Justin, I think the problem is that you and I have very different models of what is meant by the term "government" in our mental map. As far as I'm concerned government is any form of social organization that relies on impersonal institutions, this is opposed to traditional societies that are based on kinship and tradition.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I'm trying to figure out your side of the argument. I've been trying to figure out your side of the argument for years. I'm sorry, you guys aren't straight forward or stand up as far as what you actually want or support. As far as I can tell, you much pretty gather around one of those three trees. You all favor government control over most things. Well, government control over most things pretty leads us backwards with governments who controlled most things. Mogadishu would probably take a step forward with a government who controls most things. But, I don't believe Kaiser is talking to the people of Mogadishu. Sooner or later, you're going to have to step up and identify yourselves as something. Otherwise, we're pretty much left with making educated guess's.

I'm a New Deal/New Frontier Democrat and a Kennanite in foreign policy who thinks that other nations generally have to take care of themselves. OK?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

If that makes anyone an asshole then you and everyone else here must be one too, because I think we've all contradicted ourselves & made some appeal to our experience & education. I get a little miffed maybe if those appeals to educational authority are used to shut down discussion (cough nutrition) but it is also relevant nonetheless.

I guess I just don't get how disagreement becomes personal dislike. I agree with your earlier assertion that these kinds of discussions don't shed much light on the personality behind the opinions... for all I know everyone I disagree with is a good hearted and trust-worthy person. There are religious fundamentalists I would trust to watch my house or dog or even with my life, but I am not going to agree with them on much politically or socially. There are others who might claim to agree with those positions who would rip you off at the first chance they get.

Good people can support evil things for well-intentioned reasons, and vice versa.. assuming malice as a default intent just escalates conflict when assuming ignorance fosters education.

You make some very good points. However, there are times I just have my fill of -------- discounting and demeaning the authors of articles that I posted. Also pointing out how frigging superior they are because ------------.
I have been here many years and have put up with some pretty crazy accusations. It was just time I spoke my mind and told certain posters to knock it off. It takes a lot to set me off but............................

Now with that said, you do cover some valid communication issues. Thanks.

There is a fundamental element of how the left operates, that goes hand in hand with the other elements of socialism. Taking the word socialism in its broadest sense, you can see that they are trying to take away individualism and force people into an involuntary relationship with others.

The way that it works in a social setting is by playing upon people's natural desire to not be disliked. They try to control the social environment by ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. You can observe them ganging up together on cue to do it. They're bullies and cowards. They're inherently dishonest, and will use any tactic at their disposal to achieve their goals. They will call you any name, accuse you of any crime, in order to intimidate you into shutting up and going along with what they're trying to force on you.

You may not really agree with them, but if they have anything to say about it, you will knuckle under and pretend to agree with them to avoid them making your life a living hell. Orwell's 1984 illustrates that aspect of socialism in an extreme form.

Whether you agree with her politically or not -- the treatment given to Sarah Palin is a textbook example of how they operate. If she does not run for president, the only reason why will be because of how badly the left wing machine has beaten her up, attacked her family, and tried to destroy her with everything at their disposal. That has been their primary goal for the last two years, and if she doesn't run, it will have worked.

They may not break your kneecaps with a lead pipe the way their union thugs used to back in the day, but they will do the social equivalent to you if they can get away with it. Coercive groupthink is the central, and perhaps most vile aspect of socialism. It's why they work so hard to dominate the media and the schools.

So with regard to the posts above -- it's not enough to just say "I disagree with The Rani". It's "The Rani is a bad person and should be shunned by all right-thinking people". The threat of ostracism is essential to how they operate. And the more power they have, the more tangible that ostracism becomes -- from a professor flunking you out of his class, to being fired from your job, to being imprisoned or executed when they have complete control.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There is a fundamental element of how the left operates, that goes hand in hand with the other elements of socialism. Taking the word socialism in its broadest sense, you can see that they are trying to take away individualism and force people into an involuntary relationship with others.

The way that it works in a social setting is by playing upon people's natural desire to not be disliked. They try to control the social environment by ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. You can observe them ganging up together on cue to do it. They're bullies and cowards. They're inherently dishonest, and will use any tactic at their disposal to achieve their goals. They will call you any name, accuse you of any crime, in order to intimidate you into shutting up and going along with what they're trying to force on you.

