Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I won't vote Democrat because I despise liberals. I can vote Democrat and have done so at the local level.

These two sentences appear to contradict themselves. You won't vote Democrat but you have voted Democrat? Which is it?

By the way, an individual who belongs to the Democratic party is a Democrat. There is no such thing as a Democrat party, and nobody votes Democrat. But enough of the grammar lesson.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Are you a strawman?

That would certainly explain a lot.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

These two sentences appear to contradict themselves. You won't vote Democrat but you have voted Democrat? Which is it?

By the way, an individual who belongs to the Democratic party is a Democrat. There is no such thing as a Democrat party, and nobody votes Democrat. But enough of the grammar lesson.

I won't vote Democratic at the federal level. I have voted for Democrat's at the local level.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

These two sentences appear to contradict themselves. You won't vote Democrat but you have voted Democrat? Which is it?

By the way, an individual who belongs to the Democratic party is a Democrat. There is no such thing as a Democrat party, and nobody votes Democrat. But enough of the grammar lesson.

"Won't vote" is future tense. "Have voted" is past tense. Where's the contradiction, Ms. Manners?
By the way, thanks for your wonderful post which furthers the discussion and helps others understand the 4T theory.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

"Won't vote" is future tense. "Have voted" is past tense. Where's the contradiction, Ms. Manners?

Yeah. I just took it as he doesn't vote Democrat(!) because he despises liberals.
But, sometimes he's a bit closer to neutral(maybe just an overall 'frustration', or just
a general 'loathing' or 'disgust' that doesn't actually reach the level of 'despising'. )

Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by NM

By the way, thanks for your wonderful post which furthers the discussion and helps others understand the 4T theory.

Maybe not, but I thought this was hilarious:

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

... and nobody votes Democrat.

Oh, if only it were true!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Yeah. I just took it as he doesn't vote Democrat(!) because he despises liberals.
But, sometimes he's a bit closer to neutral(maybe just an overall 'frustration', or just
a general 'loathing' or 'disgust' that doesn't actually reach the level of 'despising'. )

I can't stand them. I used to have to get through a social barrier of decent traditional Democrat's to get at them.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I can't stand them.

No. Really?

Originally Posted by ClassicX

I used to have to get through a social barrier of decent traditional Democrat's to get at them.

<chuckle!>

Ya know, I was just thinking that. Get outta my head!


Prince

PS: In Ms. Wonk-a's defense, I believe she works(or at least, did work) with the SNAP program.
That's actually getting involved with people at an individual level, so she may actually be the rare
Democrat that can correctly be called 'democratic', IMO.

America Needs strong Government, a government run by a meritocratic elite, which would be generated by a nationwide civil-military education system. It would be like the military aristocracies of ancient and medieval times except that the elite would be selected by merit rather than birth. It would be an institutionalized system of government by the competent. Decisions would not be debated for months on end; instead orders would be given and drawn up within a matter of hours or even minutes.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

America Needs strong Government, a government run by a meritocratic elite, which would be generated by a nationwide civil-military education system. It would be like the military aristocracies of ancient and medieval times except that the elite would be selected by merit rather than birth. It would be an institutionalized system of government by the competent. Decisions would not be debated for months on end; instead orders would be given and drawn up within a matter of hours or even minutes.

America needs government strong enough to serve the People yet restrained by Constitutional prohibitions against tyranny by any in government or by any who wield influence upon government. It is best that it have an educational system that makes people of every possible background competent to contest any possible despotism whether by elected officials, senior military officers, bureaucratic elites, or the moneyed rich.

Weak and ineffective government has typically been the vehicle for tyrannical takeovers. It was the ineffectiveness of shaky democracies that made fascism and Nazism possible.

