How to stop government, a NY Times op-ed piece

[Craig234]

if you wont even acknowledge republican fault then im running away from this conversation. liberals are idiotic pussies, and republicans are crazy assholes. i really have no desire at all to go any deeper into it then that. it would be like trying to explain how a black hole works.

No offense, but 'they're a bunch of assholes' isn't really an argument to discuss - the problem is, if it's not more well based than that, you can get your opinions pretty wrong.

Every group from anarchists on can run around saying the rest are assholes, but that doesn't do much for any of them learning if they might be wrong.

 

[wirednuts]

No offense, but 'they're a bunch of assholes' isn't really an argument to discuss - the problem is, if it's not more well based than that, you can get your opinions pretty wrong.

Every group from anarchists on can run around saying the rest are assholes, but that doesn't do much for any of them learning if they might be wrong.

you were ok with me calling liberals idiots, you need to be ok with me calling republicans assholes. theyre all the same in their different ways.

 

[Craig234]

you were ok with me calling liberals idiots, you need to be ok with me calling republicans assholes. theyre all the same in their different ways.

Maybe you don't know me much, but I think a lot of Republicans are, and their agenda is; some liberals are 'idiots', and I mostly agree with their agenda (it's not).

But I don't think that does about any good at all in terms of discussing the issue.

And your claim they're 'all the same in their different ways' just makes no sense to me. It's like saying all food tastes the same in their different ways. Huh?

Have a good day anyway.

 

[wirednuts]

Maybe you don't know me much, but I think a lot of Republicans are, and their agenda is; some liberals are 'idiots', and I mostly agree with their agenda (it's not).

But I don't think that does about any good at all in terms of discussing the issue.

And your claim they're 'all the same in their different ways' just makes no sense to me. It's like saying all food tastes the same in their different ways. Huh?

a burger king burger and one from wendys tastes the same to me, just a little different in their own ways. it makes perfect sense. their both shitty burgers in the end.

if you go by the defnitions of liberal and conservative, then im republican. if you go by reality of what is going on in the world, i want nothing to do with the republican party at any cost- even if that means supporting retard democrats. at least dems pursue equality, thats a fact that you cannot say about republicans- and in our feast or famine economy today, we need any equality we can get.

 

[Craig234]

a burger king burger and one from wendys tastes the same to me, just a little different in their own ways. it makes perfect sense. their both shitty burgers in the end.

if you go by the defnitions of liberal and conservative, then im republican. if you go by reality of what is going on in the world, i want nothing to do with the republican party at any cost- even if that means supporting retard democrats. at least dems pursue equality, thats a fact that you cannot say about republicans- and in our feast or famine economy today, we need any equality we can get.

Well, I agree with the specific you bring up about Democrats versus Republicans.

Now some conservatives get terrified by the word equality, but nearly always wrongly, a straw man - they think it means 'everyone gets exactly the same communism'.

Not at all - it just means keeping our democracy, everyone having a safety net, more equal opportunity, and less extremes in inequality.

The Walton kids have as much money as 130 million Americans - that's a bit much.

If a fraction of the money they're keeping now were taken from them and invested in the country, it could do a lot of good. Balance, not plutocracy, not communism.

The middle class would have far, far more if the rich hadn't made huge changes.

I'd offer to discuss your other issues about why you prefer Republicans to see if they're more what Republicans really stand for or not, but don't want to derail this thread. PM?

 

[wirednuts]

Well, I agree with the specific you bring up about Democrats versus Republicans.

Now some conservatives get terrified by the word equality, but nearly always wrongly, a straw man - they think it means 'everyone gets exactly the same communism'.

Not at all - it just means keeping our democracy, everyone having a safety net, more equal opportunity, and less extremes in inequality.

The Walton kids have as much money as 130 million Americans - that's a bit much.

If a fraction of the money they're keeping now were taken from them and invested in the country, it could do a lot of good. Balance, not plutocracy, not communism.

The middle class would have far, far more if the rich hadn't made huge changes.

I'd offer to discuss your other issues about why you prefer Republicans to see if they're more what Republicans really stand for or not, but don't want to derail this thread. PM?

i dont like talking in pm's, id rather be in a public forum where others can chime in.. but i think were on the same page. i think it happens a lot, too, where people confuse what republicans are supposed to be with what they actually are. ive actually been convincing my grandma of it... shes die hard republican but last few years shes starting to see that most of them are neo nazi's... so shes starting to be like me where i just hate them all, on both sides.

dems couldnt make a fish swim in water, and republicans would try to have sex with the fish. really, i cant stand either side. theres a few that seem legit though. Gavin Newsom comes to mind... hes the first republican i have believed in a long time. he seems to speak what he means.

 

[Craig234]

i dont like talking in pm's, id rather be in a public forum where others can chime in.. but i think were on the same page. i think it happens a lot, too, where people confuse what republicans are supposed to be with what they actually are. ive actually been convincing my grandma of it... shes die hard republican but last few years shes starting to see that most of them are neo nazi's... so shes starting to be like me where i just hate them all, on both sides.

dems couldnt make a fish swim in water, and republicans would try to have sex with the fish. really, i cant stand either side. theres a few that seem legit though. Gavin Newsom comes to mind... hes the first republican i have believed in a long time. he seems to speak what he means.

Gavin is my Lieutenant Governor - previously mayor of SF - and a Democrat FYI. I like him.

He used to come off as a shallow pretty boy, but now I see him very differently.

