General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2147750

    Four Years later

    Locked

    by protiusx ·

    I am depressed. Here we are four years after I wrote the ?Why I am voting for George W. Bush? post and I am forced to consider one of three liberal candidates. Well, I suppose as soon as Hillary finishes her court imposed third recount of all the primary votes (a favorite Democrat tactic to steal elections) and is finally defeated by Obama my choices will be even more constricted to one of two liberal candidates.

    On the one hand I have an affable, uncharismatic John McCain (who every Republican I talk to asks how he got in?) who responds to his peers as they purpose tax cuts that it would favor the rich. Yeah. He?s a conservative. Not. He speaks like a liberal (i.e. his diatribe pandering to the liberals of the Left Coast about how global warming has now become a matter of national security) and acts like a liberal (his voting record alone speaks for itself). What is the old saying ?If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck??

    On the other hand we have very charismatic, dynamic Barrack Obama (who is loved by millions of Democrats, moderates and left leaning Republicans alike) who talks about ?its time for a change? but clings tenaciously to the leftist ideology of wealth redistribution, socialized medicine and doing away with national autonomy and replacing it with global statehood.

    What ever happened to the Reagan revolution? What ever happened to less government is better? What ever happened to term limits, a flat tax and national pride and unity? What ever happened to Teddy Roosevelt?s idea of American idealism (one country, one language, and ONE allegiance)?

    For the United States of America to continue on we must focus on borders, language and culture. If not then all is already lost and we may as well reach for our solient green.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2564575

      Not quite true.

      by rfink ·

      In reply to Four Years later

      “… my choices will be even more constricted to one of two liberal candidates.”

      Not true, vote your principles even if that means 3rd party. If enough people vote 3rd party then it will make a difference.

      I have three thoughts on the matter:

      1. Voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil.
      2. With over 100 million votes for president my vote is a fart in a hurricane, so it really doesn’t matter.
      3. If my vote loses, so what? At least I didn’t support the corrupt two party system that we have in this country.

      Edited: formatting

      • #2564559

        not going will lesser enables greater?

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Not quite true.

        I want to vote 3rd party because Obama will destroy this country, and McCain will do the same, just slower.

        Will it ever do any good? Third parties have been around forever, but the big two work together to make sure that they are the only game in town. The deck is stacked.

        • #2564534

          Nobody can destroy this country, the current administration proved that

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to not going will lesser enables greater?

          🙂

        • #2564497

          It looks to me…

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to not going will lesser enables greater?

          as though voting 3rd party no matter what is going to be the only way to grab the attention of the existing, corrupt primary parties. Until enough of us vote 3rd in every single election to give the 3rd party candidate a significant (15 – 25?) percent of the vote on a regular basis, those @ssholes in power are not going to pay a bit of attention to those of us who keep this nation [barely] afloat.

          Still looking for that purple polka dotted hermaphrodite! 😀

        • #2564474

          The deck might be stacked

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to not going will lesser enables greater?

          So you choose to play with that stacked deck or not play at all. I’ll choose the former.

          On the downsides of a two party system, it might not be perfect, but it’s better than dozens of faction-parties. Maybe you’d prefer the European model? Look at the European political parties – lots of smaller and factional parties. The only difference is that they form political alliances after they get elected, and with our two-party system it’s done before.

        • #2564442

          What I am tired of

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The deck might be stacked

          is that neither major party speak for me anymore….

          one is close sometimes, and the other is just insane.

        • #2564275

          What I am tired of

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What I am tired of

          Is that politicians (of any party) presume to speak for me.

          Too many people have been trained to believe that government’s purpose is to manage their lives. As such, too many people are afraid to manage their own. In their quest for power, politicians keep dishing out some reason for people to fear something or other, and people keep handing over their freedoms in exchange for a little security – perceived security, that is, because most people would be better off by NOT relying on government.

          How insulting is it to be seen in a way that presumes you can’t manage your own life? And how presumptuous is it for one person to suggest as much of another? Sorry, jd, you simply cannot manage your own life. You’re too weak, too uneducated, too whatever; but vote for me, and I’ll make everything okay. (I know, jd, that you aren’t among those who buy into that notion.)

