Political discussion thread

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: The United States isn't a democracy.  It's primarily a republic, and is best described as a democratic republic. A democratic republic is a form of democracy. Unless your definition of democracy only includes direct democracies and excludes everything else.

From Wikipedia,
 

Wikipedia wrote: A democratic republic is a country that is both a republic and a democracy.

You're right.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Point being - very few  business men started with nothing, most don't climb the corporate ladder, they are born nearer the top. Similarily not all politicans are corrupt. I assume you mean very few multimillionaire businessmen since clearly most business men must start from the bottom. And yeah. They all are. Yeah - sorry I assumed that was implied as Brian and I were talking about billionaries (and the corporate heads of multimillion dollar corps).   Do most business men really start from the bottom? - even in an egalitarian society there are haves and have nots and most professional businessmen on a career path begin at graduate level.   For every chain store I walk by there's 2 people with stands on street corners. For every large restaurant there's 10 food carts. I understand that a lot is hereditary even or especially with small businesses, but I would be surprised to think that it outnumbers from scratch startups.

Talking at crosspurposes with the term 'businessmen' here. Since we were taling about starting from the bottom, climbing a corporate ladder and following a career path I was referreing to a businessman in the more general sense. Not all of the businessmen in a business are entrepreneurs, CEOs or owner/operators - many directors, executives and management are businessmen who didn't start a company but climbed a corporate path - not very many of those started in the mail room.

Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Point being - very few  business men started with nothing, most don't climb the corporate ladder, they are born nearer the top. Similarily not all politicans are corrupt. I assume you mean very few multimillionaire businessmen since clearly most business men must start from the bottom. And yeah. They all are. Yeah - sorry I assumed that was implied as Brian and I were talking about billionaries (and the corporate heads of multimillion dollar corps).   Do most business men really start from the bottom? - even in an egalitarian society there are haves and have nots and most professional businessmen on a career path begin at graduate level.   For every chain store I walk by there's 2 people with stands on street corners. For every large restaurant there's 10 food carts. I understand that a lot is hereditary even or especially with small businesses, but I would be surprised to think that it outnumbers from scratch startups. Talking at crosspurposes with the term 'businessmen' here. Since we were taling about starting from the bottom, climbing a corporate ladder and following a career path I was referreing to a businessman in the more general sense. Not all of the businessmen in a business are entrepreneurs, CEOs or owner/operators - many directors, executives and management are businessmen who didn't start a company but climbed a corporate path - not very many of those started in the mail room.

Gotcha. Is that still really true? All the doctors and lawyers and etcs I know started off from the bottom, but I also come from a poor neighborhood so my personal experience isn't really extendable.

We are a democratic republic overrun by corporatists...

When corporations are granted the rights of people without the death penalty that goes along with personhood, we are in serious trouble.



Edited by Slartibartfast - January 11 2013 at 14:56

People that say that the notion that corporations as straw men are not being properly represented are quite full of it.  This idiotic moronic argument hat done more damage than you will ever acknowledge or address>


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 11 2013 at 15:01

Slartibartfast wrote: Hey look, I know personally what it is like it have utilities shut off because your mom can't pay the bills.  Anyone want to f**king join me in this club???

Yeah I do. Know what it's like to collect trash from dumpsters around the city so that you'll have something to burn to cook the can beef stew your family's having for dinner? What the hell does this have to do with anything?

 

Slartibartfast wrote: We are a democratic republic overrun by corporatists...

Yes. 100% correct.

Shame the means that has allowed it, is what you want more of.
Government is force. Not being dramatic or crazy, that's just what it is. Higher taxes on wealthy, more welfare, social spending etc...its all force, just depends who you want it used against and for who's benefit. Since the super rich and big business are, well super rich and big business it makes perfect sense that they would use the system to screw us all. They very stuff you hate, is legally and easily supported by government.

Maybe this will sound crazy, but in a way I see where Marx was right...the whole system supports the wealthy and powerful and big business. So you want more of it? You need to give up any hope of social democracy/big government and accept a communist revolution.
OR government that limits the force that can be used, and power given to the markets. Rich and business have always and will always dominate us, so bring as much power as possible to us...the markets. Why concentrate power in government run by corporatists?

I wanted to share a story about how I simultaneously won a number of political arguments with one statement here.  Left-leaning friends: take note / take heart.  Right-leaning friends: quake with fear.   

