And yes, they truly believe that they are the mainstream. You want to know why? Because it's people like them who control the Democrat Party. It's their policies that the Donks are pushing.
The far Left has become the mainstream for the Democrats. I don't know if the majority of Democrat voters even know who or what they're voting for anymore.
What a wonderful agenda the Democrats have; who could disagree with it?
"Bringing balance to our tax system"
What is the imbalance you're talking about? Is the imbalance that the top 1% of income-taxpayers pay 40% of the income tax? Or that the bottom 50% pay about 3%?
"Protecting equal rights for all Americans."
What rights would those be? The right to keep and bear arms, perhaps?
"Protecting the right to choose."
Choose what? Anything? What if I choose not to send my kids to a government school? Do I get to choose not to pay for sending somebody else's kid to a government school? No, that would be selfish and mean-spirited, I suppose. What if I choose to own a gun? Never mind, we covered that already.
"Offering health care to all Americans."
Right. Because all doctors will just outright refuse treatment to certain people, just because they're mean. Oh, wait; you mean you want to force everybody into a program (what about my right to choose not to be in a government program?) where the government will pay for EVERYBODY's doctor bill. To be paid for by the newly "balanced" tax system, no doubt.
Limited government? What's that? Guess they've never heard of it because BUSH SHREEEDDDED TEH CONSTATUTION!11!!!
Funny this same discussion is going on at my blog and I have been writing about much of the same thing this week.
I can't claim to know fully where everyone stands here politically but it seems to me that our current leadership is extreme. And I think conservatives are going to find out what Americans think in 2008. They're not going to like it and I suspect neither will some of you.
Here's a gem from my comments section that I thought you would all enjoy
"What a crock of shit...the free market, run by people who by definition want and need to make a profit will solve the societal needs of this country. We have done this already people, it was called the Middle Ages and our figurative ancestors came here to get away from it because it no longer worked!"
it seems to me that our current leadership is extreme.
But you can't decide if they're conservative. Or Neoconservative.
Perhaps you should isolate that before making any more judgments.
We have done this already people, it was called the Middle Ages and our figurative ancestors came here to get away from it because it no longer worked!"
Well, obviously it's not just you who was educated (in history) in public school.
"Here's a gem from my comments section that I thought you would all enjoy"
I speak only for myself, but I don't enjoy exhibitions of stupidity when the person doing the exhibiting doesn't understand that he's being stupid.
"What a crock of shit...the free market, run by people who by definition want and need to make a profit will solve the societal needs of this country. We have done this already people, it was called the Middle Ages and our figurative ancestors came here to get away from it because it no longer worked!"
Well, here are two quotes that I find interesting. They are by Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom:
"The overthrow of the medieval guild system was an indispensable early step in the rise of freedom in the Western world."
and
"It is a striking historical fact that the development of capitalism has been accompanied by a major reduction in the extent to which particular religious, racial, or social groups have operated under special handicaps in respect of their economic activities; have, as the saying goes, been discriminated against. The substitution of contract arrangements for status arrangements was the first step toward the freeing of the serfs in the Middle Ages."
"Contract arrangements" -- that's what you find in a "free market". "Status arrangements" -- that's what you find in "serfdom", as in the Middle Ages.
Yup, your commenter could stand a hard dose of reality.
*taps The Wealth of Nations* The notion of a free market did not even EXIST until around the time of the Revolution. Adam Smith spends a great deal of time talking on everything that was there before- mostly mercantilism, since that was the great European economic bugaboo of the day.
The part that's funniest to me is that there IS a historical period that demonstrates the dangers of the totally free market... and neither one of them can figure out when that was or why. Sad.
My mother was one of the moonbat coolaid drinkers, thought I was poison (still sort of does), politically speaking. After a little dispute, I bet her vote that I could change her political view in 3 weeks. Sucker, she took me up on it (I say sucker, because I know her political views, as well as Democrat platform planks).
I didn't make her read big books with things like history, economy, or logic in on or around the tomes. I didn't ask her to "grow a pair" (though I think she did, bwahahaha). I merely asked her to write her "representatives". And, only those on "her" side of the aisle. I merely asked her to ask about those issues (top 5) on her list of dearly held beliefs and morals. She never did discuss with me what she heard back, but she did almost cry when I asked. Being so upset, she decided to write "my" politicians. I will not say she votes Republican now, but uhm...
Sadly, we were discussing this recently (she brought it up). I said, it was great that she had changed, if not 100%, the pair will begin pumping stuff to her brain and eventually fill her out, politically. But, that it is probably too late. She said, whaaa? I said yes, the Republican Party is now mostly filled with Democrats who can't win on that ticket (too late to the game (fighting incumbents) or just not left enough (operative word, enough). She almost started crying so I says, "No, no, you know me... always the pessimist."
Well, I say that last to my mother. To you, the truth. I don't care if you cry. Conservativism isn't dead, it's representation in this nation is. We are disenfranchised and betrayed.
I was going to cast aspersions at "Big Tent Democrat" and leave it at that, but I decided that hauling this old post out of the archive would be more instructive:
People will believe that the media at large is against them if they believe two things:
(1) Their ideas represent the median of political ideas currently in vogue in the nation
(2) The media occasionally reports some subset of facts, events, speeches, and ideas which do not completely line up with their perception of the world.
One question at hand is whose perception of the causes, effects, and likely cures for troubles are closer to the world as it actually is.
The other question is whether or not you and your circle of friends are a good representative sample for the society which defines the nation.
Much more could be said, but it seems already to have been said.
"You haven't picked up a copy of God and Gold yet, have you?"
No I haven't. I will read it, though. I am currently plowing throw some school stuff as well as my continuing educational courses.
karrde, going points and I agree.
I have thought more about the Democrats being centrist and I have to say I disagree. The Democrats are weak, petty, and reactionary. I mean this in the most general of terms because I don't think all Democrats are like this (Obama, Richardson). They react to what conservatives do, in a very petty and stupid way, and don't drive their own agenda. They let conservatives dictate the playing field when they should just go make their own. At this point, they have about 65 of the nation behind them so they just need to go for it.
I would suggest that they go after the issue of responsibility. Most conservatives talk a good game about responsibility but shirk it on every issue.
Health Care? Fuck you, get you hands out of my wallet. I don't give a shit about you. Buck up and you'll be fine.
Environment? Any problems are not my fault.
Education? Also not my problem.
National Security? Everyone who has attacked us is completely at fault and we are not because we are all about freedom.
Disaster Preparedness? Not my problem. Also not the governments. Fuck you, you're on your own. At the end of the day, you will be better for it.
I could go on. The party that touts personal responsibility strangely takes none of it. Ever.
Just to do a drive-by "my pet bugaboo is important because it's MINE", the environment in North America has improved substantially over the last forty to fifty years or so. Endangered species have been de-listed after phenomenal recoveries, there's been a huge increase in forested land that's not just monocultured artificial "SEE, WE PUT IT BACK" stuff (forests are reclaiming abandoned agricultural land- the death of the family farm has been damn good for wild lands), and the air and water quality is overall much, much better. Predator populations are inching back east, water bird populations have gone from worrisome to booming, etc. etc. There are still plenty of problems, but a huge amount of real, measurable improvement has been made.
Possibly one reason this is all but totally ignored in politics and the media is that it was a true bipartisan effort- but more likely it's because scare tactics work much better to get out the "green vote" than "hey, we're not doing so bad at this!"
No, Mark. WE aren't supposed to be living in a direct Democracy. WE are supposed to be living in a Constitutional Republic - with a government of severely limited powers.
Because OUR Founders studied and understood what direct Democracy resulted in.
Most conservatives talk a good game about responsibility but shirk it on every issue.
None of your examples have a good example of that.
None.
Because you - as Kevin called you out on it - are talking about personal responsibility and then shift the subject to forcing other people to bear the burden of people not accepting it.
...As he totally fails to notice that the most moving scene in all of Star Trek where that line is used is in a moment of conscious individual sacrifice for the greater good, not forcing everyone else to sacrifice whether they chose to or not, which would have utterly ruined the point.
(What are you looking at? I can Trek-geek with the best of 'em.)
Yes, of course. Spock did change his mind...thus demonstrating the duality of man....or Vulcan in this case.
Unix, good article. I love David Brin. Great writer. But I would think your biggest gripe with the faux trilogy would be the idea that a politician would mastermind an attack on his own people to set himself up as a saviour, seizing power in what essentially became a dictatorship.
Hmm.....sounds like one a dem damn troother screeds to me :)
Something you should note (amid your dodging, which, yes, I'm going to expect you to stop, stand up, and either admit and retract or apologise for your rhetorical deceit (what can I say, I'm an eternal optimist)):
Roddenberry's future wasn't about collectivism.
The Next Generation writers were (mostly) all about the communal whole. Not Roddenberry's stories.
"Because you - as Kevin called you out on it - are talking about personal responsibility and then shift the subject to forcing other people to bear the burden of people not accepting it."
I think if you take a look at Roddenberry's stories and compare them to the politics of the 60s and today, you will see collectivism. The Federation is a collective of vastly different people who somehow have managed to put aside their differences and work together for the common good of the galaxy.
The Prime Directive? How do you suppose that jibes with Iraq?
On the issue of personal responsibility, which I think is the issue I am supposedly dodging, it has become quite clear to me over the course of our debates that you and I have had completely different experiences in our lifetimes. It appears to me that when you see someone who need government help of some kind, then they are just a fuck up who can't help themselves, doesn't work hard, and has no personal responsibility.
Yet, I see people everyday--EVERYDAY--who work extremely hard, pay taxes, take personal responsibility for themselves and still need help sometimes. For example, how about they people that were hurt or died on the 35W Bridge? That's why we pay taxes and the conservatives up here, who are in charge, will have you believe that they bear no responsibility at all. In fact, even though they are driving the show, is actually the liberals' fault.
I guess the world you and some other folks here would like to live in is the Frontier in the year 1848 and out of log cabin. I'm sorry but that world is gone.
Basically, Unix, there are millions of people in this country who accept personal responsibility and still need your help. Charities can only do so much. The question you should ask your self is this (and I don't care if you answer or not)
Why do you question spending that could improve our society and not question spending (defense) that more times often than not harms our society?
"What a crock of shit...the free market, run by people who by definition want and need to make a profit will solve the societal needs of this country. We have done this already people, it was called the Middle Ages and our figurative ancestors came here to get away from it because it no longer worked!"
That's the silliest bloody thing I've read this week. The person who wrote that is a stark ignoramus.
Mark:
As per usual, you're not familiar with the material you're discussing.
I think if you take a look at Roddenberry's stories and compare them to the politics of the 60s and today, you will see collectivism.
No, not really. You see some lip service to it. Of course, we're talking about the TOS. TNG (after Roddenberry was dead) is a whole nother issue. But TOS was not collectivist.
The Federation is a collective of vastly different people who somehow have managed to put aside their differences and work together for the common good of the galaxy.
Have you ever seen Star Trek, Mark? That's not even the Cliffs Notes version. Of Any Of Them.
The Prime Directive? How do you suppose that jibes with Iraq?
1) It doesn't.
2) No comparison. Iraq attacked an allied country, who requested assistance. Let's see if the Gospel of Roddenberry has .. wait! : Arena. (I'd try and warn you that you do not want to get into a Trek pissing contest with me, but I know you're inable to size up opponents).
