US Election 2012...the aftermath

[Tsuga C]

Then wouldn't YOU be part of the "ruling class" as you share more views with "titans of industry" and those in power than I.

No, I'm decidedly in the Country Class. Read the article (preferably the book, too) and you'll get the gist of it.

[Calax]

The article you linked is certainly........ backwards. Or at least circular.

 

"You don't have to have money to be a part of the ruling class, and not everyone with money is part of that ruling class, because the ruling classes are trying to legislate how you spend your money and give it to themselves, while those who are rich but not part of the ruling class, are just trying to get your money the old fashioned way, with psycologically manipulative marketing"

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm guessing it is all the security costs that got the tours axed, as those are probably significant.  That's the same problem with the President going on vacation, he foots the bill for his own stuff, but not the security detail or Air Force One.  

 

So getting up in arms over vacations = Good and reasonable

 

Getting up in arms over white house tours being cancelled = silly

 

The White House belongs to the citizens as much as a military base belongs to the citizens.  You aren't entitled to a tour of either one.

Do you really, and being a history teacher too, not see the symbolic difference between the White House and the military base? The first thing he cuts is people's access to the symbolic center of their government, not his vacations, not his jetsetting, not his bloated stuff. It's like he's saying the government belongs to me, not to you. I'm the King, and you have no business in my palace. That's not how a leader of a free people acts. Really sometimes the things you say just amaze me.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/lindsey-graham-drone-strikes_n_2734133.html

 

4700 people have died in drone strikes with the authorization of this administration. Nobel peace prices do come cheap these days.

No kidding, and now they are saying he can kill us right here on our own soil.

I think Lincoln set that precedent (well, really Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion if I recall my history right). Anyway, don't see anything wrong with killing terrorists, as they're considered enemy combatants. I don't think the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula should get any protection from his citizenship once he took up arms against the country he's technically the citizen of.

[Hurlshort]

Historically the White House is the place the President lives and works.  I really don't see how the public tours symbolize anything near what you are going on about.  You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

Now if they shut down Monticello, I'd be up in arms.  That was a way more interesting place to visit than the White House.

[Calax]

It's more "I'm a man and you have no business in my house" if you want to play semantics. Besides, the Capitol Building is far more important as a symbol of government than the White House. It's just that we see the White house more because the guy who lives and works there is rather important.

[Guard Dog]

 

@Calax: "Others think that the Feds should have significantly more power when it comes to regulating trade, crime, and the rights of citizens." Calax, that is the single most frightening thing I think you have ever said.I truely hope you are not one of those who think that. They DO NOT get to regulate our rights because our rights do not come from them. They day they do is the day we are finished as a free nation.

 

I didn't mean regulate the rights of citizens, more the protection of citizens from abuse and the protection of the rights of citizens. I mean if that was left up to the states in entirety, you'd still wind up with pre-civil rights era south trumping and griping about how "those dastardly liberals" keep moving down there and trying to agitate to change the system.

 

If you keep having the same attitudes and thought processes perpetuated, very little will change.

I'm typing this on a tablet so forgive me if I keep it short. The biggest threat to the rights of citizens IS government. They are not it's protector in any real way because, generally, rights represent limits to government. If another individula or entity infringes on your rights in any way there are legal protections, criminal and civil. It's a lot more vauge when the government does so.

 

I'll repeat what I've said before. the largest most powerful corporation in the world could not take one penny from my checking account unless I consented. The smallest government right here in Shelby County Tennessee could seize all my financial assets, sieze my home, take and kill my dogs, and throw me in jail. And if they did so erronously or unjustly it is still incumbent on me to fight back and they have more than enough financial power to ruin me in the process. Who should be really be afraid of Calax?

[Guard Dog]

 

I'm guessing it is all the security costs that got the tours axed, as those are probably significant.  That's the same problem with the President going on vacation, he foots the bill for his own stuff, but not the security detail or Air Force One.  