          How refreshing would it be for a politician (of any party) to proclaim that people (like you and me) are best suited to manage their own lives?

          [i]If I am elected, I will do everything in my power to ensure that government will not interfere in your life, will not presume to know better than you how to manage your life, and will protect your inherent right to self-determination.[/i]

          That’s what I’d say – and that’s why I’d never get elected.

        • #2563553

          Bingo!

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to What I am tired of

          The implication that we are all just needy little mindless sheep to be herded hither and yon as the political need arises is about as arrogantly insulting as it gets.

          Unfortunately, there are a few of those out there, and as long as the government ‘takes care of them’, and the media keeps spitting out its call to victimhood, and they keep listening and taking ‘the easy way’, they will stay that way.

          etu

      • #2564511

        But there’s really THREE evils

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Not quite true.

        Or, as I’d prefer to say, three bad choices: Vote for the candidate you want the least (in my case, a Democrat); vote for a candidate you don’t really care for (in my case, the Republican McCain); or vote for the candidate that you might like, but one who simply cannot win under any circumstances (Libertarian, Bob Barr, for instance) AND, by doing so, will help the one you want the least.

        When faced with two or three (or more) bad choices, logic might dictate that one makes the choice that hurts the least. There’s nothing evil about making the best bad choice.

        Edit:

        John McCain, by the way, had to make a choice between two bad options in 1967: crash with his plane and die, or bail out and maybe die or be captured. It’s not the lesser of two evils, but rather the best of two bad choices.

        • #2564482

          “There’s nothing evil about making the best bad choice”

          by the scummy one ·

          In reply to But there’s really THREE evils

          Except the fact that while this continues, things DONT change!
          choose someone that you would like to see win whether or not they are in a ‘winning position’.
          In my case, Ron Paul, if he is on the ballot, he gets my vote. I do not delude myself into thinking that he has a good chance of winning anything, however many of his ideals seem to appeal to me.

          There are other parts that I do not agree with, but overall I think he is the best choice.

          How can we bring about change if we all just flock to the most likely to win (told to us by small surveys constantly and news reporters) and use the excuse that ‘its better than ….’

        • #2564468

          You can hope to be taller. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “There’s nothing evil about making the best bad choice”

          ….. but hope will get you nothing. We’ve had a two-party system in the United States since its conception. Hope all you’d like, but it’s simply not gonna’ change.

          I’m sure you’ve heard the saying, it is what it is. And what it is, is a two-party system.

          Never in American history has a third-party become a dominant force. Change has come from within one of the two major parties, perhaps becoming a splinter party. In my preferred case, a libertarian movement would have a better chance of taking hold as a splinter group from the Republican Party instead of a grass-roots effort supporting the current Libertarian Party.

          The current Libertarian Party, just like the current Green Party, is simply too extreme.

        • #2564462

          I would like to think

          by w2ktechman ·

          In reply to You can hope to be taller. . . . .

          that if enough votes went to 3rd party that we could at least send a message to the other parties. But you are likely right that it is just hope 🙁

          And I would agree that other parties seem to be a bit too extreme (sigh). Too bad too, maybe if they would tone it down a bit, more votes would go their way…

        • #2564459

          tone it down, more votes…

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to I would like to think

          I’ve been preaching my get their attention message (vote 3rd party) since a 3rd party made it to the ballots. The biggest response I get is “Are you nuts? Why would I vote for a loser?”

          Doesn’t matter how it’s explained, the whole mindset revolves around voting for winners – who cares if they’re good people or not as long as they win.

          We appear to get what we deserve. Idiots.

        • #2564458

          yeah, there are too many sheeple

          by w2ktechman ·

          In reply to tone it down, more votes…

          out there that listen to only some reporter or a poll of what others think.

    • #2564546

      So what do you suggest?

      by robo_dev ·

      In reply to Four Years later

      Reagan would not get elected if he ran today. Reagan granted amnesty to three million illegal aliens in 1986.

      Government spending rose almost 30% per capita under Reagan and the national deficit balooned from 700 billion to over three trillion during his term in office.