"When an alien race known as the Gorn destroys an Earth colony, the Enterprise pursues the fleeing Gorn vessel until..."
On the issue of personal responsibility, which I think is the issue I am supposedly dodging,
Mark, you don't understand English. Plain and simple.
I've told you what you're dodging. As I've done in all the other threads you've "misunderstood".
I've told you. There's no thinking required from you.
You dishonestly listed issues of personal responsibility and then changed the subject to something other than that. Health Care? Fuck you, get you hands out of my wallet. I don't give a shit about you. Buck up and you'll be fine.
Environment? Any problems are not my fault.
Education? Also not my problem.
National Security? Everyone who has attacked us is completely at fault and we are not because we are all about freedom.
Disaster Preparedness? Not my problem. Also not the governments. Fuck you, you're on your own. At the end of the day, you will be better for it.
I could go on. The party that touts personal responsibility strangely takes none of it. Ever.
You state a field, claiming it is "personal responsibility", and then toss up a strawman presuming there was no personal responsbility taken!
That's it! No thinking required. That's what you did. I pointed it out. So did Kevin.
Now, either apologise, or at least admit that your rhetorical device has failed. If you don't do it, it doesn't mean you're right, it means either you're dishonest, or unable to understand.
If you're dishonest, then, well, there's not a lot of point in discussing these things, you're doing it in bad faith.
If you're unable to understand, well, there's not a lot of point in discussing these things, you're unable to understand.
Those are the 3 choices. Pick one. (Failure to pick one will result in the default #3 be in effect)
It appears to me that when you see someone who need government help of some kind,
You've presupposed the question. Again. (and again and again.. Wait! "Mark... There... You... Go... Again!")
That's the difference between you and I. You cannot think logically. Even when it's being directly pointed out to you. Even when I lay out what you just did, you say "Gee, I'm not sure what you're saying I'm doing..."
Why do you question spending that could improve our society and not question spending (defense) that more times often than not harms our society?
1) You've (again) presupposed and loaded the question. You know, like you keep accusing us of. When we're not.
"Could improve our society" is either meaningless, or very dangerous. Everythingcould "improve our society". Are you against trying to "improve our society" by firing all the school teachers? If you are, how dare you!
2) I question a shitload of defense spending, but reject and deny your loaded presupposition that it "more times often than not harms our society?."
(Notice, rather than refusing to answer because of "misleading leading questions - which yours were, I could answer and point out how they were invalid questions. What was your catchy little conspiracy theory for questions?)
Ah, no. I don't think so, Unix. I have to say, I'm surprised that someone who espouses free will and individual thought is sort of...well...acting like a dictator. But then again, I have always held the impression that some conservatives harbor secret fantasies of fascism, telling everyone how to think and do.
I don't think I've ever issued you ultimatums like this nor have I ever personally insulted you, which you, DJ, and Lab Rat have all done and continue to do. So, if you don't like what I wrote, fair enough, rip me up and down the joint. No problem. You don't like how I think? That's cool. Frame my scribblings in a nice little picture that makes you feel better about what you are avoiding.
In the words of Getty Lee, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Sorry Mark. You might as well accuse the tides of being dictatorial. Logic dictates that you're either dishonest (possibly even with yourself - i.e. self-deluded), or you're unable to understand. You can admit to one or the other, or you can punt. You chose to punt.
I lean towards "self-deluded" as the explanation, myself. Thus you can do nothing other than punt.
(It's been a bad day at work, else I would have seen this immediately.)
Unix-Jedi: The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you choose. Mark: But it's so simple! All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would be a fascist conservative, or a kind, gentle liberal who loves people and only seeks to help?
Now, a conservative man would expect people to exercise personal responsbility, because he would know that only a great fool would depend on the ability to take at gunpoint. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose that I'm misled. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose that I don't know what I'm doing! Unix-Jedi: You've made your decision then? Mark: Not remotely! Because there is no right and wrong, and neither is better or worse! Knowing that, I cannot chose that I'm a dupe! Unix-Jedi: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. Mark: Wait till I get going! Where was I? Unix-Jedi: Nihilism. Mark: Right! -- neither better nor worse! And you must have suspected I would have read Troother Screeds, so I can clearly not choose that I've been deceived! Unix-Jedi: You're just stalling now. Mark: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? Unix-Jedi: You're trying to trick me into giving away something -- it won't work. Mark:It has worked -- you've given everything away!!! Unix-Jedi: Then make your choice. Mark: I REFUSE! BWAHAAHAAHAH! I refuse to admit my pointed out deception! I'll post it on my blogspot account after it's been pointed out how dishonest it is!!! And then I'll blame conservatives for "fascism", despite my cries for someone else to point guns at them and make them do my bidding!
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never try and argue logic with people who think Roddenberry was a political genius!"
BWAAAAHAAAAAHAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAA...
There's hot tea and spittle and all colors of phlegm all over my screen and keyboard. Maybe I can borrow Mark's transporter and just vanish it away. Yeah, that'll work ...
Well, Unix, I have to say that I thought what you wrote was pretty funny.
That being said, I found it interesting that you portrayed yourself as the calm intellect in your short one act and myself as the hysteric. If you ever have another bad or slow day at work, why not take a glance back at some of your responses to me and honestly tell me, do you think they contain that same quiet certainty?
Mark:
You're the one dodging the question.
You've said something totally dishonest, and used it in an attempt to discredit among others, Kevin and myself.
I've pointed out the dishonesties, and asked you if you meant to do that.
You've refused to admit to being caught, being in error, or not understanding the material. One of those three possibilities is the case.
So yes, I've got a great deal of quiet certainty. Much as I've had as you've frantically tried to misdirect questions about Truthers, about health care, the role of spokespeople in making policy, what an "Empire" is (note Kevin's post above), and about the relative merits of capitalism versus other economic systems.
Every one of which ended up with your blustering like Vizzini, and crowing about your dizzying intellect. But without actually dealing with the questions put to you.
When you reply, you - who accuse us of it all the time - use leading and framed questions. Again, either deliberately, mistakenly, or because you don't know the difference.
Your replies are full of statements, insults tossed up, and when I point out, that, for example, Bush's advisors aren't conservative, you ignore that. Until the next time when you call the conservative. Or Neocon. Whichever floats your boat at the time. Despite the fact that they're different.
And no matter how many times we try and explain (because you keep proving you don't understand) that words have meanings, and if you're to argue effectively, you need to understand this, keep to clear meanings, disclaim grey areas, and do the best you can to clarify. Your replies just serve to continually muddy the water.
You said, for the latest example,:
I could go on. The party that touts personal responsibility strangely takes none of it. Ever.
And your examples? That you have so many of? That you failed to advance a single one?
Health Care? Fuck you, get you hands out of my wallet. I don't give a shit about you. Buck up and you'll be fine.
Which has nothing to do with health care. When an example is produced of people who could have exhibited personal responsibility, and yet didn't, you defended them. None of us wished the Frosts ill. But re understand that not everyone can get the care they've gotten on our dime. You use an example of not taking personal responsibility, and then use it to attack "conservatives" for insisting on it.
Mark: That Is Dishonest. Did you mean to lie, or was it accidental? Or can you not understand that? There are 3 choices. You've apparently picked the 3rd. (Or the first, and are still being dishonest)
Education? Also not my problem.
Again, you pre-assume total and complete failure of personal responsibility, and then use that as an attack on those who want to encourage it!
National Security? Everyone who has attacked us is completely at fault and we are not because we are all about freedom.
Truly, yours is a dizzying intellect.
Disaster Preparedness? Not my problem. Also not the governments. Fuck you, you're on your own. At the end of the day, you will be better for it.
Despite the fact that it bears in no way any argument we've put to you. Or ever seen put forward.
Quite the opposite, you've attacked FEMA for total failure - and then insisted that they be given more responsibility and importance. You've advocated magic and wishful thinking. That "something different" should have been done, but your specifics were - at best - arguable. Most were totally unrealistic and/or were completely ignorant of the systems required. But sure, you did have a couple. But they were arguable. And you've got the benefit of hindsight to see what did happen to "predict" what you "would have done". (The fact that the exact same situation still exists doesn't seem to phase you in the slightest... until something happens, and you get to look back and demand magical precognition.)
It appears to me that when you see someone who need government help of some kind,
That's a framed, or leading question Mark. Notice who's using it.
Since you only have the hammer of "government help", you're only seeing nails. You're not able to actually weigh policy, since your only policy is to set up a government bureacracy to administer it. Even as you fail to notice how the current systems are failing - and like Vizzini - keep using words that do not mean what you think they mean.
And yes, I think the juxtaposition is correct.
I'm not left handed.
"without actually dealing with the questions put to you."
This is the key point on which we continually disagree. I don't answer the questions the way you want me to answer them but I do answer them.
You, and some others here (emphasis: NOT ALL) have very rigid rules for how to discuss a topic and those rules are doubly rigid for myself. For example, all of you are allowed to link to other conservative blogs/opinions in your arguements. If I do that, I am ripped for not having any opinions of my own or not offering any hard facts.
I don't think I was being dishonest. And I was not attempting to discredit anyone here. I was simply pointing out what I perceive to be a hypocrisy with some conservatives.
My first post said:
"I can't claim to know fully where everyone stands here politically.."
and my second post said
"Most conservatives talk a good game about responsibility but shirk it on every issue"
It was only after that that I directed anything personally to anyone here.
Perhaps the central issue here is how each of us defines responsibility. I define it as helping people out when they can't help themselves or when it is beyond their power. People are responsible citizens when they help out the fellow members of their community. I consider the US to be one large community.
I think there is a role for goverment in this equation. Government is not the only answer but it should be one of them. In fact, I think it NEEDS to be one of them with things like bridge maintenence for example.
The conservative leadership of this country has been tremendously irresponsible in their caretaking of our nation. Things are bad because of their policies. Here are some comments left recently on my blog, which sum things up better than I could.
"there are conservatives who still have complaints about the way the social, political and ideological currents are in this society. I said the list of complaints better be short considering the people they voted into office have been in power for the last 8 years....If things are great for conservatives...more power to them. I personally think they are living under a self-woven shroud of half-truths and logic blinding patriotism whilst barring their teeth when droplets of truth fall through the rather wide weft and weave."
and
"If you are a conservative who sees the serious problems caused by this administration whose agenda has been to privatize everything from our military to our retirement then accept responsibility for electing imbeciles/criminals and stop defending the policies and ideals simply because you think that they should work. In other words, you have not earned the right to complain about the way things are nor to claim victim status at the hands of liberal thinking. Either you like the way things are or you bear the responsibility for electing the assholes who made the situation."
Unix-Jedi: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Inspired. Absolutely inspired!"
Actually, I do. Wouldn't you say, at the very least, that there is an ongoing and very controversial debate, perhaps over as much as the last 120 years, on the subject of whether or not America is an Empire?
Wouldn't you say, at the very least, that there is an ongoing and very controversial debate, perhaps over as much as the last 120 years, on the subject of whether or not America is an Empire?
No Mark, there isn't. That is just the ranting of the lunatic fringe. Not controversial and not a debate.