 

So getting up in arms over vacations = Good and reasonable

 

Getting up in arms over white house tours being cancelled = silly

 

The White House belongs to the citizens as much as a military base belongs to the citizens.  You aren't entitled to a tour of either one.

Do you really, and being a history teacher too, not see the symbolic difference between the White House and the military base? The first thing he cuts is people's access to the symbolic center of their government, not his vacations, not his jetsetting, not his bloated stuff. It's like he's saying the government belongs to me, not to you. I'm the King, and you have no business in my palace. That's not how a leader of a free people acts. Really sometimes the things you say just amaze me.

 

 

> 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/lindsey-graham-drone-strikes_n_2734133.html

 

4700 people have died in drone strikes with the authorization of this administration. Nobel peace prices do come cheap these days.

No kidding, and now they are saying he can kill us right here on our own soil.

I think Lincoln set that precedent (well, really Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion if I recall my history right). Anyway, don't see anything wrong with killing terrorists, as they're considered enemy combatants. I don't think the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula should get any protection from his citizenship once he took up arms against the country he's technically the citizen of.

 

 

The problem WoD is that Americans are entitled to due process from our government. Especially on our own home soil. Simply declaring me a terrorist because my politics are opposed to the president's does not make me one. Calling me an insurgent because I'm well armed does not make me one. I'm not talking about killing foreign combatants in a combat zone far away. This whole thing is about killing Americans right here in the USA. The only reason they've backtracked (sort of) is because of public outcry. The Obama admin is very serious about securing this power for itself.

 

The tragedy of that whole thing (The whiskey rebellion) was it was over money and control. And Madison's mad dream of the government controlling the economy with his "Bank of the Unites States". The US government is never more dangerous than when it wants control over something it does not have. The only protection we as citizens have is to keep it's scope and ability to usurp contol of things limited.

[Tsuga C]

The article you linked is certainly........ backwards. Or at least circular.

 

"You don't have to have money to be a part of the ruling class, and not everyone with money is part of that ruling class, because the ruling classes are trying to legislate how you spend your money and give it to themselves, while those who are rich but not part of the ruling class, are just trying to get your money the old fashioned way, with psycologically manipulative marketing"

There was nothing unclear in that quotation.  What did you not understand?

[Tsuga C]

How are these not great virtues?  How do you expect to get any work done if all you do is build walls around yourself?

Compromising with your enemies, with those diameterically opposed to the Anglo-Protestant, Constitutional roots of our nation is not something that ever has any desirable outcomes.

I have an interesting question for you guys, which one of the founding fathers do you feel you relate closely to?

Patrick Henry, George Washington, Madison, and to a lesser degree the whole lot of the more prominent figures like Jefferson, Mason, Adams, Paine, etc...

[Wrath of Dagon]

The problem WoD is that Americans are entitled to due process from our government. Especially on our own home soil. Simply declaring me a terrorist because my politics are opposed to the president's does not make me one. Calling me an insurgent because I'm well armed does not make me one. I'm not talking about killing foreign combatants in a combat zone far away. This whole thing is about killing Americans right here in the USA. The only reason they've backtracked (sort of) is because of public outcry. The Obama admin is very serious about securing this power for itself.

Americans are not entitled to due process once they join the enemy. It's never happened in history, and there's no constitutional basis for it. And do you really think a president will go so rogue that he will start murdering political opponents? Do you think people around him would put up with that? Will the public? Is the Congress not going to impeach? The true threat is not that, the true threat is that they will continue to take away our rights, make formerly law abiding citizens into felons, finally push us so far that some will start to resist, and then military force will be used against them. But Paul's stunt doesn't do anything to prevent that, nor does Holder's reply hold him to anything.

 

More on legal status of enemy combatants here, although I think his Congressional authorization argument is on shaky ground: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342568/what-rand-paul-misses-andrew-c-mccarthy

Edited March 11, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

If they're not entitled to due process, then why is treason a legit crime?