      Who was the last Republican to actually reduce the national Debt?

      Richard Nixon.

      Which three presidents reduced the national debt the most since 1960?

      Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton.

      Since 1960, which administration had the LEAST increase in federal spending?

      Clinton: a 4.3% increase (second term).

      Clinton also increased federal spending by only 6.9%, his first term, which is the second lowest amount since 1960.

      Bush Sr. came in third with a 7.8% increase over four years.

      The Reagan revolution, and the more recent Republicans have always told us the tall-tale of less government and less government spending, but exactly the opposite is true.

      Reaganites such as Friedman use ‘fuzzy math’ by excluding defense spending from the numbers….as if defense spending is not real money.

      From a fiscal standpoint, like it or not, Bill Clinton was way more conservative than any Republican since 1960, and controlled the growth of government the most as well.

      Now I’m not saying his wife can do the same, I’m just trying to separate the spin from the facts.

    • #2564521

      Anyone would think you don’t like to vote! …

      by older mycroft ·

      In reply to Four Years later

      Which is just another namby-pamby way to make a lot of noise but actually still sit on the fence. No time for folk like that, none at all.

      “[i]For the United States of America to continue on we must focus on borders, [b]language[/b] and culture. If not then all is already lost and we may as well reach for our [u]solient[/u] green.[/i]”

      Was the mis-spelling of Mr Obama’s christian name deliberate? If so, what is meant by comparing him to a military building?

      And if you are going to finish with a punchy ending, try to spell it correctly as the word you were having difficulty finding was SOYLENT.

      I must ask however, how do you expect to focus on culture when you are also concerned about borders ?

      • #2570466

        Thanks for the Spelling Lesson

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to Anyone would think you don’t like to vote! …

        Charlton Hesston was great in that movie (May he rest in peace). As far as B. Hussein’s middle name that was the mistake of my spell checker. Blame Microsoft for that one.

        The culture I refer to is the AMERICAN culture. In the immortal words of a great American President:

        “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
        – Teddy Roosevelt 1907

        In my opinion we need to hearken to the values that made this country great to begin with. We need to focus on the US and that means:

        Borders: Immediately send our troops, National Guard, and Homeland Security officers to both borders to stop the illegal immigration of unknown persons across both borders. We should ENFORCE the laws of this nation and arrest and deport EVERY single illegal immigrant within the US (this includes their children who were born here) We?ve had migratory worker programs for over 50 years so don?t give me that mess about crippling our agriculture.

        Language: English ONLY. Plain and simple. If you want to become an American YOU MUST LEARN THE LANGUAGE! I wouldn?t go to France (ever) and expect them to speak English.

        Culture: American culture which is admittedly a melting pot of other old world cultures but has over the last few hundred years evolved into something quit unique. Baseball, Football apple pie and Chevrolet and all that. What it is to be an American. The belief that each American regardless of race or color or religious affiliation can become what ever he or she wishes if only they work hard enough and smart enough.

    • #2564517

      I’d like a Republican Party with traditional Libertarian Values

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Four Years later

      In order to achieve that, however, we have quite a few forces to defeat and overcome – the liberal-socialist Democratic Party and their willing accomplices in the dominant liberal media, to name two. Throw into the mix the American school system – especially the institutions of higher learning, but also the lower grades who seem to indoctrinate our kids towards leftist ideas; and a nation that once placed the principle of individual liberty and freedom above all else, finds itself on the threshold of being defeated by our historic ideological enemy – socialism.

      Nikita Kruschev was right when he predicted that the United States would defeat itself from within. In this case, the defeated nation, or one on the road to defeat, is the historic ideological one envisioned by our founders. And it was another political philosopher of the 18th century (I don’t recall which one, but not necessarily an American founder), who was also correct when he noted that a democracy is doomed to fail when the people realize they can vote themselves favors from the public coffers. We have people voting themselves the fruits of another’s labor, and we have politicians willing to pay the bribe with other people’s money. Too many people have been led to believe that too many things should be a right. Health care, for instance, is often touted as a basic human right! How can anything be a right if it comes at the expense of another? Too many people feel entitled to have that which belongs to another. Too many people are willing to give up liberty in exchange for a little security.

