| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
 Posted: September 05 2012 at 18:34 |
 Atavachron wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
George W. Bush had desperately poor judgment, and it had disastrous results. True I'm not happy with Obama's pot stance which is incongruous with his other social positions, but to defend W's foreign policy is simply a lost cause. He may have been a good man and maybe even a thoughtful one, but he was not insightful, and that's bad news if you're President. Particularly when you have hawkish advisers giving you equally poorly-perceived information. It was a very bad recipe. |
But Bush isn't running for office, is he? 
|
True and thank goodness, though between Bush and Romney I don't know which I'd prefer as President; a drunken clown or an insensitive bully.
|
I think those are unfair descriptions of either of them.
Bush gave a lot of people what they wanted at the time. Turns out that what people want isn't always what's going to be good for them years down the road. Here's Bush's approval ratings for four years:
The problem lies with voters, who have divided themselves into two ridiculous teams and, were they given a 9th grade Civics test, would likely fail horribly. They demand things, oftentimes get them, and then blame the President for the consequences.
|
|
|
 |
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65513
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 18:45 |
|
Yes they're extremely unfair descriptions, but that's politics I suppose.
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17144
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 18:54 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
I understand the principled act of writing in Paul or of voting for Johnson. I don't want Obama to be reelected though. |
That's how I feel as well. Romney leaves a lot to be desired, but I honestly believe that four years under him would be vastly better than another four years under Obama.
|
And I'm with you two gentlemen. Though I completely understand Rob's irritation with "sports politics", voter's lack of knowledge of issues, and having two choices that do not inspire your vote. I get that.
|
|
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 19:15 |
Finnforest wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
I understand the principled act of writing in Paul or of voting for Johnson. I don't want Obama to be reelected though. |
That's how I feel as well. Romney leaves a lot to be desired, but I honestly believe that four years under him would be vastly better than another four years under Obama.
|
And I'm with you two gentlemen.
Though I completely understand Rob's irritation with "sports politics", voter's lack of knowledge of issues, and having two choices that do not inspire your vote. I get that.
|
We've had a President who has carried out Bush's agenda but on a larger scale, and toss in the AHA.
Romney will do a better job than Obama, but so what? That's like saying I'll do a better job staying sober at the party than my buddy Josh. I can still string together a sentence, but ain't nary one of us drivin home.
|
|
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 19:47 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
I understand the principled act of writing in Paul or of voting for Johnson. I don't want Obama to be reelected though. |
That's how I feel as well. Romney leaves a lot to be desired, but I honestly believe that four years under him would be vastly better than another four years under Obama.
|
You're both fooling yourselves. The Romney administration will continue all of the George W...errr..I mean Obama policies and just suppress the limit government movements within the republican party. Romney is owned by the same people that own Obama and will thus rule the same way (though Romney might get us into WWIII a bit quicker).
Atavachron wrote:
Yes they're extremely unfair descriptions, but that's politics I suppose.
|
That's why I can refer to Obama as a pompous murderer. Well, that, and it's an accurate description.
|
 Time always wins.
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 19:52 |
|
I was gunna say, you hardcore-ers are going to cop out and vote Romney and I of all people will write in Paul or vote Johnson!?!??
Truly the world has gone crazy!
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65513
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 20:08 |
|
The real reason Obama may lose this election is because, as I eluded
earlier, he's done many of the things he said he'd do. In a second
term, he wouldn't really have much big left and not as many political
points with which to do it, nor a significant mandate.
I don't buy the 'its the voters who are confused' argument either.
The voting public may not all be geniuses but they're not sheep. In
fact I find the general voter to be far more pragmatic and apolitical
than me, my friends or anyone in this thread, and I can't help but
think that may be a good thing.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 20:32 |
|
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 20:33 |
Atavachron wrote:
The real reason Obama may lose this election is because, as I eluded
earlier, he's done many of the things he said he'd do. In a second
term, he wouldn't really have much big left and not as many political
points with which to do it, nor a significant mandate.
I don't buy the 'its the voters who are confused' argument either.