 

And if they're an american citizen, they get due process under the law. It's in the constitution, and you can't expect that you'll get magical protections for your 2nd amendment if you won't afford the same protections for the other amendments.

 

And Tsuga, the "quote" I posted wasn't an actual quote. It was a point about the hypocrisy of the entire article. It's ok to re-define social norms if you've got the money to promote advertising (Mothers Day/Fathers Day) which make it a social no-no to ignore whatever stupid consumer "holiday" is being promoted, but it's entirely a-moral and snobbish to attempt to do that through law making. You're saying that the ruling class are in it because they desire the power. And that I, personally, am a member of that ruling class for supporting the politicians who are more closely aligned with my views than those of you or GD. The thing is, I don't want "Power", I don't want to "govern" I don't want any of that bull crap.

 

What I do want is to prevent myself and those around me from being at the mercy of some extremist nutball, or a sociopathic nutball who sees me only as a resource. Without "Big government" I could be fired simply because I looked at a customer wrong. Without "Big Government" the south would still be "Separate but equal".  The fact of the matter is, the same person who wrote your article, probably also wrote a similar one talking about how businesses should do their best to provide a moral, upstanding, christian marketplace. 

 

GD: I'd say no. The government needs to provide a shield for it's citizens both in terms of foreign disputes, and in the marketplace. Currently the government has the ability to do that because of it's size, and the scope of it's power. This is waning due to SuperPAC's etc. To a business, you, me, tsuga and every other person is just a customer. We are numbers, we are information to be bought and sold and traded for marketing research. Hell, without the Feds, your genetic code could be patented and sold by a company, and (in theory) your kids would be owned by that company in a strange stupid way. I don't want to go back to the days when "small government" was in place, and I could wind up working 80 hour weeks with no compensation and no medical care.

 

Why is the insurance mandate good? Because it means that if I get sick and hospitalized right now, I don't need to have a "don't try to revive me" sticker on my breast because it'd cost to much to stay alive. My aunt spent about 2 weeks in a hospital in december because her heart was hemmoraging blood and she was having lung issues. She and my uncle are retired and don't have enough money for insurance. That one trip, by itself, cost her $200,000, meaning that she and her husband have to go back to work just to be able to pay for their food. Like I said, they're retired so the mandate didn't kick in for them... but what if that happens to one of my co-workers? I'm the only person in the entire franchise (6 stores) at my level (Swing manager) who has proper medical insurance. If any of my co-workers gets badly sick, they are SCREWED!

 

And for the record, my insurance is about 1/5th of my paycheck.

[Tsuga C]

Without "Big government" I could be fired simply because I looked at a customer wrong. Without "Big Government" the south would still be "Separate but equal".  The fact of the matter is, the same person who wrote your article, probably also wrote a similar one talking about how businesses should do their best to provide a moral, upstanding, christian marketplace.

If your place of employment adheres to an "At Will" policy, you may quit without giving notice and be fired for any reason or no reason at all. This is quite common in right-to-work states and even in closed-shop states outside of the confines of union employment. A job is not a right; rather, it is a privilege and you need to remember this as you make your way in the world. However much you might want to tell off your boss, co-worker, or customer, however much they might richly deserve to be forcefully corrected for their piss poor behavior or attitude, doing so can cost you your job. So goes life.

 

********

 

And now, having inserted itself into the States' business over this or that injustice, the Feds are now the ones abusing their Constitutional authority and refusing to leave the several States be. Government is like aspirin: take two for an ache and all is well, but take two whole bottles and you'll put yourself into the emergency room. At present we're much closer to the latter than the former.

 

It's time that the Feds were made to respect the Tenth Amendment and return to their Constitutional limits. We're $16.7 trillion in debt largely because of too much welfare, too much warfare, and too much do-gooderism at the Federal level and for every dollar we spend we're having to borrow $0.42. This is patently unsustainable and yet the administration and bureaucracy show no sign of being willing to take even the slightest actual reduction in spending. The sequestration kerfluffle is symptomatic of their recalcitrance, as shown in this chart.