No, Mark. I think there's a very active effort to redefine the word, much like the word "liberal" has been redefined to mean the opposite of what it meant before.
Now, as to this:
Perhaps the central issue here is how each of us defines responsibility. I define it as helping people out when they can't help themselves or when it is beyond their power. People are responsible citizens when they help out the fellow members of their community. I consider the US to be one large community.
Now you're trying to redefine a phrase. I thought only right-wingers "manipulated language?"
You're really Marriah Starr, aren't you? He wrote a long time ago:
"Many liberals...would willingly have the government take from them (obligatory charity, in their view) to help causes that are greater than them. The liberal perspective is that the cause - the idea or ideal - is greater than any one person, and thus the individual should serve the cause....
You believe in "obligatory charity," don't you? After all, if it's a good, liberal government program, it's paid for by tax dollars - money taken at the threat of imprisonment or worse.
You call that "personal responsibility". It is not. "Personal responsibility" is when I open my wallet or my checkbook and give money for a purpose or a cause of my own free will. "Personal responsibility" is when I pay for my medical care or insurance myself. "Personal responsibility" is when I make a disaster preparedness plan for myself and my family. "Personal responsibilty" is when I make sure my grandkids do (and understand) their homework and prepare for tests, or taken to the extreme - homeschool them to ensure they get a decent education.
"Obligatory charity" is not equivalent to "personal responsibility." It is as Unix-Jedi described it, you or others "forcing other people to bear the burden of (other) people not accepting (their own personal responsibility)".
Note that "obligatory charity" is an oxymoron. If it's "obligatory," then, by definitition it isn't charity. It's extortion.
Does government have some role in all of this? In some cases, yes. On that "disaster preparedness" question, I must ask: Why didn't New Orleans follow their very detailed plan? Why is all (and I mean ALL) the blame laid at the feet of Bush and FEMA? Where's the "personal responsibility" of the people of New Orleans in all this?
"This is the key point on which we continually disagree. I don't answer the questions the way you want me to answer them but I do answer them."
No, Mark. You IGNORE the overwhelming majority of questions you are asked here. You simply blather onward as if they hadn't been asked.
But, you are partly correct. When you do (rarely) answer a question, you answer the question you wish you had been asked instead of the question you were asked. This is why I have repeatedly characterized your responses to questions, when you actually do respond to a questions, as "slithering".
"For example, all of you are allowed to link to other conservative blogs/opinions in your arguements. If I do that, I am ripped for not having any opinions of my own or not offering any hard facts."
You are ripped repeatedly for: 1) offering opinions as if they were facts; 2) for linking to other people's opinions as if their opinions validated yours; and, 3) for offering opinions without supporting facts, despite repeated requests for those facts. You still don't understand the problem, do you? The playing field is level here, Mark, but you aren't playing the same game we are.
Don't forget 4)offering other people's opinions without comprehending their reasoning- or, in at least one case, claiming that opinion to be opposite from what it transparently is if you actually read it.
I don't answer the questions the way you want me to answer them but I do answer them.
No, you really don't. Unix-Jedi: Mark, What's the breaking load of that support? Mark: Well, I don't know EXACT figures, but it'll work for whatever you want to use it for. Unix-Jedi: Is the breaking load in excess of 10k Newtons? Mark: You and your precision. Look, I like this company, I'm sure it will work for you! Why can't you trust me?
*apply load* *CRACK!* Mark: Hey, I answered your question, maybe not how you'd like, but I answered!
See, Mark, most of us here are used to asking - and being expected to provide real answers. Find real values. Predict, and be responsible for the predictions.
Somewhat not-that-surprisingly to us, we manage to predict you pretty well. Yet you fail miserably at being able to sterotype/profile/predict us. Did you read that article at the sfgate?
For example, all of you are allowed to link to other conservative blogs/opinions in your arguments. If I do that, I am ripped for not having any opinions of my own or not offering any hard facts.
No, no, no. See, Mark, no matter how many times we tell you, you're unable to understand the words we're using.
You're "ripped" for posting links to opinion pieces that are - well, laughable - but for the sake of argument, we'll say "arguable". When I ask you for proof for your view that - against my hard, concrete examples - there's no better or worse economic system, you link to an article where a guy just says that. No pointer to any proof, just, "Hey, I think this!".
Unix-Jedi: If there's no better or worse, why under capitalism do we see vast and rapid improvements in leisure, health, nutrition, as exhibited by the fact that the word "poverty" has now mutated from meaning "not enough for food" to "only 1 car in a non-central-heat-and-A/C dwelling", and the #1 health concern for the "impoverished" in capitalist societies is now too much nutrition and sustenance! Mark: It's no better or worse! See! This guy says it too! So, we've got an equal argument!
Except I've proposed to you proof - that's easily verifiable/arguable if you desire - to support my view. Not just that Robert down the road says the same thing!
If I were to say, "Mark is short, bald, fat, with underarm hair sticking out of his shirt - including the collar!" - what does that mean as to your appearance? If I link to Kevin, and LabRat saying the exact same thing, does that mean we're right?
Or would a link to something more concrete "Here's a roster showing him at 4'5", 500 pounds, here's a note about him having problem with rogaine...." Which is actually factually based?
I don't think I was being dishonest. And I was not attempting to discredit anyone here. I was simply pointing out what I perceive to be a hypocrisy with some conservatives.
And you failed, because your "quotes" were base calumnies. As I've explained - twice now. And yet you've yet to correct them. You still don't understand!
Despite the explanation that they were wrong, and deceitful. If you didn't mean to, but can't correct, then you're admitting you're unable to understand what we're talking about.
I define it as helping people out when they can't help themselves or when it is beyond their power.
That's not personal responsibility. It's actually called "charity".
People are responsible citizens when they help out the fellow members of their community.
Are they responsible citizens when they promote policies and actions that create and perpetuate problems? Or even if they might?
Your first comment is again, just vitriol-spewing, that's sadly laughable in it's connection to reality.
the people they voted into office have been in power for the last 8 years
Most of whom are not "conservatives". Either in claim or deed. For the most obvious error.
Your second is .. well, just inane. They don't sum up anything other than ... well, unsourced and unsupported opinions. They demonstrate a lack of understanding of the current situation, where and how we got there, and as a result (sound familiar?) their policy preferences are (probably quite) unsound.
Wouldn't you say, at the very least, that there is an ongoing and very controversial debate
No. Any more than any other continual misuse of a word constitutes a "debate".
(Pet peeve, for an example.) "Decimate" does not fucking mean "annihilate". Nor is there "debate" about it. Just a lot of ignorant people misusing a word.
America 120 years ago could have been (arguably) called an empire. Anyone who would or has in the last 60 is, well, ignorant of what the word means.
"Decimate" comes from Roman times. The root of it is "decimal", and its Latin derivation means "removal of a tenth". In the Roman army, it was a form of punishment of a group of soldiers. It means to select and kill every tenth man in the group.
Killing one in every ten is by no means "anihilation".
Yes, words do have meanings. And I hate to be the one to break this to all of you, but the word "empire" in relation to America IS a controversial subject and has been debated quite a bit over the years.
Consider the fact that President Carter declared in 1980 that any attack on the oil interests in the Middle East is an attack on the US itself. Really?
Consider that the US has over 700 military bases worldwide in 36 countries.
Consider the fact that the US, while not having "colonies" only by the strictest definition, certainly has surrogates who would collapse without our involvement. Ironically, this point is made time and again about Iraq on this blog. So, are they an independent entity or not? If so, why have benchmarks? These countries need us to survive.
This whole discussion really brings out the giant chasm I was talking about that exists between "liberals" and "conservatives." Unix, you seem to think that there is only one answer to a problem. That may be true in your field. It is most certainly not true in the geo-political environment of the 21st century. Some folks here seem to have this view of words, like empire, that go along these lines...
"I must strictly adhere to this definition and any wavering on my part demonstrates a weakness and then Tinkerbell's light will go out and she will die..."
This is never more true than with the word Empire. You refuse to accept that America could be an empire. Why? Because if you do, you will have to face the bad with all the good, that we do in the world, and then you would have to (Gasp!) admit that you are wrong about something. (Could it be possible? Can a conservative actually be flat out wrong about something so central to their core belief system? America's manifest destiny? If it happens, the earth will boil!)
From Wikipedia,
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that United States "don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."
and yet...
Stuart Creighton Miller argues that the American public’s sense of innocence prohibits the framing of American power in terms of an empire.
Historian Sidney Lens argues that the United States, from the time it gained its own independence, has used every available mean to dominate other nations.
Heck there is even an entry on Wikipedia called "American Empire."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire
Read through and decide for yourselves if there is serious debate or not going in about the issue of whether or not America is an empire.
Oh, wait. I forgot. Wikipedia, has all that pesky information that contradicts what conservatives assert (aka evil liberal communist/socialist plot). Well, if you didn't like that, how about this?
No, Mark, it's that "language manipulation" thing again.
In no case are we conquering other nations, imposing control on them by military force, requiring tribute or taxation of their people.
THAT'S Empire. The Brits practiced it in India. The French in Algeria. Spain in South America. We did ourselves in the Philippines and it left a bad taste in our mouths.
But "Empire" has that delicious Darth-Vader-and-DeathStar aura to it, so the word must apply to America now!
WRT Jimmuh Carter and his declaration? That's called "defending national interests." You'll note that we haven't rolled over the Middle East, annihilated the current population, and stolen the resources there. No, we provide engineers and technicians to set up drilling, pumping, piping, and storage facilities, and then we buy the product at the world market price. And other countries (Russia, France, Germany) do the same. At the same time, in the same countries.
It's called business - but for socialists and communists, "business" is the semantic (and moral) equivalent to "empire." Only without the ordnance.
And I hate to be the one to break this to all of you, but the word "empire" in relation to America IS a controversial subject and has been debated quite a bit over the years.
Only by people who don't know what the word means, or are using the meaning to attack the U.S.
We've discussed it, we demonstrated what the meaning of Empire was and asked you where the U.S. fit it.
Your response? A new modifier: "Corporate" Empire!
Consider that the US has over 700 military bases worldwide in 36 countries.
... That we pay rent on. Not exactly Imperial, there, Mark.
You refuse to accept that America could be an empire. Why? Because if you do,
No, Mark, yet again (and again and again), you don't know me, or what I believe.
I "refuse to accept" it because it's not true. Where are the tributes? Why are we paying $3/gallon for gas? Why are we paying anybody for the gas we're guarding with our troops? Claiming the US works as a Empire is ludicrous, because there are a set of common points that every - EVERY - empire has in common THAT THE U.S. DOES NOT EXHIBIT. And I really don't care how many people want to "argue" it. Or call Bush a chimp. Or claim he's Hitler. Neither of the latter are true, and neither's the former. No matter who wants to argue it.
As a rhetorical device, it has power, Mark. And that's where you are totally uneducated, you don't know what a rhetorical device is.
"Emperor Chimphitler!" That's using "Empire" as a rhetorical device to make a point. In many cases, it's useful. But when someone says "Wait, we're not an Empire", you can't understand that, and you lock up and start to defend it. (We should say "He's not a chimp. Or Hitler" and watch what happens.)
you seem to think that there is only one answer to a problem.
No, Mark, I do not. I'd like to point out that you have one answer to any and EVERY problem!.