 

[wirednuts]

huh, i swore he was republican. whatever, it never matters to me. i look at individuals- i wish everyone did.

gavin said he was getting sort of lost in his old ways... the ways he was raised by all the other politicians. he said he realized that today is a different age, and trying to be someone youre not just to please the masses that dont exist is just stupid. so he started speaking his mind, and doing it on social networks too. look at him now, his popularity has skyrocketed.

i just like how he always has a voice of reason when he debates with people. i wouldnt be surprised if 20 years from now he makes a run at presidency. maybe sooner! hes small fish guy though, its unlikely they would nominate him.

 

[Craig234]

huh, i swore he was republican. whatever, it never matters to me. i look at individuals- i wish everyone did.

gavin said he was getting sort of lost in his old ways... the ways he was raised by all the other politicians. he said he realized that today is a different age, and trying to be someone youre not just to please the masses that dont exist is just stupid. so he started speaking his mind, and doing it on social networks too. look at him now, his popularity has skyrocketed.

i just like how he always has a voice of reason when he debates with people. i wouldnt be surprised if 20 years from now he makes a run at presidency. maybe sooner! hes small fish guy though, its unlikely they would nominate him.

Actually, I suggest looking at party pretty heavily - I know we disagree, but I think that party usuallcy, but not always, has more influence than the person, unfortunately.

Gavin is well positioned to run for governor in a little while - if he gets that he could more easily be a national figure.

I'm actually a bit surprised how well former SF mayors are doing in state elections, the state is usually less liberal than that - though Feinstein is no liberal.

 

[chucky2]

Good argument.

I thought it the perfect response to your soapbox strawman. What more would need to be said?

 

[fskimospy]

It's basically an attempt at nullification. They don't like certain laws and agencies, but they lost during the normal electoral and legislative process. They are now trying to disable the agencies after the fact by refusing to staff them.

The problem here is mostly that this is asymmetrical warfare. The Republican Party has a vested interest in preventing the smooth operation of government, so they don't really care when agencies function poorly due to this. When a Republican administration is in power the Republicans in the Senate will of course mysteriously stop refusing to staff agencies, but the Democrats won't respond in kind because they want the government to function well.

So basically the Republicans can gum up the works when they are out of power without worrying that the Democrats will return fire. Sure it's incredibly irresponsible of them, but I sincerely doubt they care.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I thought it the perfect response to your soapbox strawman.

It wasn't. If you think his argument is a straw man, feel free to respond explaining why. If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute, feel free to stay in "read-only mode".

 

[Incorruptible]

A majority has no inherent right to take away the rights of any individual. Ruling other people is a privilege, not a right.

This is one of the reasons why the US was originally a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy. Benjamin Franklin even warned about the dangers of democracy because the majority could force their views and violate the rights of the minority.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Company officer #1: we're in debt! Cut the sales force!

Company officer #2: we did as you said. Sales are down 25%. Debt is up.

Company officer #1: Oh crap, I didn't want that. Restore the sales force, cut manufacturing!

Company officer #2: we did as you said. With less product to sale sales are down 25%. Debt is up.

Company officer #1: Oh crap! I didn't want that. Restore manufacturing, close stores.

Company officer #2: we did as you said. Stores were closed, sales are down 25%. Debt is up.

Company officer #1: Oh crap! I didn't want that. Re-open the stores, cut salaries 25%.

Company officer #2: we did as you said. Workers resigned. Sales are down 25%. Debt is up.

In other news, we're taking out a loan to buy more stores.

Company officer #1: Are you nuts? We're in debt and you're borrowing?

Company officer #2: we did what you opposed - and our sales are up 25%, and we've started paying down debt. And you're fired.

Now, the above just takes the 'balance the budget like a business' approach at face value, when in fact the issues are very different between debt for our government and for a business.

This is why the austerity advocates are long on propaganda and emotion in their arguments appealing to easy to fall for myths, but are against the evidence.

so what happens when your sales don't outpace the rate at which you take on debt?

 

[Jaskalas]

I have mixed views on this. On one hand I fully support the proper function of government and I dislike the need for super majorities just to govern the country. OTOH, the more dysfunction at the federal level, the more pressure there is on state solutions. To support state's rights.

I want nothing more than for power to reside at the state level, closer to the people, and for any federal reach to be voluntarily given instead of compulsorily forced.

So on an issue I view as most critical, this is a means to an end.

 

[Craig234]

I have mixed views on this. On one hand I fully support the proper function of government and I dislike the need for super majorities just to govern the country. OTOH, the more dysfunction at the federal level, the more pressure there is on state solutions. To support state's rights.

I want nothing more than for power to reside at the state level, closer to the people, and for any federal reach to be voluntarily given instead of compulsorily forced.

So on an issue I view as most critical, this is a means to an end.

One thing I'll say is that 'local power' is a piece of marketing for Republicans, but they seem to support it only on issues they don't want the federal government to do.

There are a number of issues Republicans have for federal over state, when it suits their politicla agenga, so that's not an automatice win for them.

 

[Craig234]

so what happens when your sales don't outpace the rate at which you take on debt?

There are limits.

If there weren't we could buy every citizen, well, stuff like Qatar does.

 

[Jaskalas]

One thing I'll say is that 'local power' is a piece of marketing for Republicans, but they seem to support it only on issues they don't want the federal government to do.

There are a number of issues Republicans have for federal over state, when it suits their politicla agenga, so that's not an automatice win for them.

Democrats / media / popular opinion chiefly supports the Neocons who'd wield the power of the federal government. It's a great divide between Republicans and Libertarians, whom you are apt to call radical.

When your choice is Bush or Ron Paul... many Democrats start to think Bush was a fine guy.