      John Kennedy said it best when he said to ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country. Too many people are not only asking, but demanding that their country take care of their every need. The purpose of government (in America) isn’t to manage the lives of people, but rather ensure that nothing gets in the way of the right of the people to manage themselves. The instrument that was meant to protect that right is now, at worst, the primary perpetrator, or at best, the biggest obstacle. Like a poison gas, socialism is creeping into the nooks and crannies of every walk of American life. It took over the Democratic Party in the 1930s, and it’s now taking over the Republican Party.

      We started our downhill slide in 1932 when, out of a sense of fear, people gave up individualism in favor of the presumed security of socialism. We had somewhat of a reprieve in the late 1940s, throughout the 1950s, and into the early 1960s, but from Republican Barry Goldwater’s last libertarian-based stand in 1964, we’ve been sliding more and more into the quagmire of socialism. Some might say that there was another reprieve under President Reagan, but deficit spending on even more social programs exploded under his administration.

      The Republican Revolution in the 1990s, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, Phil Graham, and Fred Thompson had a lot of promise, but for some reason it fizzled during the Clinton presidency. None of those three, by the way, serve in Congress any longer. Why is that? Who are the dominant libertarian thinkers of today? Who’s carrying that banner in Congress? You could certainly name some, but you’ll also be naming the very people who are continually demonized by the forces I mentioned earlier. The sparse and incomplete coverage of the death of William F. Buckley, who some call the father of modern conservatism, shows how little attention the dominant media will give to a great conservative/libertarian thinker.

      I made a huge mistake in 1992 by supporting the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot. I only helped the party and the candidate I actually preferred the least. I’ll not make that mistake again. It’s tempting to vote the Libertarian ticket, especially since Bob Barr is running as that party’s presidential candidate, but that will only help Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton, if she manages to pull that rabbit out of her hat) – the least desirable of all the candidates.

      The Republican Party needs to be changed from within. It needs to find its historic values as defined by the likes of Barry Goldwater. We need to start emphasizing the underlying American principles, and not get bogged down in the nuances of any particular issue. We need to educate and enlighten people about the merits of taking full and total self-responsibility over the destructiveness of government dependency.

      Which step will take us further away from that goal? That’s the one not to take. From my perspective, that tells me to throw my support behind John McCain. He’s no Barry Goldwater, but he’s a lot closer than any Democrat. I don’t know the definitive answer, but I’m not throwing in the towel – and I’ll never vote for a Democrat, nor will I ever vote for a third-party candidate which will, in reality, only help the Democrat.

      We’re all but two voices, but our message must be heard. And it simply cannot be heard if we suddenly find ourselves out in the political cold. If a Democrat wins the White House, grab your jacket.

      • #2564507

        Ahh a Goldwater Republican….

        by robo_dev ·

        In reply to I’d like a Republican Party with traditional Libertarian Values

        First of all, let me compliment you on an eloquent essay which recaps the rise and fall of the Republican party.

        But, like it or not, I’d say you had better choose a warm jacket now, rather than after November.

        The fundamental issue is that Republicans have shown us that they can win elections, but then have not shown that they can be trusted to govern.

        I fail to see that the educational system has some evil hidden agenda to turn students into proud socialists, in fact quite the opposite.

        Those who succeed in this system, as flawed as it is, will become the least dependent on the government and take the most personal responsibility.

        • #2564488

          Did I say that the educational system has some evil hidden agenda?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Ahh a Goldwater Republican….

          It’s not a concerted agenda, but more of a culture. There’s a difference. Why do you want to exaggerate or misrepresent what I said?

          Do a search yourself, and you tell me. In percentages, how many educators are registered Democrats; how many are registered Republicans; and how many are unaffiliated? There’s simply no denying that there’s a liberal culture in our schools, especially at the institutions of higher learning.

          The answer, by the way, will be that upwards of 90 percent are registered Democrats. But of course, you might suggest, they can keep their political views out of the classroom. Yea, right.