Mark, the solutions that most of us here propose are "simple" only for the sake of argument. Because we understand that there are lots of complexities. Like I understand that ordering 5000 troops to Tora Bora might have been impossible, logistics-wise. (My numbers may be off, but as I recall, each one of those Airborne you breezily wave around as "should have been deployed" takes ~80 pounds of supplies. Per day. Not counting combat supplies. With those, it gets into the 250ish weight range (Again, off the top of my head). But we'll just take 80. 80 x 5000 = 40,000 pounds. Each day. But they're in combat. 1,250,000 pounds. Something like that. Chinooks can carry 25k or so, total, and less in the high altitude... Or 50 flights a day, doing nothing but ferrying supplies for those troops. Again, IIRC, 50 sorties was more than we were doing with all the heli assets at that point.)
In fact, many times I've pointed out to you that your "solution" is ludicrously simple, because of many interwoven issues you're totally unaware of.
Mark, it's just head-shakingly sad that no matter how many times someone lays out for you where they've had the experience, and it's not that simple, you insist that yes it is. Hurricane Katrina! Shoulda fixed it! Now you turn that around and accuse me of being unaware of these issues.
But all of this is handwaving, yes, just like Vizzini! "Behind you!" - to get away from your deceptive strawman argument.
You said that "we" insisted on personal responsibility, and as examples, listed "what we 'believed'", but every "belief" was completely opposite to "personal responsibility".
How about we deal with that, instead of looking behind us while you - again - swap the goblets?
Mark, you keep posting the words of a Marine Corporal as though his are the words of Christ, undeniable Gospel.
When a country goes to war, it means that innocent people are going to die. It means that, no matter the intent, our guys and theirs are going to be killing non-combatants. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes accidentally. Given human nature, sometimes with criminal intent.
That's why war sucks.
You have decided that we went to war in Iraq for oil and oil only. That it was done to make rich people richer - only.
There is nothing that I can do or say or link to that will ever change your mind on that - and you will filter everything you read or hear or see through that filter.
I am a reflective person. I understand all (or at least most) of the reasons we invaded Iraq.
You see only one.
That is why I cannot respect you. And it's taken literally months for me to reach this point.
LabRat's right. In your worldview all we have to do to make things right in the world is vote out Emperor Palpatine and vote in King Arthur.
Consider the fact that the US, while not having "colonies" only by the strictest definition, certainly has surrogates who would collapse without our involvement.
OK, Markadelphia, aside from Iraq, name one. That's the difference between fact and opinion. The above is an opinion - can you support it with any facts?
Many would argue that we have done and are doing just that in Iraq. I believe a link was put up in a recent post regarding this fact."
Mark, you flunked third grade English and kindergarten logic, didn't you?
Here is what the word "annihilate" means, from The Free Dictionary:
-----
annihilate v.
1.
a. To destroy completely.
b. To reduce to nonexistence.
c. To defeat decisively; vanquish.
2. To nullify or render void; abolish.
-----
Now, the subject is the notion that we have "annihilated the current population" in Iraq. The allegations are: 1) "we have done that"; and, 2) "we are doing just that", in Iraq. Given the definitions listed above, if 1) is true, then 2) is impossible. In plain English, if "we have done that," then the population of Iraq has beendestroyed completely, reduced to nonexistence, vanguished, and rendered void, and so we cannot now be "doing just that".
Mark, are you really this dense? Can you really not think any better than this?
For the gazillionth time, dude, if you're right, then you don't need this bullshit for support, and if you're not, then all the bullshit in the universe won't make you right. Now, will you kindly pull your brain out of your ass and put it to use?
He can't. He's too invested in the belief that the U.S. is the source of evil in the world so long as George Bush and his puppet-handlers are in control of the country.
And all that needs to be done to reverse it all is to elect Obama.
Interesting tangent not explored: M points to the failures in New Orleans and lays the blame at the feet of the Feds.
How, then, does he reconcile that (series of) event(s) with the successful evacuation of more people across a greater area with less lead time? How, does he reconcile the chaos in the Astrodome with the atmosphere in Qualcomm Stadium? How would he apply the phrase "personal responsibility" to the differences and similarities between the two events?
When a real doofus fails to exercise personal responsibility, it becomes yours and my personal responsibility to step in and make it all better, which means the Imperial Feddle Gubmint is supposed to step in, spend our taxes, and make everything all better right now, but in New Orleans they didn't make it all better immediately, and so it's all Bush's fault.
But at Qualcomm Stadium, the people who were there and who went there were not doofuses, they exercised personal responsibility for themselves (but I repeat myself), and so things went relatively well, and there wasn't anything to blame Bush for. Except the fires, of course, as he is in charge of lightning strikes, too, right?
"When a real doofus fails to exercise personal responsibility..."
Wow. DJ, I would humbly suggest that you go to the Gulf and say just that to the people displaced by the hurricane. I would be very interested in their responses.
Yet again, they were actually displaced by the (Federally funded) levee failure.
Which you keep ignoring is still possible today. Tomorrow. At any point.
Let's get back to what you're dodging, though. But all of this is handwaving, yes, just like Vizzini! "Behind you!" - to get away from your deceptive strawman argument.
You said that "we" insisted on personal responsibility, and as examples, listed "what we 'believed'", but every "belief" was completely opposite to "personal responsibility".
How about we deal with that, instead of looking behind us while you - again - swap the goblets?
"Wow. DJ, I would humbly suggest that you go to the Gulf and say just that to the people displaced by the hurricane. I would be very interested in their responses."
I don't have to go to the Gulf, because I can ask them right here in Oklahoma City, where they are still living in hotels that are being paid for by my taxes, where they are still complaining that their houses haven't been rebuilt by someone else at the gubmint's expense, and where they are still complaining that it's all Bush's fault.
Unix, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the issue of personal responsibility. I think it is probably beyond my capability to make you see what I see everyday.
In the end, until you have had the experience that I have had, you won't understand my definition of responsibility.
No. This is not a matter of opinion.
This is a matter of fact.
You stated cases that were opposite of personal responsibility, and then attributed them to "the party of personal responsibility".
You've since dodged, misdirected, tried to change the subject repeatedly, posted the exact same verbiage on your site, without noting the issues that had been raised.
Now you say "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree". But you're avoiding - as you keep saying you don't, dealing in facts.
We know what you said. We know what you meant by it. Proving it wasn't a mistake, you've posted it elsewhere, and insisted it was a fair analysis.
And when you are proven wrong, factually, you ignore it! You try and say "Well, I guess we'll never know. One of those things. Ah well."
And next week you'll be back, spewing vitrolically at anyone who dares suggest that you're unable to argue factually. And that Liberal talking points aren't mis-(or-dis) factual. (And! You complained about being cast as Vizzini!)
No, Mark, this isn't a opinion. This is fact. You made an argument that was factually dishonest. I've demonstrated why that was. If you were capable of arguing factually, you'd be able to at least admit that. (Or, conceivably, argue against my proof.)
Just as in almost all these debates, your opinion is bigoted, "fluffy", unable to stand up to critical analysis and devoid of real facts. Consisting of only strawman, ad hominem arguments, and appeals to emotion.
This particular discussion and subject does demonstrate that in a very excellent fashion, not as prone to going off-topic. ("Say, fellahs, how about that WTC 7? Or the Cubs?")
I'm not just insulting you, in a tit-for-tat retaliation. I've laid out why what you said was dishonest, gave you chance after chance to admit that it was in error, and extended a laurel and hearty handshake.
You've failed to engage on any factual grounds. Repeatedly. Consistantly.
Failed. F---.
When your students leave answers blank on the tests you give them, do you "agree to disagree?"
"In the end, until you have had the experience that I have had, you won't understand my definition of responsibility."
Mark, that's the funniest thing I've read in a YEAR.
You insist on your own definition of a word after complaining that others manipulate language. Goddamn, man, does your hypocrisy have any bounds at all?
"When your students leave answers blank on the tests you give them, do you 'agree to disagree?'"
Indeed, when your students respond to their errors on tests by trying to redefine their words such that their errors weren't errors after all, do you let them get away with it?
Precisely the reason my son was pulled out of "public school" (i.e. bitches in thrall to the teachers union). There once was a person under the Yahoo handle "cayeres209" that claimed to be a teacher-cum-administrator, and advocate for gun prohibition.
Oh, Mark - you still looking for one of those countries in our empire that would fail without our support/control? Remember, that was an effort to find a fact that would support your opinion.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-left-believes-media-is-right-wing.html (82 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
And yes, they truly believe that they are the mainstream. You want to know why? Because it's people like them who control the Democrat Party. It's their policies that the Donks are pushing.
The far Left has become the mainstream for the Democrats. I don't know if the majority of Democrat voters even know who or what they're voting for anymore.
This agenda the Donks have is going to be used as a device for weeding out their political foes when they decide to do The Next Long March.
Just watch.
What a wonderful agenda the Democrats have; who could disagree with it?
"Bringing balance to our tax system"
What is the imbalance you're talking about? Is the imbalance that the top 1% of income-taxpayers pay 40% of the income tax? Or that the bottom 50% pay about 3%?
"Protecting equal rights for all Americans."
What rights would those be? The right to keep and bear arms, perhaps?
"Protecting the right to choose."
Choose what? Anything? What if I choose not to send my kids to a government school? Do I get to choose not to pay for sending somebody else's kid to a government school? No, that would be selfish and mean-spirited, I suppose. What if I choose to own a gun? Never mind, we covered that already.
"Offering health care to all Americans."
Right. Because all doctors will just outright refuse treatment to certain people, just because they're mean. Oh, wait; you mean you want to force everybody into a program (what about my right to choose not to be in a government program?) where the government will pay for EVERYBODY's doctor bill. To be paid for by the newly "balanced" tax system, no doubt.
Limited government? What's that? Guess they've never heard of it because BUSH SHREEEDDDED TEH CONSTATUTION!11!!!
Funny this same discussion is going on at my blog and I have been writing about much of the same thing this week.
I can't claim to know fully where everyone stands here politically but it seems to me that our current leadership is extreme. And I think conservatives are going to find out what Americans think in 2008. They're not going to like it and I suspect neither will some of you.
Here's a gem from my comments section that I thought you would all enjoy
"What a crock of shit...the free market, run by people who by definition want and need to make a profit will solve the societal needs of this country. We have done this already people, it was called the Middle Ages and our figurative ancestors came here to get away from it because it no longer worked!"
Mark:
You haven't picked up a copy of God and Gold yet, have you?
Do you have an Amazon wish list? I'll buy you one.
The Middle Ages was the "free market"? What has your commenter been smoking??
"Like protecting the right to choose."
Semiautomatic over revolver, for example? Oh, I forgot! It's only a choice if it's FOR what the leftists want...
Mark,
Does the word "guild" mean anything to you?
How about, "royal charter"?
Well as that redneck comic says "that's funny, I don't care who you are".
A "Big Tent Democrat" claiming to be a centrist on the TALKLEFT blog, with the justification being a litany of left of center orthodoxy.
Hell that's like a big-L Libertarian mewling about how important a part of the conservative coalition they are.
Markadelphia, why am I not surprised at the economic (and historic) illiteracy that crops up on your blog?
it seems to me that our current leadership is extreme.