...Obviously the best life in material terms would go to the 'meritocratic' elite. Who decides who has merit? The ability to make an arbitrary choice of who gets to join the elite and who gets consigned to the cr@ppy jobs. IQ? Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant fellow, but he obviously had some problems. Those who show the most enthusiasm for the 'meritocratic order'? Sure -- then the universities become diploma mills as they did in Nazi Germany. I have never known of any ruling elite (aside from some monastic orders -- perhaps) that has failed to take everything for itself once it gets the chance. Such is a warning about the menace of a plutocratic oligarchy within America.

Freedom is valuable. Great privilege in return for a constant fear of a purge is a raw deal, and that is what awaits the 'meritocratic' elite. Freedom allows one to find opportunity that elites prefer that one not get.

So what is freedom worth? According to Benjamin Franklin, it is worth more than some temporary safety. But I can go further. Economic gain? Getting to shape a mandated culture for others?

You have a problem with people spending months or even year in debate. American politics have not been so ugly since the start of the Civil War. Swift decisions indicate the absence of democracy. Yesterday the House of Representatives voted to repeal the inheritance tax on behalf of the super-rich. The Senate will likely go along, and the President will veto it. There will be more right-wing efforts -- perhaps abolition of health and safety rules that get in the way of profit maximization, outlawry of unions, and abolition of welfare. Sure -- bring back debt peonage or have mass starvation. That would take little time.

Stalin's Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Ba'athist Iraq and Syria could enact legislation quickly and efficiently. That sort of efficiency practically ensures bad laws.


Keep dreaming.

You see I believe in getting rid of the legislative and Judicial Branches altogether, and replace them with an executive and ruling council. The council which would consist of about 20 to 30 people will advise the executive.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Are you a strawman? That comment was directed at you and every liberal/progressive who posts on this forum

I think I can pass the Turing test easily. What about your liberal borrower?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er ...

Business will invest in things that it knows it needs like upgrading from a smaller facility that's cramped and hard to operate efficiently to a larger facility that can operate efficiently and so on.

If a business invests because of a true business need, then they are demand driven. Why is a space too small? Does the business need to hold more inventory, store more service vehicles, expand retail space? Is, then those are the result of growth, and growth is the result of more demand for the companies goods and services.

It's a real rarity to find a businessman investing in something that has no market, unless she is a true innovator. Akio Morita created the Walkman to meet a need no one had at the time for a personal portable music player. Today's iPod is a direct descendent, therefore much less innovative. The ground had already been tilled. There are others, but not that many. It's an extreme risk to run a business on pure expectations.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

"Won't vote" is future tense. "Have voted" is past tense. Where's the contradiction, Ms. Manners?
By the way, thanks for your wonderful post which furthers the discussion and helps others understand the 4T theory.

He made an asinine statement, and she called him on it politely. What's your problem? One of your chosen under attack, so you pounce?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What's your problem? One of your chosen under attack, so you pounce?

No, scarecrow, that would be your problem.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

That's actually getting involved with people at an individual level, so she may actually be the rare Democrat that can correctly be called 'democratic', IMO.

I think you're right. Most liberals I know who get directly involved with issues are more Green than Democrat.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

These two sentences appear to contradict themselves. You won't vote Democrat but you have voted Democrat? Which is it?

By the way, an individual who belongs to the Democratic party is a Democrat. There is no such thing as a Democrat party, and nobody votes Democrat. But enough of the grammar lesson.

Ah. Lessons in grammar seem easy on the surface, but this is a problem in civility. That can be much harder.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

You see I believe in getting rid of the legislative and Judicial Branches altogether, and replace them with an executive and ruling council. The council which would consist of about 20 to 30 people will advise the executive.

Oh, you mean a Star Chamber.