 

********

 

There's a tremendous difference between individuals, religious organizations, private organizations, and private sector companies engaging in advocacy/activism using their own resources and the Feds doing the same with public tax money. With the former, it's a right and with the latter it's usurpation, theft, and coercion. Again, the former is protected under the First Amendment and the latter is blatant usurpation.

[Calax]

 

 

Without "Big government" I could be fired simply because I looked at a customer wrong. Without "Big Government" the south would still be "Separate but equal".  The fact of the matter is, the same person who wrote your article, probably also wrote a similar one talking about how businesses should do their best to provide a moral, upstanding, christian marketplace.

If your place of employment adheres to an "At Will" policy, you may quit without giving notice and be fired for any reason or no reason at all. This is quite common in right-to-work states and even in closed-shop states outside of the confines of union employment. A job is not a right; rather, it is a privilege and you need to remember this as you make your way in the world. However much you might want to tell off your boss, co-worker, or customer, however much they might richly deserve to be forcefully corrected for their piss poor behavior or attitude, doing so can cost you your job. So goes life.

 

 

Yeah, no. Sorry but this is patently incorrect. Otherwise why are there wrongful termination lawsuits? At my store, they won't fire anyone without a HUUUUGE paper trail to show that person as being either incompetent or a toxic worker. Part of this is also unemployment benefits which come out of the employers pocket rather than the governments, but part of it is they don't want to leave themselves vulnerable to a wrongful termination suit. The stores I worked at in California were much the same (It's also a "right to work" state), they wouldn't/couldn't terminate you, and instead would not give you hours or suspend you for a short time.

And now, having inserted itself into the States' business over this or that injustice, the Feds are now the ones abusing their Constitutional authority and refusing to leave the several States be. Government is like aspirin: take two for an ache and all is well, but take two whole bottles and you'll put yourself into the emergency room. At present we're much closer to the latter than the former.

 

It's time that the Feds were made to respect the Tenth Amendment and return to their Constitutional limits. We're $16.7 trillion in debt largely because of too much welfare, too much warfare, and too much do-gooderism at the Federal level and for every dollar we spend we're having to borrow $0.42. This is patently unsustainable and yet the administration and bureaucracy show no sign of being willing to take even the slightest actual reduction in spending. The sequestration kerfluffle is symptomatic of their recalcitrance, as shown in this chart.

Yeah, and you know what? Rampant military spending isn't gonna help matters. The social programs you want to cut, aren't anywhere near the 515 billion dollar budget of the DoD. But I don't see anyone wanting to chop that down (it's bigger than the next 8 countries spending combined, including NK and China). And the social programs that would be chopped would be far less money than would be needed to yank us out of the debt. Yes, people want us out of debt, but when you start asking about the social spending that is the highest cost, nobody wants to touch it because it benefits them. And the loopholes that could be closed (tax wise) are mortgage deductions and charity deductions, Capital Gains loophole, and exclusion of employer health insurance/pensions (which ads up to about 500 billion dollars) aren't going to be touched because "it would wreck the economy".

 

And welfare spending? Do you realize what programs those are? Here, I'll show you:

 

 

Family Planning

 Consolidated Health Centers

 Transitional Cash and Medical Services 

for Refugees

 State Children’s Health Insurance 

Program (CHIP)

 Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug 

Benefit—Low-Income Subsidy

 Medicaid

 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program

 Breast/Cervical Cancer Early Detection

 Maternal and Child Health Block Grant

 Indian Health Service

 Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) (cash aid)

 Supplemental Security Income

 Additional Child Tax Credit

 Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable 

component)

 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP)

 School Breakfast Program (free/reduced 

price components)

 National School Lunch Program 

(free/reduced price components)

 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 

for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

 Child and Adult Care Food Program 

(lower income components)