The voting public may not all be geniuses but they're not sheep. In
fact I find the general voter to be far more pragmatic and apolitical
than me, my friends or anyone in this thread, and I can't help but
think that may be a good thing.
|
If you eluded, then I probably won't be able to catch you. "Pragmatic" and "apolitical" are dangerous qualities when it comes to things that take a long time to take effect. I was "pragmatic" when I was in college regarding certain financial decisions, and while they seemed like good ideas then, because they benefited me then, I know now that should not have chose them.
Edited by Epignosis - September 05 2012 at 20:43
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65513
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 20:37 |
Epignosis wrote:
"Pragmatic" and "apolitical" are dangerous qualities. |
If you have firm political principles they are.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 20:42 |
Atavachron wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
"Pragmatic" and "apolitical" are dangerous qualities. |
If you have firm political principles they are.
|
I edited my post above to clarify.
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65513
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 20:47 |
|
Well the personal economic comparison is a bit vague in this context, but that aside; you seem to be saying you don't like the fact that voters are divided so clearly by party lines and at the same time you don't like it when voters are less political and more practical. Which is it?
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17144
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 20:50 |
|
|
|
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 20:55 |
Atavachron wrote:
Well the personal economic comparison is a bit vague in this context, but that aside; you seem to be saying you don't like the fact that voters are divided so clearly by party lines and at the same time you don't like it when voters are less political and more practical. Which is it?
|
No need to construct a dilemma when there isn't one.
What is practical depends solely on what the ends are. To a liberal, what I propose will always be seen as impractical, will it not? It's similar to the worthless verbiage regarding what "works."
Being practical is only "good" if the principles are sound. Without sound principles, pragmatism is not desirable. To put a finer point on it, if someone has come to rob me, I hope he sucks at doing it.
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 20:56 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I think discussions with diehard libertarians can be a little bit over-the-top at times though. 100% freedom all the time, no government at all, taxation is one of the worst things ever, etc. I understand a lot of the reasons behind why freedom and liberty are good things, but I don't recognize that they're always the best things to strive for in all circumstances. I rather like Western society, from the American system to the more-socialist European systems. If anything I'd rather deal with more taxation and get a better quality of life out of it that deal with the perils of no taxation. I guess that might makes me a pariah. But that doesn't mean I'm satisfied with how our money is spent. That's the discussion I'd rather have. Let's talk about (in a broader sense talking as a culture) about how to spend the money we collect, not the distraction of whether we should be collecting at all. |
You seem to do that to yourself since you're imposing foreign assumptions on our positions. The idea that taxation could lead to an aggregate increase of the quality of life is dubious.
More importantly, I think it's absurd that you call the amount of taxation a mere distraction. Why would any rational discourse assume a certain amount of money to be collected only to discuss the uses of such funds? How would you even set the amount? The very idea of a use of funds cannot exist independently from the amount of collection. Certain uses will require more taxation. Other uses will call for less taxation (unless we mean to engage in taxation qua taxation). The central problem with taxation from a libertarian viewpoint, by my judgement, is not that it's immoral to collect taxes nor that tax money often finds itself wasted on meaningless work projects and blowing people to smithereens for reasons which have become so obvious through their vacuity that discussions of "how" and "why" need never trouble the senescent conscious of political pundits. The more fundamental issue to me is that the appropriate uses of the money cannot even be properly ascertained and the result of the erroneous allocations are so pernicious that the devastating collapses are so obscured from the cause that a solution to the issue never comes and instead becomes a game of economic depressive hot potato passed from one generation to the next until eventually biological reasons implore us to accept, to preserve our own sanity, the worsening conditions as merely a incorrigible physical law meant simply to be observed rather than explained or changed.
|
I called debating whether or not taxes should exist the distraction. Some say they shouldn't. Period. I'm not exactly convinced I'd want to see the society that tried that....
And if I'm reading what you said here correctly, are you saying that because economic fluctuations are hard to tie to specific policy actions, that we should not even play the game, and abandon taxing because of it? While I would probably not argue against the premise that it's hard to see what policies brought about what results, I would definitely try to find a different solution than that.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 20:58 |
Finnforest wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
I understand the principled act of writing in Paul or of voting for Johnson. I don't want Obama to be reelected though. |
That's how I feel as well. Romney leaves a lot to be desired, but I honestly believe that four years under him would be vastly better than another four years under Obama.
|
And I'm with you two gentlemen.