You may not really agree with them, but if they have anything to say about it, you will knuckle under and pretend to agree with them to avoid them making your life a living hell. Orwell's 1984 illustrates that aspect of socialism in an extreme form.

Whether you agree with her politically or not -- the treatment given to Sarah Palin is a textbook example of how they operate. If she does not run for president, the only reason why will be because of how badly the left wing machine has beaten her up, attacked her family, and tried to destroy her with everything at their disposal. That has been their primary goal for the last two years, and if she doesn't run, it will have worked.

They may not break your kneecaps with a lead pipe the way their union thugs used to back in the day, but they will do the social equivalent to you if they can get away with it. Coercive groupthink is the central, and perhaps most vile aspect of socialism. It's why they work so hard to dominate the media and the schools.

So with regard to the posts above -- it's not enough to just say "I disagree with The Rani". It's "The Rani is a bad person and should be shunned by all right-thinking people". The threat of ostracism is essential to how they operate. And the more power they have, the more tangible that ostracism becomes -- from a professor flunking you out of his class, to being fired from your job, to being imprisoned or executed when they have complete control.

You speak my mind in some regards. I have also observed the groupthink and playground antics here at times, especially if you think outside the box on some issues.

As for Rani, if we lived near one another, I would suggest we get together for lunch. She and I may have different thoughts on some issues, but we also agree on others. Many of us probably have more in common than we might think.

In addition, I have a hunch that some here are concerned with speaking their heart because they are concerned about being ostercized. I have actually communicated with a couple of forum members in PMs who actually feel the way I do about some issues but ..................

Originally Posted by Deb C

In addition, I have a hunch that some here are concerned with speaking their heart because they are concerned about being ostercized. I have actually communicated with a couple of forum members in PMs who actually feel the way I do about some issues but ..................

Feel free to speak your heart. I think there are enough of us here to keep them in check.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There is a fundamental element of how the left operates, that goes hand in hand with the other elements of socialism. Taking the word socialism in its broadest sense, you can see that they are trying to take away individualism and force people into an involuntary relationship with others.

The "Left" is no more a monolith than the "Right". No more than I would confuse Mohandas Gandhi with Leon Trotsky would I confuse Sir Winston Churchill with Adolf Hitler.

Is the whole Left inconsistent with individuality? Not in the least. Do high-quality public schools destroy individuality? Does 'socialized medicine' destroy individuality? Maybe you fantasize some archaic idea of "rugged individualism" in which everyone competes for everything and the strongest prevails. Ask yourself this question: is the Law of the Jungle conducive to individuality?

The way that it works in a social setting is by playing upon people's natural desire to not be disliked. They try to control the social environment by ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. You can observe them ganging up together on cue to do it. They're bullies and cowards. They're inherently dishonest, and will use any tactic at their disposal to achieve their goals. They will call you any name, accuse you of any crime, in order to intimidate you into shutting up and going along with what they're trying to force on you.

As if some of your buddies on the Right don't do that. What is the smear of the day? "Baby-killer"? Terrorist enabler? Pinko? Fellow traveler? Union goon?

You may not really agree with them, but if they have anything to say about it, you will knuckle under and pretend to agree with them to avoid them making your life a living hell. Orwell's 1984 illustrates that aspect of socialism in an extreme form.

Maybe you don't fully get 1984. All words have no meaning when they supposedly have great import. I read the book closely enough and I see a hierarchical order in which Party members are themselves in a hierarchy as rigid as any aristocracy, and all others are proles to be exploited. Anyone with any capacity to lead get the choice of joining the Party or being destroyed. It is socialism only to the extent that nobody owns and operates a profitable business -- but neither is there any pretense of social justice. "Every man for himself" is the rule, fear is everywhere, and -- significantly -- words and their opposites are equated. A "Joycamp" is a concentration camp. The "Minitru" is the ministry of propaganda -- as a rule, lies. "Minipax" covers for a militaristic bureaucracy. Oceania is simply a madhouse, its methods and purposes always a well-hidden mystery except that anyone who challenges it will be tortured, eliminated, or both.

Whether you agree with her politically or not -- the treatment given to Sarah Palin is a textbook example of how they operate. If she does not run for president, the only reason why will be because of how badly the left wing machine has beaten her up, attacked her family, and tried to destroy her with everything at their disposal. That has been their primary goal for the last two years, and if she doesn't run, it will have worked.