 Summer Food Service Program

 Commodity Supplemental

 Food Program Nutrition Assistance for 

Puerto Rico

 The Emergency Food Assistance 

Program (TEFAP)

 Nutrition Program for the Elderly

 Indian Education

 Adult Basic Education Grants to States

 Federal Supplemental Educational 

Opportunity Grant

 Education for the Disadvantaged—

Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

(Title I-A)

 Title I Migrant Education Program

 Higher Education—Institutional Aid and 

Developing Institutions

 Federal Work-Study

 Federal TRIO Programs

 Federal Pell Grants

 Education for Homeless Children and 

Youth

 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers

 Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness 

for Undergraduate Programs (GEARUP)

Bolded the most important over all. I don't think you can say that most of those programs are going to the "undeserving". And one common misconseption is that unemplyoment and welfare goes to people who do nothing but sit around in their house watching tv and pumping out kids without working. Guess what? The minimum wage isn't enough to survive on anymore.

 

And that doesn't even involve the upkeep of the interstate system and bridges etc. which would be partly cared for by the states (with federal help).

There's a tremendous difference between individuals, religious organizations, private organizations, and private sector companies engaging in advocacy/activism using their own resources and the Feds doing the same with public tax money. With the former, it's a right and with the latter it's usurpation, theft, and coercion. Again, the former is protected under the First Amendment and the latter is blatant usurpation.

 

The thing, however, is that the "advocation" involves being deliberately manipulative to make it appear that what they want is the public will. Aka usurping the public will and replacing it with their own. And to magically declare now that it's not a power vested in the government (to advance a social agenda), when you've got legislatures that force women to get trans-vaginal ultrasounds, the federal government stepping in to force the south to de-segregate, the "new deal" by FDR, and the 18th and 19th amendment on the books, is rather stupid.

 

Oh, and on the Dave Crockett BS?

http://radicalreference.info/NotYoursToGive

Edited March 11, 2013 by Calax

[Wrath of Dagon]

If they're not entitled to due process, then why is treason a legit crime?

Because you can commit treason without being an enemy combatant. Like being a Confederate spy, to give a historical example. Also there's always a chance you're captured, then they can't just kill you since you're no longer a threat, they'd have to try you first. You are entitled to due process if you're captured, that's what that whole law that Congress passed to try terrorists in military tribunals is all about.

[Tsuga C]

The government claims that inflation is running around 1.9%, but it's actually much higher according to Jerry Robinson.  See March 19, 2013 for the audio.

 

Bloviating bureaucratic bull****ers are destroying American manufacturing  jobs through asinine regulations and pubic "investment" in companies that are imploding.  See March 21, 2013 for the interview with Andrew Smith, author of  Sand in the Gears.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Tsuga C

[alanschu]

As to why I am pragmatic, look
here.

 

This isn't a criticism of others, it's a criticism of myself.  It's also why I took a timeout from this thread.

 

I find it exceptionally interesting that the presentation of facts does not weaken an opponent's belief in his position.  It actually typically strengthens it.

 

So I suppose this makes me a moderate or conservative lite.  I try to embrace cognitive dissonance more, because I think it's important to recognize that just because I believe strongly in something, doesn't mean I'm right.

 

 

Lets be honest, is anyone in this thread truly arguing from the standpoint of educating other people, and willing to be educated themselves?

 

I could continue responding to criticisms of my perspective, but I realize I'm not so much arguing to educate, but arguing to win.  The heated discussion doesn't come across as informative, but rather alienating and polarizing, in a paradoxical way.  It pushes people away from the perspective that is being argued.  Even if it contains facts that go against my perspective.

 

 

I'm trying to be more willing to recognize that I may, in fact, be wrong.  I'm sure this will be construed as a position of weakness, however.  If you bother to read the link, take note of how many times you innately resist what is being said.  I found it an pretty interesting exercise.

Edited March 23, 2013 by alanschu

[Calax]

The government claims that inflation is running around 1.9%, but it's actually much higher according to Jerry Robinson.  See March 19, 2013 for the audio.