So I've had a number of political discussions with a Facebook friend of mine.  Right after the election, he started regularly posting links to articles from a website I like to call "American Stinker" - I kept quiet for a while, until finally I could take it no more when he posted one that I found completely ridiculous.  After this we discussed a number of different topics.  Usually what would happen is that the discussion would go on and on for a while until we reached 30-40 comments on the original post and finally we'd just fizzle out, neither of us having budged in our position.  I found myself getting better and better at making a well-backed up case, with quotes, statistics, charts, scientific studies, etc.  But it was to no avail - my friend would not budge and neither was I.

A couple weeks ago he posted on his own wall the following:
"I’m fascinated that some people can love people like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher or Stephen Colbert and yet hate Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity. (I don’t watch/listen to any of these six, but my sources pick up sound bites from them from time to time.) All of them take news stories and comment on them in order to entertain and inform their audiences. Why the double standard?
All substantiated replies are welcome, whatever your political persuasion.
(Please, no unsubstantiated opinions that this one or that one is “hateful” or “angry” or “offensive”. Make accusations if you think necessary, but for the love of logic, back them up with proof.)"

I jumped on this, providing many links with offensive, outrageous, and just plain stupid quotes from O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh.  I explained why I thought Stewart and Colbert were different, and provided a link to an article in a psychology magazine about how Stewart was named the "most trusted name in news" after Walter Cronkite passed that sought to explain the psychology of why that was.  I also noted that Stewart is actually fairly balanced, criticizing his own side often, but the right likes to point out that he criticizes the right more often.  I explained this by stating that Stewart and Colbert are criticizing fearful and extremist arguments, and it just so happens that the Right is far more extreme right now:
http://grist.org/politics/asymmetrical-polarization-the-lefts-gone-left-but-the-rights-gone-nuts/

I also pointed out that I do not believe I have a double standard since I also find Bill Maher, who I usually agree with (not always though), offensive and I don't often watch him because of that.

But it was to no avail - my friend basically stated that he felt that people like me should ignore the exaggerations of the right-leaning names he had listed and see it from their side - looking at the issues behind what they were saying and ignoring the offensiveness.  At this point I felt there was no hope - I was never going to convince him of anything, and I decided to avoid all political discussions with my friend from then on.

And then it happened.  My friend messaged me stating that he had read some of my blog posts, which he enjoyed, and that he had just read one I had written about the gun control debate.  He asked what particular gun control laws I thought should be put into place to deal with our problems.  My immediate reaction was "crap, I don't even want to get into this because he's going to say everything I suggest is wrong and won't work and we won't get anywhere, and it really doesn't matter because...."  And then it hit me.  I messaged him that I was going to reply to this issue on the other thread about the media personalities, and then I posted this reply:

"You know, I was going to just leave this, and the other issues you talked to me about elsewhere, alone. I figured I'm just not going to convince you and I need to move on. But then when you brought up something else, I thought "I just don't wanna get into this and it really doesn't matter because..." and then it hit me. I thought maybe I should share why it doesn't matter here, and then you'll know why I'm not answering the other issues. See, what you've said about not taking Rush seriously is not an unfamiliar idea to me:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-13/news/0905120424_1_rush-limbaugh-democrats-kidneys
But it doesn't really matter if I disagree with that idea because I'm not fighting for that side anyways, and that line of reasoning is self defeating. You see, Obama won EVERY demographic...except white dudes. And statistics seem to indicate those demographics are going to grow:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/08/study-minority-groups-who-voted-80-percent-obama-to-become-majority/
So Rush, and people who take his side, can continue to insult everyone, and it really doesn't matter to me any more, because we've already seen the consequences.
What's going to happen is going to happen, and I'm finally in a place in my life where I'm ok with that - even if it doesn't go my way. Because no matter what, I know injustice is only temporary:

Proverbs 22:8
Those who plant injustice will harvest disaster,
and their reign of terror will come to an end."

His response to this was "Fascinating.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts."  And I haven't seen anything political from him in a week now.


Edited by dtguitarfan - January 12 2013 at 09:58

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: In other words: "I don't have to argue with you because in twenty years I will have more people on my side than you."

Yup, pretty much.  Or, another way to put it: "I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying your strategy to win people over sucks."