Political shifts since the 2008 Reccession

Post Reply New Topic

So you did, but it plays into the larger point.

In effect we can go broke.

@ skyfather84

I had forgotten you had posted the article or even that I had seen it before, I'm currently juggling through a lot of papers to write a paper from scratch without the advantage of having a thesis.

Yes and no. It really depends on how things go and if things really scale up into a full-fledged currency war or not. It also depends on how the money that we're currently spending is used. Investing in infrastructure and schools would be a good use of the money but the current bailouts without terms and an unwillingness to tax effectively for all that we do spend will break our system in the world economy.

Sorry but I think private schools actually do a better job than public (generally) and with less money. The solution isn't more money at this juncture, we need to fire the bad teachers and hire more people that can actually teach. We also need to cut out all the wasteful spending in the department of education.

As far as infrastructure, if it is repairing the roads, can we please get the road crews from Montana and Colorado to do it, they actually will get the job done in a reasonable amount of time instead of having a coffee break every half hour.

Things that add to the GDP believe it or not is actually spending money on the military (granted the wasteful spending needs to be cut out), but still.

XENON13 (AND ANY OTHER REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISTS OUT THERE) - YOU'RE BELIEF THAT EXECUTING CEOS WILL SOMEHOW STAVE OF STRUCTURAL CRISISES IS STUPID, DEPRAVED, AND WOULD BE DANGEROUS IF PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT GUNS TO RALLIES LISTENED TO YOU. FORTUNATELY, THEY DON'T.

Dox47, you really should check somebody's post history before accusing them of "deafening silence". Even though you're pathetic post is meant to be a paraody of my attitude, you miss the mark horrendously. Before going into the details of how greatly you miss the mark, let me just explain to you how somebody can be away from WP for more than several hours and not respond to something that occurred while they were abscent.

You see, I live in a civilized country where many people who aren't rich get to go to University. I get to go to University and have to study for an economics exam, hence, I am not omnipresent on Wrong Planet. I know, amazing concept, but if anyone can grasp it then I'm sure a knuckle-dragging intellectual can!

You're (and idorack's) whole "hypocrisy" and "bad stuff is on both sides" claim really miss the mark for two reasons:

1) I never claimed that an individual conservative poster not responding to violent claims made by one of their ideological compatriots was egregious. I claimed the fact that the conservative movement in America was mainstreaming violence in its rhetoric ("bullets will work if ballots don't"), accepting extremist ideas, and trying to ignore that there is a problem was bad.
2) I'm a utilitarian, not a deontologist. As such, I hold that violent ideology deserves condemnation proportional to the influence it has on violent actions. Far-left idiots in America have mainly resorted to vandalism, which is less violent than killing people. Furthermore, those far-left idiots are isolated from the centre-left, which routinely condemns their idiocy (indeed, the "liberal establishment" has even ostracized nonviolent far-leftist Noam Chomsky). As such, I don't hold that as a problem worthy of as much condemnation (that, and the fact that I really doubt Xenon13 is going to leave Quebec and start a murderous rampage or influence anybody to action at all).

When I start linking to webpages detailing technocratic regiments for killing off CEOs and describe the idea as "interesting", then you can condemn me for brazen hypocrisy. I will never do that, as I regard the idea as genuinely depraved and stupid.

Whada ya know I live in just such a country.



Here is where i sensed impending stupidity.



I never said you claimed such a thing. As for the second part I don't understand your argument violence is the recommended solution for Americans should our country fail us, it is essentially ingrained in the cores of American principles. That is too say bullets will work if the ballet does not has been a part of American principles since the beginning. While it is an extremist(only because the action itself is extreme mind you, not for absurdity.) view to believe the time for violence has come, it isn't necessarily dangerous for a simple cautionary. But i would like to know what problem your referring to?



I never called you a deontologist. Believing that violence is condemnable out of hand is simply foolish. Even the founding fathers knew that violence had its place. Further more utilitarianism falls on its face we have no idea what influence xenon's zealotry has had on passerby, we have no idea what those effects might lead to. We have no satisfactory way to measure fully the consequence of a man's actions, this is where utilitarianism fails.

I have no idea why you felt the need to refer to me in regards to offenses I didn't commit towards you but please refrain from doing so again. Also your interpretation of the lefts treatments of violence among its members does not address either of our claims about the fallible nature of both sides.

Maybe you ought not to assume that I'm speaking to you specifically unless I address you by name; you're not the only Leftist poster in this thread, not even if I narrow the criteria to Leftists ideologues pushing an agenda. I'm not wasting anymore of my time on you Pedant, you can't seem to participate in the same thread as me without making the thread about me, and as much as I like to talk about myself it's not what I'm here to do. I've taken you apart before and could easily tear you down all day without breaking a sweat; but I have better uses of my abilities than that. Have fun "debating" with Inuyasha and co, that seems more your speed.