 

Bloviating bureaucratic bull****ers are destroying American manufacturing  jobs through asinine regulations and pubic "investment" in companies that are imploding.  See March 21, 2013 for the interview with Andrew Smith, author of  Sand in the Gears.

Public "investment" in companies that are imploding?

 

The auto industry is doing better than ever after they were forcibly bailed out by the administration, and paid back all the money invested in them. And in the interview they're talking about how stupid the tax system is and how complicated it is. BUT don't even acknowledge that americans are taxed lower rate than any other nation. By the same token his idea of a "value added tax" basically means that companies would get off Scott Free on having to pay the government anything, and instead it'd all be on the consumers. Which also means that I, as a person below the poverty line, will have more of my income being sent to the government than, say, the Romney Family, or the Baldwins, or Trump, or the Kardashians, because the amount of money I spend on items like food and survival necessities (for the modern world) is a much larger portion of how much I earn.

 

Is government regulation killing industry? Eh, I can't tell. But Industry in India is doing ok and it's MUCH harder to have a business venture there than it is here.

[Hurlshort]

Lets be honest, is anyone in this thread truly arguing from the standpoint of educating other people, and willing to be educated themselves?

 

Actually I find these threads very informative, and I try to stay open minded and listen to all the viewpoints.  In fact I would say I have become more interested in libertarian candidates because of Guard Dog and Ron Swanson.

[alanschu]

Fair enough.

[Tsuga C]

Public "investment" in companies that are imploding?

Yes, and there's plenty of examples to go around. The federal government simply has no business trying to force the creation of jobs in selected industries merely because it favors the concepts represented by said industries. They're politicians and bureaucrats playing with public monies, not investors utilizing their own private funds, and their track record is miserable.

 

Edit:And the auto bailout was really a UAW bailout. This is a long article and it's fairly dry reading, but the highlights are as follows:

 

1. Bankruptcy law calls for similarly situated creditors to receive equal treatment. In the government bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union received much more favorable treatment than other creditors and other unions.

 

2. Unlike other unsecured creditors, the UAW recovered most of the money owed to its benefit funds. GM’s UAW members—among the most highly paid workers in America—did not take pay cuts as they normally would in bankruptcy.

 

3. Taxpayers would not have lost money on the auto bailout had the UAW not received this special treatment. The bailout would have cost $26.5 billion less if the Administration had not subsidized UAW compensation.

 

4. The UAW subsidies cost more than the entire foreign aid budget in 2011. The Administration did not need to lose money to keep GM and Chrysler operating.

 

5. The auto bailout was actually a UAW bailout.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Tsuga C

[Calax]

 

Public "investment" in companies that are imploding?

Yes, and there's plenty of examples to go around. The federal government simply has no business trying to force the creation of jobs in selected industries merely because it favors the concepts represented by said industries. They're politicians and bureaucrats playing with public monies, not investors utilizing their own private funds, and their track record is miserable.

Well, given that this is ultimately a talking point from the Romney camp from the last months of the election, I'll let Jon Stewart have fun with that talking point from 5 months ago.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-25-2012/picking-winners---losers

If you didn't watch, as of that show (10/25/12), 8% of the "losers" picked had gone bust. I don't know many investors who have that track record.

Edit:And the auto bailout was really a UAW bailout. This is a long article and it's fairly dry reading, but the highlights are as follows:

 

1. Bankruptcy law calls for similarly situated creditors to receive equal treatment. In the government bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union received much more favorable treatment than other creditors and other unions.

 

2. Unlike other unsecured creditors, the UAW recovered most of the money owed to its benefit funds. GM’s UAW members—among the most highly paid workers in America—did not take pay cuts as they normally would in bankruptcy.

 

3. Taxpayers would not have lost money on the auto bailout had the UAW not received this special treatment. The bailout would have cost $26.5 billion less if the Administration had not subsidized UAW compensation.