Sarah Palin showed herself a pathological liar. She thus became fair game when she spoke of "death panels". Remember well that the Obama Administration plays far fewer linguistic games than its predecessor.

They may not break your kneecaps with a lead pipe the way their union thugs used to back in the day, but they will do the social equivalent to you if they can get away with it. Coercive groupthink is the central, and perhaps most vile aspect of socialism. It's why they work so hard to dominate the media and the schools.

Yeah, right. Giant corporations were always squeaky-clean when dealing with unions. They never hired thugs to beat up union organizers. They never blacklisted anyone who showed any support for unions. Have you ever been to a union meeting? There's far more diversity of thought in a typical union meeting than there is in an executive suite full of people self-selected for holding the same values. Violate the norms and you are an outsider.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Just my opinion but I suspect that he means that private aid organizations also have problems with graft or at best simple incompetence with resources.

That is indeed exactly what he said. But the sky is blue.

In other words, what he said was total irrelevant non sequitor.

Originally Posted by Odin

Justin, I think the problem is that you and I have very different models of what is meant by the term "government" in our mental map. As far as I'm concerned government is any form of social organization that relies on impersonal institutions, this is opposed to traditional societies that are based on kinship and tradition.

Then you're talking about a thing wholly compatible with anarchism. Which fact makes me strongly suspect that what you're talking about as 'government' is either not quite as you described it, or otherwise a concept overbroad for the concrete statements you make about it. In any case, I'm not terribly wedded to any particular specific meaning of terms -- just that whatever that meaning is, we apply it consistently. You're not doing that.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Feel free to speak your heart. I think there are enough of us here to keep them in check.

And if there aren't, screw those guys. The rest of us are grownups here.

Speak your minds, I plead.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There is a fundamental element of how the left operates, that goes hand in hand with the other elements of socialism. Taking the word socialism in its broadest sense, you can see that they are trying to take away individualism and force people into an involuntary relationship with others.

The way that it works in a social setting is by playing upon people's natural desire to not be disliked. They try to control the social environment by ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. You can observe them ganging up together on cue to do it. They're bullies and cowards. They're inherently dishonest, and will use any tactic at their disposal to achieve their goals. They will call you any name, accuse you of any crime, in order to intimidate you into shutting up and going along with what they're trying to force on you.

You may not really agree with them, but if they have anything to say about it, you will knuckle under and pretend to agree with them to avoid them making your life a living hell. Orwell's 1984 illustrates that aspect of socialism in an extreme form.

Whether you agree with her politically or not -- the treatment given to Sarah Palin is a textbook example of how they operate. If she does not run for president, the only reason why will be because of how badly the left wing machine has beaten her up, attacked her family, and tried to destroy her with everything at their disposal. That has been their primary goal for the last two years, and if she doesn't run, it will have worked.

They may not break your kneecaps with a lead pipe the way their union thugs used to back in the day, but they will do the social equivalent to you if they can get away with it. Coercive groupthink is the central, and perhaps most vile aspect of socialism. It's why they work so hard to dominate the media and the schools.

So with regard to the posts above -- it's not enough to just say "I disagree with The Rani". It's "The Rani is a bad person and should be shunned by all right-thinking people". The threat of ostracism is essential to how they operate. And the more power they have, the more tangible that ostracism becomes -- from a professor flunking you out of his class, to being fired from your job, to being imprisoned or executed when they have complete control.

JPT, I think you've outdone yourself with this one.

Your entire post is made up of accusations and conjecture, not one basic fact (if you're not the moderator, just how do you ostracize someone on an internet forum or, for that matter, instill coerciveness through groupthink?) and yet, for you, it is 'the other' that embraces these flaws.

I don't think I've ever read anything that shows such an obvious lack of self awareness. I am thoroughly conversant in every major work by every major American playwright where the lack of self awareness is a primary theme, but you make a Willie Lomax or even a Lolita seem like a Carl Jung, if not the Buddha. Your horseshit is truly that exemplary of the theme.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I think the Bulls should have benched Michael Jordan for 1/2 of every game so the other players didn't feel bad when he scored 60 points. Sure, they probably would have lost a lot of games that way, but it would have been worth it.