In a sort of abstract, "if in the distant future, things become so bad" conditional kind of way, sure - there's nothing wrong with referring to a crucial element of America's founding ideology and hagiography. But saying it to a specific group of people who make a point of carrying guns to rallies before a specific election is pretty God damn reckless. It also displays a delusional lack of perspective to think that if you lose a given election it's the end of all freedom and flag-waving fourth of Julys.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB7g3y597fs[/youtube]



Simple - the mainstreaming of apocalyptic rhetoric and conspiracy theories directed at a heavily armed audience. Glenn Beck's perpetual plagiarism of Michael Savage's screeds is one example (the way he fuelled fear against TIDES to the point an armed gunman tried shooting up the place is another instance of this). The attempt to spin an anti-Communist billionaire into a Communist manipulator of the world is another. Widespread belief that America is being "taken over" by illegal immigrants and the belief that poor minorities "just don't work hard enough" are other examples. The belief that the President wasn't born in America and is secretly a Muslim is another, while simultaneously believing that his Christian, black liberation theological pastor has complete sway over his views. And all the references to "armed citizenry" whenever speaking of political disagreements. The eliminationist undertone to rightwing Talk Radio is a final example I'll give.



I think it's pretty safe to say he has a lot less influence than Glenn Beck and the obscurity of his references (liquidationism, chartalism, etc) means he isn't that widely read. While there are calculating problems, I do think a roughshod version of utilitarianism, based on many rules of thumbs, is a practical way to think about various moral problems even if the final answer is hard to get at.

Xenon13 is a minority on the left – there is a much larger contingent of rightwing talkers making eliminationist, apocalyptic, “grab your guns” speeches. Hence specific violent statements from various ultraconservatives are a lot more dangerous in the United States (in Greece it’s a different story, as Xenon13’s ideological compatriots are running wild with vandalism and due threaten civil order).



Most of the vitriol in my post was really a form of catharsis, as I do have a personality that conflict's with Dox47 - I really dislike the way he presents himself as being "above the fray" while he clearly is not.



Most of your moans regarding unfair generalizing about the Tea Partisans have been directed at me and I started this thread, so it was pretty rational to assume that you're comment was directed at me. "Vitriolic rhetoric", as a matter of fact, is even the very phrase I've used a few times in reference to the Tea Partisans. At last, you typically like to veil many of your criticisms to make them seem less personal then they are, so I was warranted in that assumption.



This pretty much epitomizes the Dox47 approach. "I'M NOT GETTING INVOLVED, 'CAUSE YOU'RE TOO DEPLORABLE, BUT...". Your approach is so low that it isn't even on a paved road; it's in the sewer - that is the approach of pretending to take the high road as you swipe at your opponent.



First, let me say I find it quite ironic that you take a swipe at "speed" considering this is an autism forum and a significant subset of autistics have slow information processing speeds. After all, you seemed pretty peeved that Wrong Planet is a place that is "harmful" for autistics (then again, I suppose "harmful" was just a codeword for "this forum has policies that aren't exactly what I like").

I really doubt you've ever "taken me apart" (more like annoyed me, but not really "taken me apart" in any intellectual or rhetorical sense). You represent what I like to call the authoritarian anti-authoritarian type - a person who hates authority not out of any sense that it is inherently unjust so much as because you personally aren't the authority and your own rules aren't the ones implemented. You're "vigilante" censures of Sand and me are an indicator of this, as are your numerous feuds with moderators and former moderators like Sinsboldy, Quatermass, and even Alex himself. Your main problem when trying the "outlast the other guy" approach with me is that I'm just as stubborn and have just as much time on my hands as you do, hence it failed.

But I would like to thank you for dismantling the censorship regime of WP - for without censorship I can finally censure those who would otherwise be censored.

Being called low by you Pedant? That's like having my fiscal policy criticized by Robert Mugabe.

I see that you're now stalking me outside of WP, that goes a bit beyond a simple political disagreement and is frankly a little worrying, creepy even. I think you should seriously reconsider whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here, I think you're fixating on me in a very unhealthy way that needs to stop.

He however believes its not exactly in the distant future, this is his opinion he is entitled to it and by extension is allowed to inform others of it. Your argument that people are going to shoot their president because of a theoretical loss of freedom is absurd, people who listen to him tend to think about the mechanisms of the 2nd amendment in an inordinate way they aren't going to use the rights given to them by the constitution until there is little question the times call for it. No one is going to shoot a president unless they are absolutely sure they won't get hung up by the ankles for it. Really the only time people are going to use that right against the government is when it's time for a new one.



Glen Beck is most certainly not mainstream, he has a large following to be certain but he is most certainly not mainstream. As for the rest I'm going to need you to reiterate this part of the argument with sources. And without savage, I have no interest in defending his positions.