But you can't decide if they're conservative. Or Neoconservative.
Perhaps you should isolate that before making any more judgments.
We have done this already people, it was called the Middle Ages and our figurative ancestors came here to get away from it because it no longer worked!"
Well, obviously it's not just you who was educated (in history) in public school.
"Here's a gem from my comments section that I thought you would all enjoy"
I speak only for myself, but I don't enjoy exhibitions of stupidity when the person doing the exhibiting doesn't understand that he's being stupid.
"What a crock of shit...the free market, run by people who by definition want and need to make a profit will solve the societal needs of this country. We have done this already people, it was called the Middle Ages and our figurative ancestors came here to get away from it because it no longer worked!"
Well, here are two quotes that I find interesting. They are by Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom:
"The overthrow of the medieval guild system was an indispensable early step in the rise of freedom in the Western world."
and
"It is a striking historical fact that the development of capitalism has been accompanied by a major reduction in the extent to which particular religious, racial, or social groups have operated under special handicaps in respect of their economic activities; have, as the saying goes, been discriminated against. The substitution of contract arrangements for status arrangements was the first step toward the freeing of the serfs in the Middle Ages."
"Contract arrangements" -- that's what you find in a "free market". "Status arrangements" -- that's what you find in "serfdom", as in the Middle Ages.
Yup, your commenter could stand a hard dose of reality.
*taps The Wealth of Nations* The notion of a free market did not even EXIST until around the time of the Revolution. Adam Smith spends a great deal of time talking on everything that was there before- mostly mercantilism, since that was the great European economic bugaboo of the day.
The part that's funniest to me is that there IS a historical period that demonstrates the dangers of the totally free market... and neither one of them can figure out when that was or why. Sad.
No, hey, yeah... :)
My mother was one of the moonbat coolaid drinkers, thought I was poison (still sort of does), politically speaking. After a little dispute, I bet her vote that I could change her political view in 3 weeks. Sucker, she took me up on it (I say sucker, because I know her political views, as well as Democrat platform planks).
I didn't make her read big books with things like history, economy, or logic in on or around the tomes. I didn't ask her to "grow a pair" (though I think she did, bwahahaha). I merely asked her to write her "representatives". And, only those on "her" side of the aisle. I merely asked her to ask about those issues (top 5) on her list of dearly held beliefs and morals. She never did discuss with me what she heard back, but she did almost cry when I asked. Being so upset, she decided to write "my" politicians. I will not say she votes Republican now, but uhm...
Sadly, we were discussing this recently (she brought it up). I said, it was great that she had changed, if not 100%, the pair will begin pumping stuff to her brain and eventually fill her out, politically. But, that it is probably too late. She said, whaaa? I said yes, the Republican Party is now mostly filled with Democrats who can't win on that ticket (too late to the game (fighting incumbents) or just not left enough (operative word, enough). She almost started crying so I says, "No, no, you know me... always the pessimist."
Well, I say that last to my mother. To you, the truth. I don't care if you cry. Conservativism isn't dead, it's representation in this nation is. We are disenfranchised and betrayed.
I was going to cast aspersions at "Big Tent Democrat" and leave it at that, but I decided that hauling this old post out of the archive would be more instructive:
Go read how BTD and others have been suckered:
leaving a magnet near the compass is a classic way to sabotage a ship.
People will believe that the media at large is against them if they believe two things:
(1) Their ideas represent the median of political ideas currently in vogue in the nation
(2) The media occasionally reports some subset of facts, events, speeches, and ideas which do not completely line up with their perception of the world.
One question at hand is whose perception of the causes, effects, and likely cures for troubles are closer to the world as it actually is.
The other question is whether or not you and your circle of friends are a good representative sample for the society which defines the nation.
Much more could be said, but it seems already to have been said.
Hehehe - they think that the Free-market means everything should be FREE! Free Nintendos and PS3's for everybody in their parent's basement!
"You haven't picked up a copy of God and Gold yet, have you?"
No I haven't. I will read it, though. I am currently plowing throw some school stuff as well as my continuing educational courses.
karrde, going points and I agree.
I have thought more about the Democrats being centrist and I have to say I disagree. The Democrats are weak, petty, and reactionary. I mean this in the most general of terms because I don't think all Democrats are like this (Obama, Richardson). They react to what conservatives do, in a very petty and stupid way, and don't drive their own agenda. They let conservatives dictate the playing field when they should just go make their own. At this point, they have about 65 of the nation behind them so they just need to go for it.
I would suggest that they go after the issue of responsibility. Most conservatives talk a good game about responsibility but shirk it on every issue.
Health Care? Fuck you, get you hands out of my wallet. I don't give a shit about you. Buck up and you'll be fine.
Environment? Any problems are not my fault.
Education? Also not my problem.
National Security? Everyone who has attacked us is completely at fault and we are not because we are all about freedom.
Disaster Preparedness? Not my problem. Also not the governments. Fuck you, you're on your own. At the end of the day, you will be better for it.
I could go on. The party that touts personal responsibility strangely takes none of it. Ever.
Oops...65 PERCENT of the nation.
Only Mark could equate "government programs" with "personal responsibility."
Hint: Mark, you're talking about collective responsibilities.
Hair shirts for everybody!!
Just to do a drive-by "my pet bugaboo is important because it's MINE", the environment in North America has improved substantially over the last forty to fifty years or so. Endangered species have been de-listed after phenomenal recoveries, there's been a huge increase in forested land that's not just monocultured artificial "SEE, WE PUT IT BACK" stuff (forests are reclaiming abandoned agricultural land- the death of the family farm has been damn good for wild lands), and the air and water quality is overall much, much better. Predator populations are inching back east, water bird populations have gone from worrisome to booming, etc. etc. There are still plenty of problems, but a huge amount of real, measurable improvement has been made.
Possibly one reason this is all but totally ignored in politics and the media is that it was a true bipartisan effort- but more likely it's because scare tactics work much better to get out the "green vote" than "hey, we're not doing so bad at this!"
We, the people, Kevin, WE are the government...or at least we should be :)
No, Mark. WE aren't supposed to be living in a direct Democracy. WE are supposed to be living in a Constitutional Republic - with a government of severely limited powers.
Because OUR Founders studied and understood what direct Democracy resulted in.
Most conservatives talk a good game about responsibility but shirk it on every issue.
None of your examples have a good example of that.
None.
Because you - as Kevin called you out on it - are talking about personal responsibility and then shift the subject to forcing other people to bear the burden of people not accepting it.
Spock would call that "Highly illogical."
Spock would also say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one.
Fucking Commie :)
...As he totally fails to notice that the most moving scene in all of Star Trek where that line is used is in a moment of conscious individual sacrifice for the greater good, not forcing everyone else to sacrifice whether they chose to or not, which would have utterly ruined the point.
(What are you looking at? I can Trek-geek with the best of 'em.)
And in the following film the many risk sacrificing everything they've worked their whole lives for for the needs of the one.
Voluntarily.
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/
There's lots more at Brin's web page.
Maybe Mark, you ought to study Roddenberry just a bit better if you want to use "his vision" as a guidepost to life....
And in the following film the many risk sacrificing everything they've worked their whole lives for for the needs of the one.
Including Dr. David Marcus (AKA James T. Kirk, Jr.) who sacrificed himself to protect others.
Spock would also say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one.
But you dodged that I called you out for changing the subject in a classic dishonest debate move.
Worf would kick your ass for that.
Unix, that was an excellent essay. Thanks for the link!
No problem.
His followup after the hate mail *really* took the gloves off.
http://www.davidbrin.com/starwars1.html
And
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_side/index.html
Lab,
Yes, of course. Spock did change his mind...thus demonstrating the duality of man....or Vulcan in this case.
Unix, good article. I love David Brin. Great writer. But I would think your biggest gripe with the faux trilogy would be the idea that a politician would mastermind an attack on his own people to set himself up as a saviour, seizing power in what essentially became a dictatorship.
Hmm.....sounds like one a dem damn troother screeds to me :)
Mark:
Something you should note (amid your dodging, which, yes, I'm going to expect you to stop, stand up, and either admit and retract or apologise for your rhetorical deceit (what can I say, I'm an eternal optimist)):
Roddenberry's future wasn't about collectivism.
The Next Generation writers were (mostly) all about the communal whole. Not Roddenberry's stories.
"Because you - as Kevin called you out on it - are talking about personal responsibility and then shift the subject to forcing other people to bear the burden of people not accepting it."
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA....Bingo.
Gosh, or we might find Trutherism ludicrous because it bears more resemblance to a bad movie than reality.
I wonder which one it is?
I think if you take a look at Roddenberry's stories and compare them to the politics of the 60s and today, you will see collectivism. The Federation is a collective of vastly different people who somehow have managed to put aside their differences and work together for the common good of the galaxy.
The Prime Directive? How do you suppose that jibes with Iraq?
On the issue of personal responsibility, which I think is the issue I am supposedly dodging, it has become quite clear to me over the course of our debates that you and I have had completely different experiences in our lifetimes. It appears to me that when you see someone who need government help of some kind, then they are just a fuck up who can't help themselves, doesn't work hard, and has no personal responsibility.
Yet, I see people everyday--EVERYDAY--who work extremely hard, pay taxes, take personal responsibility for themselves and still need help sometimes. For example, how about they people that were hurt or died on the 35W Bridge? That's why we pay taxes and the conservatives up here, who are in charge, will have you believe that they bear no responsibility at all. In fact, even though they are driving the show, is actually the liberals' fault.
I guess the world you and some other folks here would like to live in is the Frontier in the year 1848 and out of log cabin. I'm sorry but that world is gone.
Basically, Unix, there are millions of people in this country who accept personal responsibility and still need your help. Charities can only do so much. The question you should ask your self is this (and I don't care if you answer or not)
Why do you question spending that could improve our society and not question spending (defense) that more times often than not harms our society?
"What a crock of shit...the free market, run by people who by definition want and need to make a profit will solve the societal needs of this country. We have done this already people, it was called the Middle Ages and our figurative ancestors came here to get away from it because it no longer worked!"
That's the silliest bloody thing I've read this week. The person who wrote that is a stark ignoramus.
You've not visited in a while, Billy. He's said far sillier things that that for the last several months.
Quick and accurate diagnosis, though!
Mark:
As per usual, you're not familiar with the material you're discussing.
I think if you take a look at Roddenberry's stories and compare them to the politics of the 60s and today, you will see collectivism.
No, not really. You see some lip service to it. Of course, we're talking about the TOS. TNG (after Roddenberry was dead) is a whole nother issue. But TOS was not collectivist.
The Federation is a collective of vastly different people who somehow have managed to put aside their differences and work together for the common good of the galaxy.
Have you ever seen Star Trek, Mark? That's not even the Cliffs Notes version. Of Any Of Them.
The Prime Directive? How do you suppose that jibes with Iraq?
1) It doesn't.
2) No comparison. Iraq attacked an allied country, who requested assistance. Let's see if the Gospel of Roddenberry has .. wait! :
Arena. (I'd try and warn you that you do not want to get into a Trek pissing contest with me, but I know you're inable to size up opponents).
"When an alien race known as the Gorn destroys an Earth colony, the Enterprise pursues the fleeing Gorn vessel until..."