          You said that those who succeed …… will become least dependent on government. I don’t disagree. However, social programs such as social security, even makes dependents of those who have succeeded. And it keeps dependent those who have not necessarily succeeded – in fact, it leads them down the road of dependency instead of self sufficiency. The war on poverty, as another example, doesn’t rescue people from poverty, but rather dooms them to a life of it.

          Our government takes two trillion dollars a year from the people who earned those dollars, and it gives them to other people who did not earn them – in some cases, back to the person who did earned them, but only fewer of them. The purpose of government is not to manage people’s lives, but rather ensure a society in which they can manage their own. Our government, itself, is the biggest obstacle in making that happen.

          Edit: By the way, thank you for the compliment!

        • #2563492

          Indoctrination would not be effective without an agenda

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to Did I say that the educational system has some evil hidden agenda?

          I would argue that a ‘culture’ might nourish and encourage thoughts and ideas that are already there, but indoctrination implies an ‘agenda’, as a menu of specifically leftist ideas would need to be promoted.

          you stated:
          “the lower grades who seem to indoctrinate our kids towards leftist ideas”

          Personally, I have not seen any such influence, whether by culture or agenda in the lower grades….pretty much reading, writing and ‘rithmatic.

          I don’t see a dependency on the government by the successful; the opposite is true, the most wealthy individuals evade taxes with a dilligence, and our elected officials are pretty much ‘owned’ by them from a campaign finance perspective.

          I applaud your stance on fiscal conservatism, personal repsonsibility, and independence from the government.

          But consider this: since 1960, what president limited the growth of federal spending to less than 4% per year, and actually reduced the federal deficit throughout two terms…I’ll give you a hint, he was not a Republican and he was one of those liberals you do not seem to cherish.

          Since 1960, it’s been the Republicans who have been spending the money like drunken sailors and increasing federal spending and the federal defict at an alarming rate.

        • #2563312

          There’s a reason for that

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Indoctrination would not be effective without an agenda

          [i]Since 1960, it’s been the Republicans who have been spending the money like drunken sailors and increasing federal spending and the federal defict at an alarming rate.[/i]

          Republicans don’t believe in taxes, but most don’t have the political ‘nads to cut expenditures the way they should be. Democrats believe we should be taxed so they have money for expenditures. I’m not sure which is worse: “tax and spend” or “no new taxes.” Neither is responsible governance, although the Dems at least pretend to try to raise the money to cover expenditures.

          Edit: clarify

        • #2569323

          Clinton wasn’t that great!

          by stowers ·

          In reply to Indoctrination would not be effective without an agenda

          Yes – Clinton reduced spending – by gutting the military. Reagan increased spending by building the military – and winning the cold war in the process. Bush II isn’t a great president, but he was handed a bad military hand by Clinton.

          Clinton under-responded to Al-Qaeda too often. 9/11 was partly his fault because he didn’t take Al-Qaeda seriously enough. It wasn’t because the US deserved it.

          I am not wild about McCain – but he has one positive. We know he will be a one-term president – he is too old to do more.

        • #2568998

          Gutted the military?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Clinton wasn’t that great!

          Define “gutted.”

        • #2569524

          Gutted means …

          by stowers ·

          In reply to Gutted the military?

          Dramatically reduced the size of the military, closing bases all over the US, and reducing spending on equipment in the name of ‘peace dividends’. A peace that was achieved by Reagan building up the military…

          I guess my understanding of the constitution is flawed because I thought the ONLY job our federal government has is defense. And butting out of our business!! My taxes are supposed to be defending this country – not feeding the poor, propping up failing industries or sponsoring corrupt governments on the other side of the world.

          I guess I am leaning more and more toward Libertarian ideals?

          Hmmmm. But retirement is looming – maybe that Social Security is a good idea after all…!

        • #2463082

          Ah!

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Gutted the military?

          You mean the “gutting” that started in 1988, the first year of the Bush 41 administration? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm

          Actually, I didn’t notice much “gutting” going on at the time. Some bases were closed and people were given the choice of early outs on a couple of occasions, but for the most part, the units I was assigned to at the time were relatively unaffected.