The primary purposes of my proposed restorationism, is to reorganize the government so that the reconstruction of our infrastructure and industrial base can be carried out in earnest. The ultimate goal of the proposed administrative and legislative reforms is to enable the most efficient and effective mobilization of military manpower and the most effective mobilization of labor resources/manpower to be harnessed for national objectives; the state would also be organized in such a way as to ensure the efficient organization of proposed territorial acquisitions and occupied zones. In the Middle east for example this would be to ensure that the pacification of the region is carried out as quickly and expediently as possible. In the Mideast example this would involve the efficient elimination of anti-American elements and unreformable elements and removal of "useless mouths" and "problematic mouths" to prevent the wastage of American made food and supply resources on the maintenance of enemy groups. The bulk of the Muslim labor pool, however, would be harnessed for restorationist American economic ends.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think I can pass the Turing test easily. What about your liberal borrower?

True. You can pass as a machine/robot that has some human like intelligence that's included in its programming.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If a business invests because of a true business need, then they are demand driven. Why is a space too small? Does the business need to hold more inventory, store more service vehicles, expand retail space? Is, then those are the result of growth, and growth is the result of more demand for the companies goods and services.

It's a real rarity to find a businessman investing in something that has no market, unless she is a true innovator. Akio Morita created the Walkman to meet a need no one had at the time for a personal portable music player. Today's iPod is a direct descendent, therefore much less innovative. The ground had already been tilled. There are others, but not that many. It's an extreme risk to run a business on pure expectations.

I owned a Walkman. The Walkman was cool, relatively cheap and an even more practical option than existing portable music players like the popular boom box and the much bulkier hand held radios with ear phones that were available at the time. I also had a home stereo with ear phones to listen to my rock music in bed while mom was sleeping or doing something that she was interested in or focused on completing. The innovation wasn't in its original concept. The innovation was in its use of minute circuitry and its sleekness and its more comfortable ear phone design.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The primary purposes of my proposed restorationism, is to reorganize the government so that the reconstruction of our infrastructure and industrial base can be carried out in earnest.

I believe in rule of law even when such is inconvenient. Indeed one can only say that one believes in rule of law if one believes it when it is inconvenient, as when the political realities are to one's current disadvantage, as when "the masses are asses". We are not going to get change through the means that count until some of the asinine voters recognize that they are getting hurt -- that is, when they start to feel pain from the votes of those that they elect. Maybe if they experience hunger while elites gloat about their sybaritic excess. Maybe when they find their children coming home in body bags as the result of wars for profit.

Elections have consequences, and some of us already hate the Koch syndicate as if it were an occupying power. But things can get worse -- when electoral rules change so that we have no chance; when kids are told that they would be wise to abandon the Y's, Catholic Youth Association, Future Farmers of America, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Girls' Clubs, Boys' Clubs, and 4-H for politicized youth groups that extol the virtues of obedience to some political cult. Maybe some states will secede from a political federation becoming a centralized monstrosity. Where the State government is becoming unpopular for toadying to the centralized monstrosity there might be mass demonstrations that the state police and National Guard get orders to mow down... and we have some "Ohio Revolution" or "Iowa Revolution". It's practically the inverse of the Civil War, when States secede not because some selfish elite can't imagine having to divest itself of slaves but instead because secession is the only way in which to have "republican government" as demanded of States admitted to the Union.

It was a freely-elected government that built Boulder (now Hoover) Dam, the George Washington and Golden Gate bridges, and the network of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Later it was freely-elected government that built the Interstate Highway System. Despotic government such as ancient China, the Third Reich and Stalin's Hell-frozen-over Soviet Union can build some impressive infrastructure, but on the cheap toward workers' pay and at a great cost of human life. Great Wall of China? White Sea Canal? Remarkable -- but this is more impressive:



(Mackinac Bridge. If you wonder why Michigan's state quarter doesn't have the Mackinac Bridge on it it is because the bridge looks much like the Golden Gate Bridge except for the color).

Four deaths in the construction. Four too many, to be sure, and that's before I count those who may have been killed in workplace accidents getting the coal for processing the steel and the manufacture of the steel... but contrast the White Sea Canal that Stalin's literary toady Maxim Gorky praised. Those who worked on the Mackinac Bridge expected to come home with nice paychecks. Those who worked on the White Sea Canal thought themselves lucky just to survive their work. Likewise the Great Wall of China, some of which is literal tombs of scholars who ran afoul of the Empire. Those scholars were buried alive, so such was not an honor.