Xenon's influence is indeterminate we know nothing about him except his posts. Also my argument wasn't that the answer was hard to get my argument was that you don't have any legitimate way to acknowledge every response to an action(or to compare the scale of two different actions), and if your going to use a cut off point you have compromised your ideology in a critical way. As for the second paragraph I'm going to need to see something to back that up that isn't anecdotal.




Please have the sense to think before you vent.

Joseph Stiglitz for one says that the prosecution of these people is essential because the rule of law is unravelling as clearly it's a case of these people being above the law. James Galbraith also shares this opinion. This is not a "structural" issue, this is a criminal issue. The structural problems are a function of the criminal problem, of criminals who have succeeded in using their ill-gotten power to change the system to permit them to gain more and more power until they are powers onto themselves beyond the reach of any law. When the people see this they can't help but conclude that the system is beyond repair and society breaks down.

For years this problem has been hidden by the media but they've become more brazen over the years, their crimes cannot be hidden and they are saying, "Sure, we're above the law, but what are you going to do about it?" Members of the Canadian elite were rewarded handsomely for committing treason by screaming at Moody's and this was barely reported but this has led to this situation where these people's criminality cannot be hidden under any circumstances. In the end they're resorting to the usual Social Darwinist arguments that effectively proves to everyone that monsters are in command.

xenon13 you seriously need to chill.

@ Master_Pedant

Uh I hate to tell you this, but there are people out there on the left that turn violent very easily. I'm sure there are people on the right too, difference is people like Glenn Beck actually tell people not to be violent and that is playing into the hands of people on the Left.

So far all people rant about Beck being a nut, turns out he is against using violence.

Also Pedant, I would suggest you calm down about Dox, I am hoping Dox is kidding about you stalking him too.

My post acknowledged that people on the Greek far-left do turn violent easily. My main statement was that most American leftists and even far-leftists aren't armed or mobilized and certainly don't religiously follow one TV personality's every word. The American right is in a state where it's regarded as patriotic to own a gun (hence many rightists do own guns), where people only just outside the mainstream of the conservative movement regularly spout eliminationist rhetoric, and where many regard Obama's election as illegitimate to the point that "revolution" is neccessary. Hence, it's freaking reckless to regularly talk about how Obama is "comming for you" and "pouring gasoline on you" for hours and then give a three minute interlude saying ".... but don't be violent".



So telling people that the end is comming as we approach socialist totalitarian, that the founding fathers intentionally designed militias to overthrow tyrannical governments - which citizens should, but "don't be violent" isn't reckless?



If I'm "stalking" Dox47 by linking to complaints his filed elsewhere, then Julian Assange "raped" the woman whom he had consensual sex with while his condom broke in the process.

I will admit that some of my bombast focused on Dox47 is approaching the limits of justifiable.

@ Master_Pedant

The far left can be tied to violence in the United States as well, and even using the justice department to dismiss charges after the case was already won.

Ever consider that Glenn Beck may geniunely be scared, that the information he found has indeed scared him. It would fit his behavior, he tries to be a comedian when he is geniunely scared.

Beck advocated people turn the tide by getting educated and voting the bums out. Which has pretty much happened. He has demanded people continue to pay attention and that we are on the track of undoing the damage. If you geniunely believe that something bad is going to happen after doing research, shouldn't you sound alarm or should you just stay silent?

Beck has flat out admitted that a few years ago if someone had told him what he is saying today, he would think they were crazy. He actually has said he hopes he is wrong and people are welcome to come on to prove how he is wrong. I'm not saying the man is without faults, but you do need to consider the fact that even if you think it is unlikely, he could be right.

It also hasn't helped that Dems in Washington have acted like politicians in Chicago.

Gun ownership can be considered patriotic or that is to say owning a gun could be considered a patriotic act.

EDIT: Same on organizing a militia.

@ ikorack

Some militias (probably a minority) would actually qualify more as some sort of a hunting club than an actual militia. While other militias are made up of mental cases. They can be on both sides of the political spectrum (yeah there are actually left-wing militia groups out there). If someone says they are in a militia I would be rather concerned, seriously if you want to be part of a civilian defense force join the National Guard.

The majority of gun owners are actually decent individuals, however there are a few crackpots out there that have a few screws loose.

The issue here is that by posting a link to a comment I made on another website over a year ago that is not directly connected to WP, you're tacitly admitting that you've been running web searches on my screen name looking for dirt; tracking a non public figure across the web using search tools is generally considered a form of stalking. Now I'm not concerned that you're going to show up on my doorstep or anything, but it does say to me that you've taken things dangerously personally, and that this fixation on me needs to end.
I was disconcerted enough when it became clear that you were spending a significant amount of time going through my back posts here looking for questionable statements to throw in my face and launching personal attacks on me when the opportunity presented itself, but this crosses a real line.

I'm going to say this very clearly and very plainly so there is no later misunderstanding: Back off.

I have no problem debating and arguing with anyone on any subject, but this has gotten out of hand and I won't tolerate any further personal attacks or other harassment.