          I agree with much you say. I have been libertarian for years, seeing the difference between Republican and Democrat only in the methods they use to access my wallet.

          And I guess we’re all hypocrites when it comes to [u]getting[/u] money, aren’t we? 🙂

      • #2968793

        Who said?

        by vaughnhathaway ·

        In reply to I’d like a Republican Party with traditional Libertarian Values

        It was de Tocqueville who said that a democracy is doomed to fail when the people realize they can vote themselves favors from the public coffers.

        • #2970866

          Thank you. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Who said?

          …..for the reference.

          However, more important than who predicted it, is the reality it predicted.

          How can anyone possibly justify one citizen voting him/her self the fruits of another’s labor?

          I dare someone to attempt to answer that question.

        • #2970850

          Is this not precisely what the capitalist does?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Thank you. . . . .

          .

        • #2970843

          No it’s not

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Is this not precisely what the capitalist does?

          Why would you suggest such a thing?

        • #2970842

          P.S.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Is this not precisely what the capitalist does?

          Please don’t answer a question with a question. Answer first, then ask.

        • #2970841

          P.P.S.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Is this not precisely what the capitalist does?

          How ’bout that? Not only did I read your message, but I replied.

        • #2969933

          Yes, you did respond; and, politely. For that I thank you.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Is this not precisely what the capitalist does?

          I asked the question owing to the fact that the capitalist seeks to maximize value for the owners of the business, not for all whose efforts contribute to that value.

          Is this not a taking for “him/her self the fruits of another’s labor?”

          Have you ever seen a Balance Sheet whose Liabilities included “Sweat Equity?”

        • #2977096

          yes, and…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Yes, you did respond; and, politely. For that I thank you.

          [i]the capitalist seeks to maximize value for the owners of the business, not for all whose efforts contribute to that value.[/i]

          those “whose efforts contribute to that value” are themselves seeking to maximize value for their own business (meaning themselves).

          [i]Is this not a taking for “him/her self the fruits of another’s labor?”[/i]

          No, it’s [u]paying for[/u] the fruits of another’s labor. It’s a trade. You give me something of yours (time), and I’ll give you something of mine (money). This exchange occurs with the consent of both parties. That’s not at all like voting to take something that belongs to someone else away from them, without consent, and without fairly compensating them for it. That’s “eminent domain” run amuck!

          [i]Have you ever seen a Balance Sheet whose Liabilities included “Sweat Equity?” [/i]

          Most any contractor who has pending jobs for which he has already received payment would have one. Might not be listed that way though 🙂

        • #2977095

          Lawyers retainer

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to yes, and…

          would be one.

        • #2977033
        • #2975487

          Neither instance mentioned is equity of any type.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to yes, and…

          Rather, it is a simple Accounts Payable, one which, regardless of if & when paid, has no effect on the how many owners there are, or what share of the business each owns.

        • #2977106

          No more to say?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Is this not precisely what the capitalist does?

          .

        • #2977093

          Again, no. And again, you’re not answering my question

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Is this not precisely what the capitalist does?

          For reference:

          Maxwell’s Question:

          [i]How can anyone possibly justify one citizen voting him/her self the fruits of another’s labor?[/i]

          Deepsand’s Answer:

          [i]Is this not precisely what the capitalist does? I asked the question owing to the fact that the capitalist seeks to maximize value for the owners of the business, not for all whose efforts contribute to that value. Is this not a taking for “him/her self the fruits of another’s labor?” Have you ever seen a Balance Sheet whose Liabilities included “Sweat Equity?”[/i]

          You evade the keys to my question – citizen voting him/her self.

          Working in a capitalist system is one thing, while voting in a political system is another. In a capitalist system, the fruits of one’s labor are earned and negotiated, while in the political system, they’re taken.

          Would you like to try again?

        • #2977034

          To all, re. “the fruits of one’s labor are … negotiated”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Is this not precisely what the capitalist does?

          To the contrary, 1) nearly all employment arises, not from negotiated contracts, but from contracts of adhesion, and generally implicit ones at best; and, 2) such rarely allow for a true sharing of the total economic value added.