Unlike the White Sea Canal or the Great Wall of China, the Mackinac Bridge has economic justification.

Infrastructure not so costly is generally best left to a free market, something that we would be wise to rediscover for purposes other than the punishment of the powerless and helpless.

The ultimate goal of the proposed administrative and legislative reforms is to enable the most efficient and effective mobilization of military manpower and the most effective mobilization of labor resources/manpower to be harnessed for national objectives; the state would also be organized in such a way as to ensure the efficient organization of proposed territorial acquisitions and occupied zones.

The Zionists can tell how difficult it is to keep occupied people from striking back. They are probably the wisest and most principled occupying power of all, and they do little to deliberately offend the occupied people. Your design for the occupation of the Middle East is far more brutal. Any American or anyone connected to America by alliance or even appearance will have to watch his back from people seeking some modicum of personal dignity. Even worse, you are going to see some Americans turncoats who act out of conscience, perhaps frustrating a massacre.

By the way -- your use of the word "pacification" sounds much like the Nazi use of the word Befriedung as used in reference to their annihilation of Polish villages in retribution for Polish resistance to the Nazi invasion even at during the invasion.

In the Middle east for example this would be to ensure that the pacification of the region is carried out as quickly and expediently as possible. In the Mideast example this would involve the efficient elimination of anti-American elements and unreformable elements and removal of "useless mouths" and "problematic mouths" to prevent the wastage of American made food and supply resources on the maintenance of enemy groups. The bulk of the Muslim labor pool, however, would be harnessed for restorationist American economic ends.

Unnütze Esser (the singular and plural are identical in this typically-ugly Nazi verbal construction) for "useless eaters". Unnütze Esser were typically exterminated because 'mere' humanity meant little in the Third Reich.

If America becomes an Evil Empire it will be defeated and occupied. Much unlike Germany, Italy, or Japan in the last Crisis Era America has practically no distinctive culture around which to unite. Leaders of the Evil Empire will be judged and likely executed. Occupiers will decide what sort of political order will be possible in zones of occupation. They will reshape the educational system for content, probably to inculcate an insipid but benign liberalism, if with some distinctive imprints.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Ah. Lessons in grammar seem easy on the surface, but this is a problem in civility. That can be much harder.

Quite so. Republican use of the word "Democrat" in those contexts is a deliberate slur.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

A for profit or a non profit business owner? Based on views, points and attitude relating to other peoples money, you are on the political non profit side of the spectrum vs the for profit side like me. To you it's just money. Money has no value to you because you don't work for money. To us it's more than just money and if (you're too) stupid to understand that then you don't belong. It's pointless to reply or refute the points of someone who is locked on their point and unable to move or reason beyond their point.

We liberals always seem to need to correct your grammar, a sign of your abject ignorance and of our corresponding stellar wisdom (just a bit of fun exaggeration at your expense, M. Classic Xer).

If you can't refute my points, it is easier for you just to give up on reasoned defense of your points, and instead base your stated views, opinions and votes on your negative emotions, which you admit that you do. There is no basis for your views, or your votes, other than that you "despise liberals."

I have worked both on the profit and non-profit side of the spectrum, and nowadays it depends on which government agency I am reporting my income to and how I am organizing what I do, which however has no bearing on my work itself one way or the other.

Money is not something for anyone to value or work for, in itself. Money is a symbol or a number only. It is a means to an end only, not an end in itself. It has power in the marketplace, by means of government designation only. If you're "too stupid to understand that," it is not a question of ideology or political party, but of sheer ignorance and delusion only (of course, Republicans and so-called conservatives these days DO specialize in delusion, so the link to that political party these days is not altogether surprising or unwarranted).