On the issue of personal responsibility, which I think is the issue I am supposedly dodging,
Mark, you don't understand English. Plain and simple.
I've told you what you're dodging. As I've done in all the other threads you've "misunderstood".
I've told you. There's no thinking required from you.
You dishonestly listed issues of personal responsibility and then changed the subject to something other than that.
Health Care? Fuck you, get you hands out of my wallet. I don't give a shit about you. Buck up and you'll be fine.
Environment? Any problems are not my fault.
Education? Also not my problem.
National Security? Everyone who has attacked us is completely at fault and we are not because we are all about freedom.
Disaster Preparedness? Not my problem. Also not the governments. Fuck you, you're on your own. At the end of the day, you will be better for it.
I could go on. The party that touts personal responsibility strangely takes none of it. Ever.
You state a field, claiming it is "personal responsibility", and then toss up a strawman presuming there was no personal responsbility taken!
That's it! No thinking required. That's what you did. I pointed it out. So did Kevin.
Now, either apologise, or at least admit that your rhetorical device has failed.
If you don't do it, it doesn't mean you're right, it means either you're dishonest, or unable to understand.
If you're dishonest, then, well, there's not a lot of point in discussing these things, you're doing it in bad faith.
If you're unable to understand, well, there's not a lot of point in discussing these things, you're unable to understand.
Those are the 3 choices. Pick one. (Failure to pick one will result in the default #3 be in effect)
It appears to me that when you see someone who need government help of some kind,
You've presupposed the question. Again. (and again and again.. Wait! "Mark... There... You... Go... Again!")
That's the difference between you and I. You cannot think logically. Even when it's being directly pointed out to you. Even when I lay out what you just did, you say "Gee, I'm not sure what you're saying I'm doing..."
And then you've got the gall to lecture me.
Not that it will do any good, Mark, but you're not alone.
Why do you question spending that could improve our society and not question spending (defense) that more times often than not harms our society?
1) You've (again) presupposed and loaded the question. You know, like you keep accusing us of. When we're not.
"Could improve our society" is either meaningless, or very dangerous.
Everything could "improve our society". Are you against trying to "improve our society" by firing all the school teachers? If you are, how dare you!
2) I question a shitload of defense spending, but reject and deny your loaded presupposition that it "more times often than not harms our society?."
(Notice, rather than refusing to answer because of "misleading leading questions - which yours were, I could answer and point out how they were invalid questions. What was your catchy little conspiracy theory for questions?)
Unix, I remember reading that SFGate story before. Great link!
"Those are the 3 choices. Pick one."
Ah, no. I don't think so, Unix. I have to say, I'm surprised that someone who espouses free will and individual thought is sort of...well...acting like a dictator. But then again, I have always held the impression that some conservatives harbor secret fantasies of fascism, telling everyone how to think and do.
I don't think I've ever issued you ultimatums like this nor have I ever personally insulted you, which you, DJ, and Lab Rat have all done and continue to do. So, if you don't like what I wrote, fair enough, rip me up and down the joint. No problem. You don't like how I think? That's cool. Frame my scribblings in a nice little picture that makes you feel better about what you are avoiding.
But take an order from you?
Not ever going to happen.
Mark:
Yet, you chose.
"Well, there you go again..."
In the words of Getty Lee, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Sorry Mark. You might as well accuse the tides of being dictatorial. Logic dictates that you're either dishonest (possibly even with yourself - i.e. self-deluded), or you're unable to understand. You can admit to one or the other, or you can punt. You chose to punt.
I lean towards "self-deluded" as the explanation, myself. Thus you can do nothing other than punt.
(It's been a bad day at work, else I would have seen this immediately.)
Unix-Jedi: The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you choose.
Mark: But it's so simple! All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would be a fascist conservative, or a kind, gentle liberal who loves people and only seeks to help?
Now, a conservative man would expect people to exercise personal responsbility, because he would know that only a great fool would depend on the ability to take at gunpoint. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose that I'm misled. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose that I don't know what I'm doing!
Unix-Jedi: You've made your decision then?
Mark: Not remotely! Because there is no right and wrong, and neither is better or worse! Knowing that, I cannot chose that I'm a dupe!
Unix-Jedi: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Mark: Wait till I get going! Where was I?
Unix-Jedi: Nihilism.
Mark: Right! -- neither better nor worse! And you must have suspected I would have read Troother Screeds, so I can clearly not choose that I've been deceived!
Unix-Jedi: You're just stalling now.
Mark: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
Unix-Jedi: You're trying to trick me into giving away something -- it won't work.
Mark:It has worked -- you've given everything away!!!
Unix-Jedi: Then make your choice.
Mark: I REFUSE! BWAHAAHAAHAH! I refuse to admit my pointed out deception! I'll post it on my blogspot account after it's been pointed out how dishonest it is!!! And then I'll blame conservatives for "fascism", despite my cries for someone else to point guns at them and make them do my bidding!
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never try and argue logic with people who think Roddenberry was a political genius!"
BWAAAAHAAAAAHAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAA...
I love pop-culture references!
Bravo sir! Bravo! :lol: :+:
Well, crap, Unix-Jedi!
You owe me a new keyboard!
*SNERT*
Never go against a geek when logic is on the line!
There's hot tea and spittle and all colors of phlegm all over my screen and keyboard. Maybe I can borrow Mark's transporter and just vanish it away. Yeah, that'll work ...
Mark: "EMPIRE!"
Unix-Jedi: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Inspired. Absolutely inspired!
(Edited to add the link.)
Well, Unix, I have to say that I thought what you wrote was pretty funny.
That being said, I found it interesting that you portrayed yourself as the calm intellect in your short one act and myself as the hysteric. If you ever have another bad or slow day at work, why not take a glance back at some of your responses to me and honestly tell me, do you think they contain that same quiet certainty?
Mark:
You're the one dodging the question.
You've said something totally dishonest, and used it in an attempt to discredit among others, Kevin and myself.
I've pointed out the dishonesties, and asked you if you meant to do that.
You've refused to admit to being caught, being in error, or not understanding the material. One of those three possibilities is the case.
So yes, I've got a great deal of quiet certainty. Much as I've had as you've frantically tried to misdirect questions about Truthers, about health care, the role of spokespeople in making policy, what an "Empire" is (note Kevin's post above), and about the relative merits of capitalism versus other economic systems.
Every one of which ended up with your blustering like Vizzini, and crowing about your dizzying intellect. But without actually dealing with the questions put to you.
When you reply, you - who accuse us of it all the time - use leading and framed questions. Again, either deliberately, mistakenly, or because you don't know the difference.
Your replies are full of statements, insults tossed up, and when I point out, that, for example, Bush's advisors aren't conservative, you ignore that. Until the next time when you call the conservative. Or Neocon. Whichever floats your boat at the time. Despite the fact that they're different.
And no matter how many times we try and explain (because you keep proving you don't understand) that words have meanings, and if you're to argue effectively, you need to understand this, keep to clear meanings, disclaim grey areas, and do the best you can to clarify. Your replies just serve to continually muddy the water.
You said, for the latest example,:
I could go on. The party that touts personal responsibility strangely takes none of it. Ever.
And your examples? That you have so many of? That you failed to advance a single one?
Health Care? Fuck you, get you hands out of my wallet. I don't give a shit about you. Buck up and you'll be fine.
Which has nothing to do with health care. When an example is produced of people who could have exhibited personal responsibility, and yet didn't, you defended them. None of us wished the Frosts ill. But re understand that not everyone can get the care they've gotten on our dime. You use an example of not taking personal responsibility, and then use it to attack "conservatives" for insisting on it.
Mark: That Is Dishonest. Did you mean to lie, or was it accidental? Or can you not understand that? There are 3 choices. You've apparently picked the 3rd. (Or the first, and are still being dishonest)
Education? Also not my problem.
Again, you pre-assume total and complete failure of personal responsibility, and then use that as an attack on those who want to encourage it!
National Security? Everyone who has attacked us is completely at fault and we are not because we are all about freedom.
Truly, yours is a dizzying intellect.
Disaster Preparedness? Not my problem. Also not the governments. Fuck you, you're on your own. At the end of the day, you will be better for it.
Despite the fact that it bears in no way any argument we've put to you. Or ever seen put forward.
Quite the opposite, you've attacked FEMA for total failure - and then insisted that they be given more responsibility and importance. You've advocated magic and wishful thinking. That "something different" should have been done, but your specifics were - at best - arguable. Most were totally unrealistic and/or were completely ignorant of the systems required. But sure, you did have a couple. But they were arguable. And you've got the benefit of hindsight to see what did happen to "predict" what you "would have done". (The fact that the exact same situation still exists doesn't seem to phase you in the slightest... until something happens, and you get to look back and demand magical precognition.)
It appears to me that when you see someone who need government help of some kind,
That's a framed, or leading question Mark. Notice who's using it.
Since you only have the hammer of "government help", you're only seeing nails. You're not able to actually weigh policy, since your only policy is to set up a government bureacracy to administer it. Even as you fail to notice how the current systems are failing - and like Vizzini - keep using words that do not mean what you think they mean.
And yes, I think the juxtaposition is correct.
I'm not left handed.
One quibble:
And you've got the benefit of hindsight to see what did happen to "predict" what you "would have done".
Mark did, in fact, predict what Gore or Kerry would have done.
Other than that, bang-on the money.
"without actually dealing with the questions put to you."
This is the key point on which we continually disagree. I don't answer the questions the way you want me to answer them but I do answer them.
You, and some others here (emphasis: NOT ALL) have very rigid rules for how to discuss a topic and those rules are doubly rigid for myself. For example, all of you are allowed to link to other conservative blogs/opinions in your arguements. If I do that, I am ripped for not having any opinions of my own or not offering any hard facts.
I don't think I was being dishonest. And I was not attempting to discredit anyone here. I was simply pointing out what I perceive to be a hypocrisy with some conservatives.
My first post said:
"I can't claim to know fully where everyone stands here politically.."
and my second post said
"Most conservatives talk a good game about responsibility but shirk it on every issue"
It was only after that that I directed anything personally to anyone here.
Perhaps the central issue here is how each of us defines responsibility. I define it as helping people out when they can't help themselves or when it is beyond their power. People are responsible citizens when they help out the fellow members of their community. I consider the US to be one large community.
I think there is a role for goverment in this equation. Government is not the only answer but it should be one of them. In fact, I think it NEEDS to be one of them with things like bridge maintenence for example.
The conservative leadership of this country has been tremendously irresponsible in their caretaking of our nation. Things are bad because of their policies. Here are some comments left recently on my blog, which sum things up better than I could.
"there are conservatives who still have complaints about the way the social, political and ideological currents are in this society. I said the list of complaints better be short considering the people they voted into office have been in power for the last 8 years....If things are great for conservatives...more power to them. I personally think they are living under a self-woven shroud of half-truths and logic blinding patriotism whilst barring their teeth when droplets of truth fall through the rather wide weft and weave."
and
"If you are a conservative who sees the serious problems caused by this administration whose agenda has been to privatize everything from our military to our retirement then accept responsibility for electing imbeciles/criminals and stop defending the policies and ideals simply because you think that they should work. In other words, you have not earned the right to complain about the way things are nor to claim victim status at the hands of liberal thinking. Either you like the way things are or you bear the responsibility for electing the assholes who made the situation."