          Be it political power or economic power, those who have it use it to their advantage, frequently to the detriment of those responsible for their attaining such power.

        • #2977032

          Come on, deepsand – just once. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to To all, re. “the fruits of one’s labor are … negotiated”

          …..can you answer a direct and simple question with a direct and simple answer? (Please, don’t say it’s not that simple.)

          If not ….. okay, I tried.

        • #2975483

          Your question, as presented, was [i]rhetorical[/i].

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Come on, deepsand – just once. . . . .

          I do not believe that you expected anyone to assert that that which you decry is either non-extant or justifiable.

          And, I took note of the fact that, as is oft your want, you choose to narrowly address that which exists in a much wider scope than that framed by you.

          Therefore, given that your question was not intended to draw direct rebuttal, but did admit of being unnecessarily restrictive in nature, I chose to represent it in the greater context it deserved, that of common avarice abetted by power.

          Surely you can both see and understand that that which you rail against is far from being confined to the activities of “politicians,” but is in fact most common.

        • #2975478

          Give him hell.

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Come on, deepsand – just once. . . . .

          He sure as fluck pays me no mind.

        • #2975420

          The man behind the curtain, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Come on, deepsand – just once. . . . .

          max would have us ignore.

        • #2976990

          Deepsand ? I would like to thank you. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to To all, re. “the fruits of one’s labor are … negotiated”

          ?..for answering a direct question with a direct answer. I?d like to thank you for being very clear and direct instead of aloof and evasive. I?d like to thank you for being genuine, instead of disingenuous. I?d like to thank you for being real and sincere, instead of playing games.

          Of course, I?m thanking you in advance since you?ve not been these things in hindsight.

          Last chance, deepsand.

        • #2976988

          I think

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Deepsand ? I would like to thank you. . . . .

          That M. Deepsand will be shorter with you than you are with him and that I have been with you. It is one of your vulnerabilities; a backdoor, if you wish; wide open.

          It is a smirch on what otherwise may be called clean.

        • #2976986

          santee. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Deepsand ? I would like to thank you. . . . .

          …..birds of a feather…..

        • #2976985

          P.S.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Deepsand ? I would like to thank you. . . . .

          If a person can’t be clear and answer a direct question………

        • #2976978

          Were you

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Deepsand ? I would like to thank you. . . . .

          The chatelaine of clarity and the right line, I would pay serious attention.

          You are not. I don’t.

          Neither is Deepsand. The contrast between he and I is stark. That’s why I pay him heed, suggesting you do likewise. I pay because he stops short of fullness of self. It is a caution I recognize. The other half of every equation here.

          ed: extra “the”

        • #2975479
        • #2976984

          So what?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to To all, re. “the fruits of one’s labor are … negotiated”

          [i]Be it political power or economic power, those who have it use it to their advantage, frequently to the detriment of those responsible for their attaining such power.[/i]

          It’s the law of the jungle… just a different jungle. The strong thrive, the weak don’t, and those in-between negotiate or leverage. Existence does not obligate another.

        • #2975480

          A frank & telling admission, one which can be used to …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So what?

          … justify any and all inhumanities.

          Carried to the extreme, mankind will most assuredly perish.

    • #2564515

      I’d still vote for Lenny & Larry …

      by older mycroft ·

      In reply to Four Years later

      I’ve still got my button badge! 🙂

    • #2570455

      I’ve got a spare room

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Four Years later

      If you ever need to pull an Anne Frank.

    • #2968788

      The Reagan “revolution?’

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to Four Years later

      Precisely [i]what[/i] was “revolutionary” about Reagan?

      As for the United [b]States[/b] of America, the key word there is bolded. Ours is a federation of Sovereign States, not a nation-state comprised of 50 provinces.

      As for “borders, language and culture,” you clearly lack a full understanding of history and borderlands. Not only do you desire that which was never intended by our Founders, but you seek that which is unattainable.

    • #2970868

      Wow – how did this get. . . . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Four Years later

      …..resurrected?

      Not that I mind; it’s a great topic and discussion.

Viewing 7 reply threads