Scotland gets its own parliment, can make its own laws, and now gets a say in how the UK government (which is all the government England has..) is run.. and gets access to the whole tax base.. The same gets said for the Welsh parliment that's up and running....

 

It just seems to me that makes a rather confusing mess...

 

"we want our independance. we want our own government. oh, and while we're at it, we want to be able to interfere in your government, and have your taxes."

 

The other funny thing over the 13 years of Labour running things.. Have you noticed how many census forms, or general official forms these days where you have to note your background offer up choices of "Scottish, Welsh, Irish, or British" , apparently according to most official forms you just can't be English these days....

[Moose]

That's because there's no such thing as an English parliament, technically speaking anyway.

[lord of flies]

Yep. Apart from Tony Blair, who I suspect was never really a socialist in the way most of us would understand it. But most of the other members of the New Labour project were either members of the CPGB or other extreme left student groups. They did the whole thing, y'know, trips to Cuba, silly beards, marches, advocating nuclear disarmament whilst the Soviets had thousands of 'em and all the other stuff you associate with affluent middle-class students with self-loathing issues.

The Soviet nuclear arsenal was part of a policy of rational self defense and can be cleanly contrasted with the United States nuclear arsenal which was designed in a way focused on a first-strike policy. For example, Soviet nuclear bases were well-hidden while US nuclear bases were visible from orbit; the Soviets created the "Dead Hand" system to ensure that leaders would not accidentally make a first strike while the situation was tense, while the US President constantly carries around a button to kill all the Russkies.

All I'm saying, LoF, is that unless you are already in your thirties and holding down a state-funded job as an academic, I suspect you'll grow out of the phase you're in. Kiddo.

That's actually very unlikely.

[Monte Carlo]

Yes, because you are one of the most effective and strangest alt.accounts I've encountered in all my time on the internet.

[213374U]

The Soviet nuclear arsenal was part of a policy of rational self defense

Hmm, no.

 

The Soviet nuclear arsenal was part of a policy of stand-off with the West until they could attain a technological edge, that would nullify the threat that American, British and French nuclear weapons posed to the offensively deployed GSFG (the term "arms race" ring a bell?). So, in fact, it's the other way around. But nice try.

 

Oh, wait. That's not even all of it, as it was the Soviets who in fact held the advantage with regards to first-strike capability, with their super-heavy MIRVed ICBMs and SLBMs. For a time at least.

 

Yes, "rational self defense", as in "kill the fascist bourgeois pigs before they have a chance to blink".

 

Now tell us, lof. Why do you hate socialism so?

[I want teh kotor 3]

LoF, have you ever heard of the Tzar Bomb? Its very existence nullifies your argument...

[lord of flies]

The Soviet nuclear arsenal was part of a policy of stand-off with the West until they could attain a technological edge, that would nullify the threat that American, British and French nuclear weapons posed to the offensively deployed GSFG (the term "arms race" ring a bell?). So, in fact, it's the other way around. But nice try.

 

Oh, wait. That's not even all of it, as it was the Soviets who in fact held the advantage with regards to first-strike capability, with their super-heavy MIRVed ICBMs and SLBMs. For a time at least.

Hmm, so they had strong nukes and maintained military bases in allied countries. This obviously means that they were planning to nuke the world? Yeah, no. If you'd care to cite some evidence for your claimed motive, please go ahead and do so. I have already offered up evidence in the form of the "Dead Hand" system.

LoF, have you ever heard of the Tzar Bomb? Its very existence nullifies your argument...

Hmm, no, having strong nuclear weapons doesn't actually nullify my argument at all.

[213374U]

Hmm, so they had strong nukes and maintained military bases in allied countries. This obviously means that they were planning to nuke the world? Yeah, no. If you'd care to cite some evidence for your claimed motive, please go ahead and do so. I have already offered up evidence in the form of the "Dead Hand" system.

Strawman. I didn't say they were planning to nuke the world. After all, a nuclear wasteland cannot be made into a worker's paradise, right? So can you try being less obnoxious or do we start flinging poo?

 

It's pretty cool how you twist **** around. Where you say "have strong nukes", I say keep a nuclear arsenal that places an emphasis on the offense. Where you say "maintain military bases on allied countries", I say enforce Soviet interests by means of direct military occupation dating back to the "liberation" at the end of WWII. See DDR 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, etc and how Tito kept his country out of Soviet control thanks to the fact that Yugoslavia was never "liberated" by the RKKA.

 

So... what do I need to cite, exactly? The throw-weights for Satan and Peacekeeper rockets? The bomber-based to ICBM nuke proportions for US and Soviet arsenals? The number of Soviet troops deployed on DDR (~400,000 men in 5 motorized armies in '87, not counting air force)? Those are all in the public domain. Do your own research.

 

You didn't answer the question: why do you hate socialism so?

Edited April 25, 2010 by 213374U

[Oblarg]

Where you say "have strong nukes", I say keep a nuclear arsenal that places an emphasis on the offense.

 

You still haven't offered up any evidence of this other than simply instructing him to "go see for himself." That's not how you win an argument.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Oblarg