jbg Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 What if this was a Tea Party protest? ************* But apparently, pro-Democrat protesters have a special exemption from the new calls for civility, and media attention and criticism. It must be nice. Because we all know that if this was a Tea Party protest, these types of incidents would be running on a loop in the mainstream media. Exactly the way they did with a few signs back about a year and a half ago. What do you want - retort videos of Tea Party types being unruly? No. I want rational, civil discourse on the merits of issues from both sides. Cursing and screaming convinces no one. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Michael Hardner Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 No. I want rational, civil discourse on the merits of issues from both sides. Cursing and screaming convinces no one. Then join me in decrying the posting of "bad behavior" videos as having anything to do with ... anything. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jbg Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Then join me in decrying the posting of "bad behavior" videos as having anything to do with ... anything. Weren't they real videos of the counter-demonstrations? Correct me if I'm wrong. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Michael Hardner Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Weren't they real videos of the counter-demonstrations? Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe. But how much attention is all of this worth ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Pliny Posted April 26, 2011 Report Posted April 26, 2011 Then join me in decrying the posting of "bad behavior" videos as having anything to do with ... anything. The MSM would not tolerate that for a second. These videos are very important in exposing the extremist radicalism that exists in the right wing, especially the tea party. They must be held to account. The prominence of these videos in the MSM makes your ideal an impossibility. The left seems to lap them up. In contrast the response to an exposure of their seamier side draws from you the position to "decry the posting of 'bad behavior' videos as having anything to do with...anything." Not going to happen. Would I be too far off to say, that anything that contains even the smallest amount of disorder or any apparency of disorganization is an irrational and illogical event that offends your sensibilities? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Michael Hardner Posted April 26, 2011 Report Posted April 26, 2011 Would I be too far off to say, that anything that contains even the smallest amount of disorder or any apparency of disorganization is an irrational and illogical event that offends your sensibilities? Heh heh... maybe. I'd be interested to see these behaviors compared to something similar, say G20 protests. Keeping in mind that entertainment is the goal of the broadcasters, I would think that the approach is similar. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Pliny Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 Heh heh... maybe. I'd be interested to see these behaviors compared to something similar, say G20 protests. Keeping in mind that entertainment is the goal of the broadcasters, I would think that the approach is similar. The "attention" of the audience is the goal of the broadcasters. If, as a serious news agency, you wish to grab audience attention you pejoratively call your competition "entertainment". The MSM has been "entertaining" their audience for a long time. One area they are failing in is in being informative and allowing a thinking audience to exist by insisting upon forming their opinions. You are quite entertaining, Michael. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Michael Hardner Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 The "attention" of the audience is the goal of the broadcasters. If, as a serious news agency, you wish to grab audience attention you pejoratively call your competition "entertainment". The MSM has been "entertaining" their audience for a long time. One area they are failing in is in being informative and allowing a thinking audience to exist by insisting upon forming their opinions. You are quite entertaining, Michael. Why thank you. And I concur. You (and all libertarians, in my experience) are the most challenging conservatives with whom I debate. Your philosophy is born from a geometric symmetry that is hard to break logically. That's as much as you get from me in the way of praise, sorry. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Pliny Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 (edited) Why thank you. And I concur. You (and all libertarians, in my experience) are the most challenging conservatives with whom I debate. Your philosophy is born from a geometric symmetry that is hard to break logically. That's as much as you get from me in the way of praise, sorry. Don't apologize. Enormous entertainment value! You only have to understand two things and you will be a Libertarian. One, is that people will always act to improve themselves and/or their interests. And two, it is folly to assume what another will consider improvement for themselves and/or their interests. The lib-left has trouble with understanding "one" because they operate by violating "two". PS: The successful entrepreneur never assumes "two". Liberals would never understand cabbage patch dolls or hula hoops. They insist they are buying them for their kids. Edited April 27, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Michael Hardner Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 Don't apologize. Enormous entertainment value! You only have to understand two things and you will be a Libertarian. One, is that people will always act to improve themselves and/or their interests. And two, it is folly to assume what another will consider improvement for themselves and/or their interests. The lib-left has trouble with understanding "one" because they operate by violating "two". You only have to understand one: people frequently make big mistakes, and they blame others for them. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Pliny Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 (edited) You only have to understand one: people frequently make big mistakes, and they blame others for them. Of course, other people are illogical why shouldn't they be blamed for ones mistakes? You assume "two", that other people's choices are coincident with your logic. Only occasionally is that true. Edited April 27, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Michael Hardner Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 Of course, other people are illogical why shouldn't they be blamed for ones mistakes? You assume "two", that other people's choices are coincident with your logic. Only occasionally is that true. I'm assuming what ? Other people's choices are coincident with my logic ? What does that mean ? Are you doubting that people blame others for their bad choices ? For example, losing the home they could never afford ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Pliny Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 I'm assuming what ? Other people's choices are coincident with my logic ? What does that mean ? Are you doubting that people blame others for their bad choices ? For example, losing the home they could never afford ? No. I agree. They will most often blame others for their bad choices. I think I can safely "assume" that most people want homes. The problem is in giving them homes they couldn't afford. Whether the banks or government made the assumption they could afford them is perhaps debatable(not with me) but an assumption was made. People made the obvious choice of improving their lives when it was offered and took the house they couldn't afford. Of course, someone told them not to worry about affording it - they deserved their own home. It isn't their fault. It's the banks or the governments or somebody else. I have to go now. But review and apply "one" and "two" and maybe you will be able to say you are a libertarian. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Michael Hardner Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 No. I agree. They will most often blame others for their bad choices. I think I can safely "assume" that most people want homes. The problem is in giving them homes they couldn't afford. Whether the banks or government made the assumption they could afford them is perhaps debatable(not with me) but an assumption was made. People made the obvious choice of improving their lives when it was offered and took the house they couldn't afford. Of course, someone told them not to worry about affording it - they deserved their own home. It isn't their fault. It's the banks or the governments or somebody else. I have to go now. But review and apply "one" and "two" and maybe you will be able to say you are a libertarian. Right. I think that example does show how people blame others for their mistakes. Let's try another one. People who don't save enough to carry themselves through the hard times, then get hit by a recession. Unfortunately, people count on there being a social safety net for them to keep them from starvation and homelessness. So there has to be one. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 ....Let's try another one. People who don't save enough to carry themselves through the hard times, then get hit by a recession. Unfortunately, people count on there being a social safety net for them to keep them from starvation and homelessness. So there has to be one. It's unfortunate that some people count on a social safety net? This is not sufficient reason for such a safety net to exist, nor has the expectation always existed. It is a social policy made possible....by wealth. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Pliny Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 Right. I think that example does show how people blame others for their mistakes. Let's try another one. People who don't save enough to carry themselves through the hard times, then get hit by a recession. Unfortunately, people count on there being a social safety net for them to keep them from starvation and homelessness. So there has to be one. Hmm... most people used to try and save enough to carry them through the hard times or have their progeny help them, some were foolish and/or unsuccessful certainly. When everyone counts on a social safety net most don't even bother or even try to deal with hard times by themselves, and when the social safety net collapses with their weight many suffer, not just the foolish or unsuccessful few. That nebulous agency where no one takes responsibility gets all the blame - the government. Of course, government will blame the capitalist - and might makes right. But really, we all make the best choices for ourselves. Most of us wonder about the other persons choices and their sanity if it appears illogical. I have found they have their reasons and I don't question their sanity because they are acting for their benefit and/or their interests - I just don't understand how some things appear to be benefits to them. Such as a house he knows he can't afford - granted over-riding circumstances did exist in that housing prices were going up so fast a person could make a hundred grand in a year. Can't blame them, after all, the "very best" economists never saw the collapse coming. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Michael Hardner Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 It's unfortunate that some people count on a social safety net? This is not sufficient reason for such a safety net to exist, nor has the expectation always existed. It is a social policy made possible....by wealth. Wealth allows it to happen but wealth didn't make it happen. Unfortunately, people don't take care of themselves, so the state has to. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 Wealth allows it to happen but wealth didn't make it happen. Unfortunately, people don't take care of themselves, so the state has to. Not true....wealth did make it happen....from churches to poor houses to modern government programs. The imperative to do so has less to do with care and more to do with political causes and wealth redistribution. Even then, there are still the homeless, often by choice. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 Not true....wealth did make it happen....from churches to poor houses to modern government programs. The imperative to do so has less to do with care and more to do with political causes and wealth redistribution. Even then, there are still the homeless, often by choice. The big social programs happened in America less naturally and more suddenly, as a reaction to the economic crises of the 1930s. Wealth accumulates more slowly, politics happens more quickly. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 The big social programs happened in America less naturally and more suddenly, as a reaction to the economic crises of the 1930s. Wealth accumulates more slowly, politics happens more quickly. And all were directly related to the revenue and debt capacity of government, which has found its fiscal and political limit. Being on the "dole" used to come with a severe social stigma in America. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonlight Graham Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 Even then, there are still the homeless, often by choice. Some are by choice, most are not. A lack of affordable housing and the limited scale of housing assistance programs are the primary causes of homelessness. The growing gap between the number of affordable housing units and the number of people needing them has created a housing crisis for poor people. and 20-25 percent of homeless people suffer from serious mental illness. link Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Michael Hardner Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 And all were directly related to the revenue and debt capacity of government, which has found its fiscal and political limit. Being on the "dole" used to come with a severe social stigma in America. Which is why I say wealth allowed it to happen, but didn't make it happen. People responded to the idea of a social safety net, and also there was a real threat that Communism would take hold. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Pliny Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 Which is why I say wealth allowed it to happen, but didn't make it happen. People responded to the idea of a social safety net, and also there was a real threat that Communism would take hold. Government economic ineptness and the ability to print "money" and create debt made it happen. People tolerated the idea of a social safety net because the great socialist experiment had started. Politician's and academia lauded it and social engineering from a central authority, the State, began with the financial support of the banking and corporate sector. Monarchies were increasingly less relevant in the governance of European nations and most became mere figureheads or were entirely eliminated after WW I, replaced with constitutional republics. The US only felt threatened by communism because their constitution warned of and limited the powers of government. Most places embraced it along with socialism and other systems of the central State authority. Wealth re-distribution was hugely popular, made so by government created depressions that left people destitute, and wars that killed many of the young men and shifted productivity to armaments and military spending - not to mention the debt governments could now create out of thin air - paid for by later generations; just the interest, mind you, never the principal. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 Some are by choice, most are not. The article you cited failed to mention the scramble to meet the means test as one of the reasons for homelessness. One has to qualify first. A lot of them have already been "helped" to the bottom. This is one of those things that liberals do that creates animosity. Assume they know what people want and proceed to give it to them. They want food, clothing and housing. What could be more obvious? Liberals assume that but it isn't what they need. They need their self-respect returned to them and giving them food clothing and shelter doesn't return it but further degrades them which is why they will "illogically" refuse "help". Of course the liberal assumes that their refusal is a natural reaction and tries to lift the persons "self-esteem" by making "help" acceptable. Be proud to be on welfare! Stick up for your rights to the essentials of life - everyone deserves them! Demand them! Now we have all sorts "proudly" demanding their entitlements...er...rights...and their situation is entirely the fault of someone else. Perhaps the rich, who are greedily hoarding all the wealth. Or the corporation that is only concerned with profit and the bottom line. Or low wages? Or society's lack of educational opportunity. Or the escalating cost of living. It isn't anything to do with them though - so "buck up!" they proudly proclaim. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Posted April 28, 2011 ....Wealth re-distribution was hugely popular, made so by government created depressions that left people destitute, and wars that killed many of the young men and shifted productivity to armaments and military spending - not to mention the debt governments could now create out of thin air - paid for by later generations; just the interest, mind you, never the principal. ...and now the mammoth Ponzi program(s) put in place are collapsing under their own weight. The entitlements are no longer sustainable as is...the "safety net" has become the biggest threat of all. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.