Grammar, spelling, pronunciation, and word choice are signs of social class -- according to the late Paul Fussell. Those are easier to control than birth, job choice, formal education, and ability to buy luxuries. Poor grammar, spelling, pronunciation, and word choice suggest stupidity or incompetence -- or at least contempt for the measures of intellectual sophistication. If one is to dissent, then such is the most fruitless venue for dissent.

OK, so I can accept the broken English of someone new to the language. It takes time to learn a language not one's own and considerable practice. I would probably learn Portuguese or Danish more easily than I would learn Polish or Russian, Polish or Russian more easily than Indonesian, and Indonesian more easily than Chinese or Arabic. (Esperanto is the easiest, followed by Interlingua, thank you). That said, I can usually catch the likely gaffes of someone whose native speech is French or German.

It is far easier to forgive someone for saying "It is three days that Robert has been in New York" instead of "Robert has been in New York for three days" because of the different use of tense between English and German for continuing state or action from the past. Someone whose native speech is English has no excuse for using the past participle as a simple past (I "seen" a squirrel climbing a tree when a dog "run" after it) or using a double negative.

We can't see pronunciation here, but we can certainly see grammar, spelling, and word choice. To be sure a typo pops up with everyone. One learns good spelling and grammar or one doesn't. That is the difference between being qualified to matriculate in a fairly good college or not getting the chance. Attending a bad college gives one no advantage. (Just look at what I have said about some dreadful for-profit colleges which take the money and do little to educate students). Mangled diction is enough to ensure that Sarah Palin will never be President even though she has one more college degree than Harry Truman.

At the least most browsers have some spelling check, and such occasionally detects a blatant typo including two words run together. The squiggly lines tell me to look carefully at what I just typed. I don't like to make spelling or grammatical errors.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We liberals always seem to need to correct your grammar, a sign of your abject ignorance and of our corresponding stellar wisdom (just a bit of fun exaggeration at your expense, M. Classic Xer).

Proper use of grammar is the only thing that liberals tend to have over me, can hang over me, use as a point against me and use as a symbol of dominance over me, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you can't refute my points, it is easier for you just to give up on reasoned defense of your points, and instead base your stated views, opinions and votes on your negative emotions, which you admit that you do. There is no basis for your views, or your votes, other than that you "despise liberals."

I don't like left-wing progressives. I don't like their personalities. I don't like their attitudes. I don't favor their socialist policies. I don't favor their social agenda's or their more radical use of social justice. I don't favor socialist views in general. I don't believe in socialism or communism in general. Tell me Mr. Intelligent, why on earth should I support the party who supports left-wing progressives with my vote?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have worked both on the profit and non-profit side of the spectrum, and nowadays it depends on which government agency I am reporting my income to and how I am organizing what I do, which however has no bearing on my work itself one way or the other.

I've worked for both sides as well. I worked in the "for profit" to earn a living my entire working life. I've worked in "non profit" side as a skilled volunteer who received no formal pay for my duties and efforts. I report my income to the same types of entities as you.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Money is not something for anyone to value or work for, in itself. Money is a symbol or a number only. It is a means to an end only, not an end in itself. It has power in the marketplace, by means of government designation only. If you're "too stupid to understand that," it is not a question of ideology or political party, but of sheer ignorance and delusion only (of course, Republicans and so-called conservatives these days DO specialize in delusion, so the link to that political party these days is not altogether surprising or unwarranted).

You can view it as symbol or a digit only like a typical rich kid hippie would probably would look at it and relate to it. However, the bulk us primitives view it as a need and associate it with our current lifestyle and consider it relevant to the lives of our children. There appears to be a major disconnect between your idealistic knowledge and ideological view of things and my practical knowledge, cultural understanding and practical view of things like money.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Proper use of grammar is the only thing that liberals tend to have over me, can hang over me, use as a point against me and use as a symbol of dominance over me, so to speak.

Well, no, we pretty much refute all your points, and so you give up and fall back on just "I don't like left-wing progressives" as the basis for your opinions.