Though I completely understand Rob's irritation with "sports politics", voter's lack of knowledge of issues, and having two choices that do not inspire your vote. I get that.
|
Romney will do a better job than Obama, but so what? That's like saying I'll do a better job staying sober at the party than my buddy Josh. I can still string together a sentence, but ain't nary one of us drivin home.
|
It's a bit more significant than that example Rob, but we both know we're at an impasse on this. I got your point.
|
I still loved the image.
By the way, Josh helped me get my job (he was one of the eight who interviewed me), and in the ice breaker luncheon, he, a skilled drummer, lectured me about what Bruford does in "Starship Trooper." 
He moved, by the way.  Still, we have an album written together. Prog folk. Got another guitarist and perhaps another player. Just need to get it recorded.
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 21:06 |
Atavachron wrote:
The voting public may not all be geniuses but they're not sheep.
|
Well nah....I really am sorry sometimes to say this but we are a country of very dumb ass sheep. You can be smart and be a dumbass sheep btw. Like people I know with degrees in Engineering that believe any little thing they see on the internet long as its anti Obama, or hang on every of Limbaugh's words. I still can't see Obama losing. I didn't even think his electoral numbers would be much lower...now I think it'll be tight but cmon...Mitt? No way. And dont think the more youthful, handsome, energetic and stronger Paul Ryan will help. Remember 04? This election is a repeat but flipped.
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17144
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 21:10 |
@Rob....Oh yeah, I think I remember you telling me about the Prog Folk album....that will be cool! 
|
|
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 21:13 |
Finnforest wrote:
@Rob....Oh yeah, I think I remember you telling me about the Prog Folk album....that will be cool!
|
It's all written. We put it together over the summer when we were all off. We just need to record it!
There's a four part suite involved too. The third part dips right into 1960s psych music. So much fun.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 05 2012 at 21:16 |
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I think discussions with diehard libertarians can be a little bit over-the-top at times though. 100% freedom all the time, no government at all, taxation is one of the worst things ever, etc. I understand a lot of the reasons behind why freedom and liberty are good things, but I don't recognize that they're always the best things to strive for in all circumstances. I rather like Western society, from the American system to the more-socialist European systems. If anything I'd rather deal with more taxation and get a better quality of life out of it that deal with the perils of no taxation. I guess that might makes me a pariah. But that doesn't mean I'm satisfied with how our money is spent. That's the discussion I'd rather have. Let's talk about (in a broader sense talking as a culture) about how to spend the money we collect, not the distraction of whether we should be collecting at all. |
You seem to do that to yourself since you're imposing foreign assumptions on our positions. The idea that taxation could lead to an aggregate increase of the quality of life is dubious.
More importantly, I think it's absurd that you call the amount of taxation a mere distraction. Why would any rational discourse assume a certain amount of money to be collected only to discuss the uses of such funds? How would you even set the amount? The very idea of a use of funds cannot exist independently from the amount of collection. Certain uses will require more taxation. Other uses will call for less taxation (unless we mean to engage in taxation qua taxation). The central problem with taxation from a libertarian viewpoint, by my judgement, is not that it's immoral to collect taxes nor that tax money often finds itself wasted on meaningless work projects and blowing people to smithereens for reasons which have become so obvious through their vacuity that discussions of "how" and "why" need never trouble the senescent conscious of political pundits. The more fundamental issue to me is that the appropriate uses of the money cannot even be properly ascertained and the result of the erroneous allocations are so pernicious that the devastating collapses are so obscured from the cause that a solution to the issue never comes and instead becomes a game of economic depressive hot potato passed from one generation to the next until eventually biological reasons implore us to accept, to preserve our own sanity, the worsening conditions as merely a incorrigible physical law meant simply to be observed rather than explained or changed.
|
I called debating whether or not taxes should exist the distraction. Some say they shouldn't. Period. I'm not exactly convinced I'd want to see the society that tried that....
And if I'm reading what you said here correctly, are you saying that because economic fluctuations are hard to tie to specific policy actions, that we should not even play the game, and abandon taxing because of it? While I would probably not argue against the premise that it's hard to see what policies brought about what results, I would definitely try to find a different solution than that. |
That's not even close to what I'm saying.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Freedom" thread or something