 

4. The UAW subsidies cost more than the entire foreign aid budget in 2011. The Administration did not need to lose money to keep GM and Chrysler operating.

 

5. The auto bailout was actually a UAW bailout.

So, I traced this back and found that it leads to a forbes column, that sources an opinion column. In that opinion column, they're talking mostly about the American Airlines bailout, and the fact that when AA and other airlines emerged from bankruptcy they had a total of 20% of their workforce lost. And then bitch and moan because the Auto industry "Only" lost 16% of their workforce. I'm not eager to start digging through corporate records, but IIRC many of the employees with GM and Chrysler were getting kicked onto unpaid leave so that the companies could still operate, although I'm not solid on that.

 

 

Also, why do I care about the fact that this investment is larger than the foreign aid budget? No offense, but the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier in production is going to cost 300k more than the Autoworkers subsidy. 

[Hurlshort]

Didn't the auto bailout get paid back in full with interest?  Or was that the bank bailout?

[Calax]

Didn't the auto bailout get paid back in full with interest?  Or was that the bank bailout?

I've heard both that we've come out fine, and that we're gonna lose. I think it's "They paid back the loans with interest, but america still holds stock in the company that'll be sold at a loss."

[alanschu]

 

Lets be honest, is anyone in this thread truly arguing from the standpoint of educating other people, and willing to be educated themselves?

 

Actually I find these threads very informative, and I try to stay open minded and listen to all the viewpoints.  In fact I would say I have become more interested in libertarian candidates because of Guard Dog and Ron Swanson.

 

This response really resonated with me.  In particular, I was definitely far too sweeping with my generalization (perhaps I was in some sort of rant mode haha), so in that sense I was wrong and too hasty.

 

I actually consider you a pretty level headed poster in general.

 

How do you rate yourself in knowledge of particular politics?  You say you're open minded (which probably helps), and I'd also say you're decidedly less... intense (the only time I remember seeing you particularly opinionated was about a police officer father arresting his daughter's boyfriend one time) than the majority of people I interact with online.  I'm curious if there's something to do with the standpoint of your open mindedness is a reflection of you acknowledging that other posters may have something constructive to say, while also perhaps coming into this thread with a less strong opinion about the topics?

 

 

As I have gotten older (and in my own mind, matured), I have definitely tried to open up more to the idea that I may be wrong especially about politics, sociology, psychology, and so forth.  You know, those nasty "human created" elements haha.  There was comment here that equated moderates with compromise.  I actually disagree that I "compromise."  I don't say "I'm okay with this policy" as a form of negotiation to get something else that I want.  My political leanings and preferences is because the data I have acquired and deductions I have made lead to "this is better (within this sociocultural context) for the country than alternatives."

 

Hence my pragmatism.  I think that if someone comes into a discussion of this sort of stuff completely unwavering in the correctness of their beliefs (and especially if it pays little concern to sociocultural context), they're undermining themselves (and as that Boston Globe article put forth, undermining the idea of an "informed population" that democracy needs) by failing to give credit to all alternatives.

 

 

I was actually thinking it might be interesting to have a discussion where people point out the flaws in the political/economical/whatever perspective that they most identify with.  Though it might lead to caricature responses haha.

 

Still, thanks for putting me in my place Hurlshot

[Hurlshort]

Thanks for the kind words Alan.

 

When it comes to political knowledge, I don't consider myself uninformed, although there are plenty of subjects I will claim ignorance on.  I feel I can speak with some authority on local politics and stuff about education, but I approach federal and international politics as an outsider with limited knowledge.  Basically unless I have actual experience with it, I assume everyone here knows as much or more than me.

 

I also always try and look at our discussions from a historical perspective.  I spend all year teaching about how crazy the world was during the 5th to the 17th century, so it makes most everything happening now seem tame.  Heck, we have people alive today that lived through World War 2, so when people lament at how far we've fallen I scratch my head.  Our world is continually improving.