Kevin, you said,
"Mark: "EMPIRE!"
Unix-Jedi: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Inspired. Absolutely inspired!"
Actually, I do. Wouldn't you say, at the very least, that there is an ongoing and very controversial debate, perhaps over as much as the last 120 years, on the subject of whether or not America is an Empire?
Wouldn't you say, at the very least, that there is an ongoing and very controversial debate, perhaps over as much as the last 120 years, on the subject of whether or not America is an Empire?
No Mark, there isn't. That is just the ranting of the lunatic fringe. Not controversial and not a debate.
No, Mark. I think there's a very active effort to redefine the word, much like the word "liberal" has been redefined to mean the opposite of what it meant before.
Now, as to this:
Perhaps the central issue here is how each of us defines responsibility. I define it as helping people out when they can't help themselves or when it is beyond their power. People are responsible citizens when they help out the fellow members of their community. I consider the US to be one large community.
Now you're trying to redefine a phrase. I thought only right-wingers "manipulated language?"
You're really Marriah Starr, aren't you? He wrote a long time ago:
"Many liberals...would willingly have the government take from them (obligatory charity, in their view) to help causes that are greater than them. The liberal perspective is that the cause - the idea or ideal - is greater than any one person, and thus the individual should serve the cause....
You believe in "obligatory charity," don't you? After all, if it's a good, liberal government program, it's paid for by tax dollars - money taken at the threat of imprisonment or worse.
You call that "personal responsibility". It is not. "Personal responsibility" is when I open my wallet or my checkbook and give money for a purpose or a cause of my own free will. "Personal responsibility" is when I pay for my medical care or insurance myself. "Personal responsibility" is when I make a disaster preparedness plan for myself and my family. "Personal responsibilty" is when I make sure my grandkids do (and understand) their homework and prepare for tests, or taken to the extreme - homeschool them to ensure they get a decent education.
"Obligatory charity" is not equivalent to "personal responsibility." It is as Unix-Jedi described it, you or others "forcing other people to bear the burden of (other) people not accepting (their own personal responsibility)".
Note that "obligatory charity" is an oxymoron. If it's "obligatory," then, by definitition it isn't charity. It's extortion.
Does government have some role in all of this? In some cases, yes. On that "disaster preparedness" question, I must ask: Why didn't New Orleans follow their very detailed plan? Why is all (and I mean ALL) the blame laid at the feet of Bush and FEMA? Where's the "personal responsibility" of the people of New Orleans in all this?
Saying everyone is responsible for everyone else is just a nice way of saying no one is really responsible for anything, least of all themselves.
I can hear the response now:
"Saying everyone isn't responsible for everyone else just proves you are all a bunch of selfish meanies!"
Thus illustrating why socialism is so attractive to so many people.
"This is the key point on which we continually disagree. I don't answer the questions the way you want me to answer them but I do answer them."
No, Mark. You IGNORE the overwhelming majority of questions you are asked here. You simply blather onward as if they hadn't been asked.
But, you are partly correct. When you do (rarely) answer a question, you answer the question you wish you had been asked instead of the question you were asked. This is why I have repeatedly characterized your responses to questions, when you actually do respond to a questions, as "slithering".
"For example, all of you are allowed to link to other conservative blogs/opinions in your arguements. If I do that, I am ripped for not having any opinions of my own or not offering any hard facts."
You are ripped repeatedly for: 1) offering opinions as if they were facts; 2) for linking to other people's opinions as if their opinions validated yours; and, 3) for offering opinions without supporting facts, despite repeated requests for those facts. You still don't understand the problem, do you? The playing field is level here, Mark, but you aren't playing the same game we are.
Don't forget 4)offering other people's opinions without comprehending their reasoning- or, in at least one case, claiming that opinion to be opposite from what it transparently is if you actually read it.
I don't answer the questions the way you want me to answer them but I do answer them.
No, you really don't.
Unix-Jedi: Mark, What's the breaking load of that support?
Mark: Well, I don't know EXACT figures, but it'll work for whatever you want to use it for.
Unix-Jedi: Is the breaking load in excess of 10k Newtons?
Mark: You and your precision. Look, I like this company, I'm sure it will work for you! Why can't you trust me?
*apply load* *CRACK!*
Mark: Hey, I answered your question, maybe not how you'd like, but I answered!
See, Mark, most of us here are used to asking - and being expected to provide real answers. Find real values. Predict, and be responsible for the predictions.
Somewhat not-that-surprisingly to us, we manage to predict you pretty well. Yet you fail miserably at being able to sterotype/profile/predict us. Did you read that article at the sfgate?
For example, all of you are allowed to link to other conservative blogs/opinions in your arguments. If I do that, I am ripped for not having any opinions of my own or not offering any hard facts.
No, no, no. See, Mark, no matter how many times we tell you, you're unable to understand the words we're using.
You're "ripped" for posting links to opinion pieces that are - well, laughable - but for the sake of argument, we'll say "arguable". When I ask you for proof for your view that - against my hard, concrete examples - there's no better or worse economic system, you link to an article where a guy just says that. No pointer to any proof, just, "Hey, I think this!".
Unix-Jedi: If there's no better or worse, why under capitalism do we see vast and rapid improvements in leisure, health, nutrition, as exhibited by the fact that the word "poverty" has now mutated from meaning "not enough for food" to "only 1 car in a non-central-heat-and-A/C dwelling", and the #1 health concern for the "impoverished" in capitalist societies is now too much nutrition and sustenance!
Mark: It's no better or worse! See! This guy says it too! So, we've got an equal argument!
Except I've proposed to you proof - that's easily verifiable/arguable if you desire - to support my view. Not just that Robert down the road says the same thing!
If I were to say, "Mark is short, bald, fat, with underarm hair sticking out of his shirt - including the collar!" - what does that mean as to your appearance? If I link to Kevin, and LabRat saying the exact same thing, does that mean we're right?
Or would a link to something more concrete "Here's a roster showing him at 4'5", 500 pounds, here's a note about him having problem with rogaine...." Which is actually factually based?
I don't think I was being dishonest. And I was not attempting to discredit anyone here. I was simply pointing out what I perceive to be a hypocrisy with some conservatives.
And you failed, because your "quotes" were base calumnies. As I've explained - twice now. And yet you've yet to correct them. You still don't understand!
Despite the explanation that they were wrong, and deceitful. If you didn't mean to, but can't correct, then you're admitting you're unable to understand what we're talking about.
I define it as helping people out when they can't help themselves or when it is beyond their power.
That's not personal responsibility. It's actually called "charity".
People are responsible citizens when they help out the fellow members of their community.
Are they responsible citizens when they promote policies and actions that create and perpetuate problems? Or even if they might?
Your first comment is again, just vitriol-spewing, that's sadly laughable in it's connection to reality.
the people they voted into office have been in power for the last 8 years
Most of whom are not "conservatives". Either in claim or deed. For the most obvious error.
Your second is .. well, just inane. They don't sum up anything other than ... well, unsourced and unsupported opinions. They demonstrate a lack of understanding of the current situation, where and how we got there, and as a result (sound familiar?) their policy preferences are (probably quite) unsound.
Wouldn't you say, at the very least, that there is an ongoing and very controversial debate
No. Any more than any other continual misuse of a word constitutes a "debate".
(Pet peeve, for an example.) "Decimate" does not fucking mean "annihilate". Nor is there "debate" about it. Just a lot of ignorant people misusing a word.
America 120 years ago could have been (arguably) called an empire. Anyone who would or has in the last 60 is, well, ignorant of what the word means.
"Decimate" comes from Roman times. The root of it is "decimal", and its Latin derivation means "removal of a tenth". In the Roman army, it was a form of punishment of a group of soldiers. It means to select and kill every tenth man in the group.
Killing one in every ten is by no means "anihilation".
Yup, by golly, words have meaning, don't they?
Yes, words do have meanings. And I hate to be the one to break this to all of you, but the word "empire" in relation to America IS a controversial subject and has been debated quite a bit over the years.
Consider the fact that President Carter declared in 1980 that any attack on the oil interests in the Middle East is an attack on the US itself. Really?
Consider that the US has over 700 military bases worldwide in 36 countries.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2003/basestructure2003.pdf
Consider the use of bombing campaigns, against 22 countries since WWII, to further US interests.
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/usabmb.html
Consider the fact that the US, while not having "colonies" only by the strictest definition, certainly has surrogates who would collapse without our involvement. Ironically, this point is made time and again about Iraq on this blog. So, are they an independent entity or not? If so, why have benchmarks? These countries need us to survive.
This whole discussion really brings out the giant chasm I was talking about that exists between "liberals" and "conservatives." Unix, you seem to think that there is only one answer to a problem. That may be true in your field. It is most certainly not true in the geo-political environment of the 21st century. Some folks here seem to have this view of words, like empire, that go along these lines...
"I must strictly adhere to this definition and any wavering on my part demonstrates a weakness and then Tinkerbell's light will go out and she will die..."
This is never more true than with the word Empire. You refuse to accept that America could be an empire. Why? Because if you do, you will have to face the bad with all the good, that we do in the world, and then you would have to (Gasp!) admit that you are wrong about something. (Could it be possible? Can a conservative actually be flat out wrong about something so central to their core belief system? America's manifest destiny? If it happens, the earth will boil!)
From Wikipedia,
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that United States "don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."
and yet...
Stuart Creighton Miller argues that the American public’s sense of innocence prohibits the framing of American power in terms of an empire.
Historian Sidney Lens argues that the United States, from the time it gained its own independence, has used every available mean to dominate other nations.
Heck there is even an entry on Wikipedia called "American Empire."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire
Read through and decide for yourselves if there is serious debate or not going in about the issue of whether or not America is an empire.
Oh, wait. I forgot. Wikipedia, has all that pesky information that contradicts what conservatives assert (aka evil liberal communist/socialist plot). Well, if you didn't like that, how about this?
http://search.netscape.com/search/search?query=Is+America+an+Empire%3F&invocationType=spelling
Yep, no debate at all.
"Just a lot of ignorant people misusing a word."
Well, there is a lot of ignorance going on, that's for sure :)
No, Mark, it's that "language manipulation" thing again.
In no case are we conquering other nations, imposing control on them by military force, requiring tribute or taxation of their people.
THAT'S Empire. The Brits practiced it in India. The French in Algeria. Spain in South America. We did ourselves in the Philippines and it left a bad taste in our mouths.
But "Empire" has that delicious Darth-Vader-and-DeathStar aura to it, so the word must apply to America now!
WRT Jimmuh Carter and his declaration? That's called "defending national interests." You'll note that we haven't rolled over the Middle East, annihilated the current population, and stolen the resources there. No, we provide engineers and technicians to set up drilling, pumping, piping, and storage facilities, and then we buy the product at the world market price. And other countries (Russia, France, Germany) do the same. At the same time, in the same countries.
It's called business - but for socialists and communists, "business" is the semantic (and moral) equivalent to "empire." Only without the ordnance.
So the word must be "newspeaked."
And I hate to be the one to break this to all of you, but the word "empire" in relation to America IS a controversial subject and has been debated quite a bit over the years.