I don't like left-wing progressives. I don't like their personalities. I don't like their attitudes. I don't favor their socialist policies. I don't favor their social agenda's or their more radical use of social justice. I don't favor socialist views in general. I don't believe in socialism or communism in general. Tell me Mr. Intelligent, why on earth should I support the party who supports left-wing progressives with my vote?

You would if you came to your senses and realized what is really beneficial to you, as opposed to your emotional fears and the deceptive ideas that have been foisted upon you. The word socialism, of course, is an exaggerated attribution to left-wing progressives, as has been pointed out to you. No doubt it would work against Bernie Sanders. It's a good catchword for right-wing attitudes toward progressives. But the latter merely want good policies that work for everyone, not policies that benefit only the powerful.

I've worked for both sides as well. I worked in the "for profit" to earn a living my entire working life. I've worked in "non profit" side as a skilled volunteer who received no formal pay for my duties and efforts. I report my income to the same types of entities as you.

Well then, since we have a similar relationship to "work," it might be a basis for a bit of thoughtful reflection about your stereotype of progressives. We can work for a living too, and often do, and face the same pressures as you do.

You can view it as symbol or a digit only like a typical rich kid hippie would probably would look at it and relate to it. However, the bulk us primitives view it as a need and associate it with our current lifestyle and consider it relevant to the lives of our children. There appears to be a major disconnect between your idealistic knowledge and ideological view of things and my practical knowledge, cultural understanding and practical view of things like money.

No, delusions about money are never practical, no matter what culture or ideology you hold. Delusions are not practical in any context. It's better to view things as they really are.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Grammar, spelling, pronunciation, and word choice are signs of social class -- according to the late Paul Fussell. Those are easier to control than birth, job choice, formal education, and ability to buy luxuries. Poor grammar, spelling, pronunciation, and word choice suggest stupidity or incompetence -- or at least contempt for the measures of intellectual sophistication. If one is to dissent, then such is the most fruitless venue for dissent.

OK, so I can accept the broken English of someone new to the language. It takes time to learn a language not one's own and considerable practice. I would probably learn Portuguese or Danish more easily than I would learn Polish or Russian, Polish or Russian more easily than Indonesian, and Indonesian more easily than Chinese or Arabic. (Esperanto is the easiest, followed by Interlingua, thank you). That said, I can usually catch the likely gaffes of someone whose native speech is French or German.

It is far easier to forgive someone for saying "It is three days that Robert has been in New York" instead of "Robert has been in New York for three days" because of the different use of tense between English and German for continuing state or action from the past. Someone whose native speech is English has no excuse for using the past participle as a simple past (I "seen" a squirrel climbing a tree when a dog "run" after it) or using a double negative.

We can't see pronunciation here, but we can certainly see grammar, spelling, and word choice. To be sure a typo pops up with everyone. One learns good spelling and grammar or one doesn't. That is the difference between being qualified to matriculate in a fairly good college or not getting the chance. Attending a bad college gives one no advantage. (Just look at what I have said about some dreadful for-profit colleges which take the money and do little to educate students). Mangled diction is enough to ensure that Sarah Palin will never be President even though she has one more college degree than Harry Truman.

At the least most browsers have some spelling check, and such occasionally detects a blatant typo including two words run together. The squiggly lines tell me to look carefully at what I just typed. I don't like to make spelling or grammatical errors.

In life, if you are not continually being judged on your writing skills, getting paid for your writing skills or in a position that requires professional writing skills and language, you're not going to impress a liberal and you're going to open yourself up to their criticism and be subject to their criticism of your intelligence level. In short, if you don't need them and use them on a regular basis then you tend to loose them over the years.

PB, would you want to compete with me in business, in sports, a poker game, a game of survival and tactical wit, a spontaneous live debate with no set topic or anything that doesn't require professional writing skills? I have professional speaking skills which includes some fancier terms and a broad range of knowledge and experience to draw from without having to resort to books or the internet.