Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 28, 2015 19:26:46 GMT -5
Agreed, dj. If you're tearing down one group you're sure not elevating another. In the end, it's all ugly and it doesn't matter a whit which "side" is being denigrated. I didn't think we were knocking Christians or republicans or any particular group, just making fun of their village idiot. Apparently you did not read the first sentence in this thread.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,374
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2015 22:29:23 GMT -5
I called it ignorance in my post. Of course you didn't call it ignorance, because you're defending it. defending "sound bite" politics? no, not really. i am merely stating it exists, and there is little that can be done about it. there are actually similar arguments made all of the time around here. for example, the "bringing a knife to a gunfight" argument. you are arguing that it would be rhetorically better if arguments were not dumbed down, and i agree. i try VERY hard to not do so on this board, and i don't have any taste for stupid arguments, developed off talking points. i think you would find that the MAJORITY of my 35 thousand posts are shooting such arguments down. however, i am a realist, too. if someone is playing sound bite with you, the easiest way to lose those battles is to take the high road, in my experience. they will claim that you are unwilling to engage their dumb argument, and claim victory. i just had this happen on another thread over a subject i wasn't even discussing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,374
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2015 22:35:00 GMT -5
what wealthy people are doing that? The Koch brothers? I think they are solidly libertarian, not anarchist. I saw an article where some of the founders of Google bought a solar farm with government subsidized loans. Now that the business is failing they are trying to get the loan forgiven, so they are trying to get more government, not less. I think Gates and Buffett are both pro-government, aren't they. I think lot of the big banks are wanted regulation to limit or control the smaller banks. Does that impetus not come from the wealthy money men? A lot of the wealthy like to buy sports teams and have taxpayers pay for the stadium, so they are in a concerted effort to get more government involved. Is part of my argument wrong? i never said they were anarchist, what i claimed is that they broker a lot of hatred for government in what they do. that benefits them greatly, if they can get candidates elected to share their point of view. if the government descends into utter dysfunction, who does that benefit? the poor? no way- not a chance. middle class? unlikely- they are not wealthy enough to afford private security on their compounds and a stockpile of weapons. no, who that benefits is those with the greatest means. i would describe the Koch's and others like them as one of the three following things: industrialists, Randian feudalists, or anarchocapitalists, and possibly all three. but anarchocapitalism is not really anarchism, it is closer to fascism. so, neo-fascist might be a good description, as well, but i am reluctant to use that term for any but the most loathsome of that breed.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Mar 2, 2015 13:30:12 GMT -5
what wealthy people are doing that? The Koch brothers? I think they are solidly libertarian, not anarchist. I saw an article where some of the founders of Google bought a solar farm with government subsidized loans. Now that the business is failing they are trying to get the loan forgiven, so they are trying to get more government, not less. I think Gates and Buffett are both pro-government, aren't they. I think lot of the big banks are wanted regulation to limit or control the smaller banks. Does that impetus not come from the wealthy money men? A lot of the wealthy like to buy sports teams and have taxpayers pay for the stadium, so they are in a concerted effort to get more government involved. Is part of my argument wrong? i never said they were anarchist, what i claimed is that they broker a lot of hatred for government in what they do. that benefits them greatly, if they can get candidates elected to share their point of view. if the government descends into utter dysfunction, who does that benefit? the poor? no way- not a chance. middle class? unlikely- they are not wealthy enough to afford private security on their compounds and a stockpile of weapons. no, who that benefits is those with the greatest means. i would describe the Koch's and others like them as one of the three following things: industrialists, Randian feudalists, or anarchocapitalists, and possibly all three. but anarchocapitalism is not really anarchism, it is closer to fascism. so, neo-fascist might be a good description, as well, but i am reluctant to use that term for any but the most loathsome of that breed. Is wanting limited government really the same as being an anarchist? You can have a government that does few things but does them well. There is a very short list of things that absolutely have handled by national government. The rest can be handled at the local level. Wanting the federal government to get out of things like education and services for the poor is not the same as wanting anarchy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,374
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2015 15:05:17 GMT -5
i never said they were anarchist, what i claimed is that they broker a lot of hatred for government in what they do. that benefits them greatly, if they can get candidates elected to share their point of view. if the government descends into utter dysfunction, who does that benefit? the poor? no way- not a chance. middle class? unlikely- they are not wealthy enough to afford private security on their compounds and a stockpile of weapons. no, who that benefits is those with the greatest means. i would describe the Koch's and others like them as one of the three following things: industrialists, Randian feudalists, or anarchocapitalists, and possibly all three. but anarchocapitalism is not really anarchism, it is closer to fascism. so, neo-fascist might be a good description, as well, but i am reluctant to use that term for any but the most loathsome of that breed. Is wanting limited government really the same as being an anarchist? You can have a government that does few things but does them well. There is a very short list of things that absolutely have handled by national government. The rest can be handled at the local level. Wanting the federal government to get out of things like education and services for the poor is not the same as wanting anarchy. for the third time, i never said they were anarchists. i have a lot of respect for anarchists. i don't have much respect for the Koch's.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,374
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2015 15:14:22 GMT -5
that having been said, the fact that there is a LOT of corporate money behind the Tea Party should make people who identify with that movement think twice about it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 21:55:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 19:34:28 GMT -5
that having been said, the fact that there is a LOT of corporate money behind the Tea Party should make people who identify with that movement think twice about it. People in the TEA Party do "think twice" about it... once with their wallets... and once with their Bibles!
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Mar 2, 2015 19:36:25 GMT -5
DJ, my point is that there is a difference between hating government and wanting limited, but competent government. The federal government has been sticking it's nose in a lot of areas that were handled by the locals a few decades ago, and in many cases, they have made things worse.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,374
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2015 19:44:10 GMT -5
DJ, my point is that there is a difference between hating government and wanting limited, but competent government. The federal government has been sticking it's nose in a lot of areas that were handled by the locals a few decades ago, and in many cases, they have made things worse. ...and MY point (if you are interested in hearing it) is that the captains of industry don't give a crap about the subtleties of this debate. whether someone wants more "freedom" from their government, or whether they want their government to drown in a bathtub, it benefits them EITHER WAY. so whether a person is a government loathing militia member, hell bent on overthrowing the US government, or a person who wants more "local control" over their government, the cause of the Koch's is served either way. the more weak and ineffective government is, the easier it is for them to do business. and yeah, i really do think that.
|
|