Only by people who don't know what the word means, or are using the meaning to attack the U.S.
We've discussed it, we demonstrated what the meaning of Empire was and asked you where the U.S. fit it.
Your response? A new modifier: "Corporate" Empire!
Consider that the US has over 700 military bases worldwide in 36 countries.
... That we pay rent on. Not exactly Imperial, there, Mark.
You refuse to accept that America could be an empire. Why? Because if you do,
No, Mark, yet again (and again and again), you don't know me, or what I believe.
I "refuse to accept" it because it's not true. Where are the tributes? Why are we paying $3/gallon for gas? Why are we paying anybody for the gas we're guarding with our troops? Claiming the US works as a Empire is ludicrous, because there are a set of common points that every - EVERY - empire has in common THAT THE U.S. DOES NOT EXHIBIT. And I really don't care how many people want to "argue" it. Or call Bush a chimp. Or claim he's Hitler. Neither of the latter are true, and neither's the former. No matter who wants to argue it.
As a rhetorical device, it has power, Mark. And that's where you are totally uneducated, you don't know what a rhetorical device is.
"Emperor Chimphitler!" That's using "Empire" as a rhetorical device to make a point. In many cases, it's useful. But when someone says "Wait, we're not an Empire", you can't understand that, and you lock up and start to defend it. (We should say "He's not a chimp. Or Hitler" and watch what happens.)
you seem to think that there is only one answer to a problem.
No, Mark, I do not. I'd like to point out that you have one answer to any and EVERY problem!.
Mark, the solutions that most of us here propose are "simple" only for the sake of argument. Because we understand that there are lots of complexities. Like I understand that ordering 5000 troops to Tora Bora might have been impossible, logistics-wise. (My numbers may be off, but as I recall, each one of those Airborne you breezily wave around as "should have been deployed" takes ~80 pounds of supplies. Per day. Not counting combat supplies. With those, it gets into the 250ish weight range (Again, off the top of my head). But we'll just take 80. 80 x 5000 = 40,000 pounds. Each day. But they're in combat. 1,250,000 pounds. Something like that. Chinooks can carry 25k or so, total, and less in the high altitude... Or 50 flights a day, doing nothing but ferrying supplies for those troops. Again, IIRC, 50 sorties was more than we were doing with all the heli assets at that point.)
In fact, many times I've pointed out to you that your "solution" is ludicrously simple, because of many interwoven issues you're totally unaware of.
Mark, it's just head-shakingly sad that no matter how many times someone lays out for you where they've had the experience, and it's not that simple, you insist that yes it is. Hurricane Katrina! Shoulda fixed it! Now you turn that around and accuse me of being unaware of these issues.
But all of this is handwaving, yes, just like Vizzini! "Behind you!" - to get away from your deceptive strawman argument.
You said that "we" insisted on personal responsibility, and as examples, listed "what we 'believed'", but every "belief" was completely opposite to "personal responsibility".
How about we deal with that, instead of looking behind us while you - again - swap the goblets?
"annihilated the current population"
Many would argue that we have done and are doing just that in Iraq. I believe a link was put up in a recent post regarding this fact.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071111/FEATURES15/71109001
We have done horrible things there and it wasn't all in defense of tyranny against Saddam. It wasn't all to protect our nation.
Kevin, I know you are a reflective person. That is why I have so much respect for you. I hope and pray that someday you can see this.
Mark, you keep posting the words of a Marine Corporal as though his are the words of Christ, undeniable Gospel.
When a country goes to war, it means that innocent people are going to die. It means that, no matter the intent, our guys and theirs are going to be killing non-combatants. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes accidentally. Given human nature, sometimes with criminal intent.
That's why war sucks.
You have decided that we went to war in Iraq for oil and oil only. That it was done to make rich people richer - only.
There is nothing that I can do or say or link to that will ever change your mind on that - and you will filter everything you read or hear or see through that filter.
I am a reflective person. I understand all (or at least most) of the reasons we invaded Iraq.
You see only one.
That is why I cannot respect you. And it's taken literally months for me to reach this point.
LabRat's right. In your worldview all we have to do to make things right in the world is vote out Emperor Palpatine and vote in King Arthur.
Reflect on that.
Consider the fact that the US, while not having "colonies" only by the strictest definition, certainly has surrogates who would collapse without our involvement.
OK, Markadelphia, aside from Iraq, name one. That's the difference between fact and opinion. The above is an opinion - can you support it with any facts?
""annihilated the current population"
Many would argue that we have done and are doing just that in Iraq. I believe a link was put up in a recent post regarding this fact."
Mark, you flunked third grade English and kindergarten logic, didn't you?
Here is what the word "annihilate" means, from The Free Dictionary:
-----
annihilate v.
1.
a. To destroy completely.
b. To reduce to nonexistence.
c. To defeat decisively; vanquish.
2. To nullify or render void; abolish.
-----
Now, the subject is the notion that we have "annihilated the current population" in Iraq. The allegations are: 1) "we have done that"; and, 2) "we are doing just that", in Iraq. Given the definitions listed above, if 1) is true, then 2) is impossible. In plain English, if "we have done that," then the population of Iraq has been destroyed completely, reduced to nonexistence, vanguished, and rendered void, and so we cannot now be "doing just that".
Mark, are you really this dense? Can you really not think any better than this?
For the gazillionth time, dude, if you're right, then you don't need this bullshit for support, and if you're not, then all the bullshit in the universe won't make you right. Now, will you kindly pull your brain out of your ass and put it to use?
He can't. He's too invested in the belief that the U.S. is the source of evil in the world so long as George Bush and his puppet-handlers are in control of the country.
And all that needs to be done to reverse it all is to elect Obama.
But we're the simpletons.
Right. And as soon as Obama is elected, our "legitimacy" in other countries will be restored.
As Obama [as said he would immediately] orders troops into nominally allied Pakistan.
Dahmn, I haven't seen a beat-down like this since Reagan won his second term. Mphil must either be a masochist or a liberal.
Interesting tangent not explored: M points to the failures in New Orleans and lays the blame at the feet of the Feds.
How, then, does he reconcile that (series of) event(s) with the successful evacuation of more people across a greater area with less lead time? How, does he reconcile the chaos in the Astrodome with the atmosphere in Qualcomm Stadium? How would he apply the phrase "personal responsibility" to the differences and similarities between the two events?
How would KB et. al. address same?
Peet
It's easy, Peet.
When a real doofus fails to exercise personal responsibility, it becomes yours and my personal responsibility to step in and make it all better, which means the Imperial Feddle Gubmint is supposed to step in, spend our taxes, and make everything all better right now, but in New Orleans they didn't make it all better immediately, and so it's all Bush's fault.
But at Qualcomm Stadium, the people who were there and who went there were not doofuses, they exercised personal responsibility for themselves (but I repeat myself), and so things went relatively well, and there wasn't anything to blame Bush for. Except the fires, of course, as he is in charge of lightning strikes, too, right?
"When a real doofus fails to exercise personal responsibility..."
Wow. DJ, I would humbly suggest that you go to the Gulf and say just that to the people displaced by the hurricane. I would be very interested in their responses.
Mark:
Yet again, they were actually displaced by the (Federally funded) levee failure.
Which you keep ignoring is still possible today. Tomorrow. At any point.
Let's get back to what you're dodging, though.
But all of this is handwaving, yes, just like Vizzini! "Behind you!" - to get away from your deceptive strawman argument.
You said that "we" insisted on personal responsibility, and as examples, listed "what we 'believed'", but every "belief" was completely opposite to "personal responsibility".
How about we deal with that, instead of looking behind us while you - again - swap the goblets?
"Wow. DJ, I would humbly suggest that you go to the Gulf and say just that to the people displaced by the hurricane. I would be very interested in their responses."
I don't have to go to the Gulf, because I can ask them right here in Oklahoma City, where they are still living in hotels that are being paid for by my taxes, where they are still complaining that their houses haven't been rebuilt by someone else at the gubmint's expense, and where they are still complaining that it's all Bush's fault.
Ow, my brain hurts.
Amazing how the kid's emotion completely overrides any logic presented to him.
I'm so glad I'm an engineer...
Regards,
NMM1AFan, it gets better. That's not a kid- that's a teacher.
Unix, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the issue of personal responsibility. I think it is probably beyond my capability to make you see what I see everyday.
In the end, until you have had the experience that I have had, you won't understand my definition of responsibility.
I'm so glad I'm an engineer...
Cogitate on the fact that he's a school teacher.
...you won't understand my definition of responsibility.
YOUR definition? I thought "language manipulation" was the great strength of the Right, Mark?
Remember Humpty-Dumpty:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Or Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY):
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
Or their own definitions.
Mark:
No. This is not a matter of opinion.
This is a matter of fact.
You stated cases that were opposite of personal responsibility, and then attributed them to "the party of personal responsibility".
You've since dodged, misdirected, tried to change the subject repeatedly, posted the exact same verbiage on your site, without noting the issues that had been raised.
Now you say "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree". But you're avoiding - as you keep saying you don't, dealing in facts.
We know what you said. We know what you meant by it. Proving it wasn't a mistake, you've posted it elsewhere, and insisted it was a fair analysis.
And when you are proven wrong, factually, you ignore it! You try and say "Well, I guess we'll never know. One of those things. Ah well."
And next week you'll be back, spewing vitrolically at anyone who dares suggest that you're unable to argue factually. And that Liberal talking points aren't mis-(or-dis) factual. (And! You complained about being cast as Vizzini!)
No, Mark, this isn't a opinion. This is fact. You made an argument that was factually dishonest. I've demonstrated why that was. If you were capable of arguing factually, you'd be able to at least admit that. (Or, conceivably, argue against my proof.)
Just as in almost all these debates, your opinion is bigoted, "fluffy", unable to stand up to critical analysis and devoid of real facts. Consisting of only strawman, ad hominem arguments, and appeals to emotion.
This particular discussion and subject does demonstrate that in a very excellent fashion, not as prone to going off-topic. ("Say, fellahs, how about that WTC 7? Or the Cubs?")
I'm not just insulting you, in a tit-for-tat retaliation. I've laid out why what you said was dishonest, gave you chance after chance to admit that it was in error, and extended a laurel and hearty handshake.
You've failed to engage on any factual grounds. Repeatedly. Consistantly.
Failed. F---.
When your students leave answers blank on the tests you give them, do you "agree to disagree?"
"In the end, until you have had the experience that I have had, you won't understand my definition of responsibility."
Mark, that's the funniest thing I've read in a YEAR.
You insist on your own definition of a word after complaining that others manipulate language. Goddamn, man, does your hypocrisy have any bounds at all?
"When your students leave answers blank on the tests you give them, do you 'agree to disagree?'"
Indeed, when your students respond to their errors on tests by trying to redefine their words such that their errors weren't errors after all, do you let them get away with it?
Cogitate on the fact that he's a school teacher.
Why am I not surprised. In the least.
Precisely the reason my son was pulled out of "public school" (i.e. bitches in thrall to the teachers union). There once was a person under the Yahoo handle "cayeres209" that claimed to be a teacher-cum-administrator, and advocate for gun prohibition.
Oh, Mark - you still looking for one of those countries in our empire that would fail without our support/control? Remember, that was an effort to find a fact that would support your opinion.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>