Jordan was not the only top-notch player on that team. Furthermore, it took a great coach like Phil Jackson to get that group of players to gel together.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Just my opinion but I suspect that he means that private aid organizations also have problems with graft or at best simple incompetence with resources.

I seem to remember that the American Red Cross has had a number of scandals.

Just wanted to note for you that the majority of Americans don't buy into your horseshit about government's role -




My only hope is that the GOP continues to act like butterflies with their brains blown-out and keeps pushing to actually reduce the big three functions (i.e. insurance, army, debt payor) of the federal government while keeping (or lowering still) the lowest taxes since the 1920s.

The clever ones are trying to pivot back to the old single focus of Ron Ray-gun on taxes, the old borrow-and-spend GOP (note, it's no longer voodoo supply-side or trickle down; its "cuts for job providers" whoo-hooo!) where everyone gets magic ponies.

But my hope is that folks like you can keep the Grand Old Party lobotomized for just another 17 months for the elections -- or, maybe all it will take is the next 3 months if you types can create the debt ceiling catastrophe that I know you are so capable of doing.

Best of luck to you sweethearts in your endeavors to actually educate Idiot America on what your policies/philosophies would actually mean. I seriously mean that!

Originally Posted by Deb C

In addition, I have a hunch that some here are concerned with speaking their heart because they are concerned about being ostercized. I have actually communicated with a couple of forum members in PMs who actually feel the way I do about some issues but ..................

Actually, I don't think there is one dominant mode of thought here on this forum. There are conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, liberals, moderates, and hybrids of each. No one individual is in danger of being ostracized due to their point of view.

The PM function is very helpful. The Ignore function can also be useful if you simply cannot tolerate a certain individual's behavior but still want to interact with other people on the forum. And I really do think it is more about behavior than political viewpoint.

Getting back on topic:

GOP disapproval rate surges to 59%

Originally Posted by playwrite

Just wanted to note for you that the majority of Americans don't buy into your horseshit about government's role -




My only hope is that the GOP continues to act like butterflies with their brains blown-out and keeps pushing to actually reduce the big three functions (i.e. insurance, army, debt payor) of the federal government while keeping (or lowering still) the lowest taxes since the 1920s.

The clever ones are trying to pivot back to the old single focus of Ron Ray-gun on taxes, the old borrow-and-spend GOP (note, it's no longer voodoo supply-side or trickle down; its "cuts for job providers" whoo-hooo!) where everyone gets magic ponies.

But my hope is that folks like you can keep the Grand Old Party lobotomized for just another 17 months for the elections -- or, maybe all it will take is the next 3 months if you types can create the debt ceiling catastrophe that I know you are so capable of doing.

Best of luck to you sweethearts in your endeavors to actually educate Idiot America on what your policies/philosophies would actually mean. I seriously mean that!

Idiot America.... Hmmm....I wunder what I could do with this Idiot America thingy.

Originally Posted by Odin

Getting back on topic:

GOP disapproval rate surges to 59%

Even if Democracy Corps is biased, the direction and magnitude of the shift should scare the Hell out of any Republican Congress critter, especially in districts that were marginal in 2006, 2008, and 2010.

It's John Boehner who looks like a one-term Speaker of the House.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Right. And if they're blind, deaf, and quadriplegic, they should be given the job of evaluating the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch. Brownie points to whoever recognizes the book that metaphor came from, or even the author.

What? No responses?

Man, these opportunities to "learn something" are what keeps this INTJ from going "totally" insane!

You all can have the "brownie points"; I'll keep the experiential knowledge of hunting it down(Makee-Learnee, you know!)

Thanks Badge'

Sincerely, Prince (imitating Pat as a sign of respect and gratitude).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

What? No responses?

Man, these opportunities to "learn something" are what keeps this INTJ from going "totally" insane!

You all can have the "brownie points"; I'll keep the experiential knowledge of hunting it down(Makee-Learnee, you know!)

Thanks Badge'

Sincerely, Prince (imitating Pat as a sign of respect and graditude).

And scratch that pretty spotty kitty behind the ears for me when you find out!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Actually, I don't think there is one dominant mode of thought here on this forum. There are conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, liberals, moderates, and hybrids of each. No one individual is in danger of being ostracized due to their point of view.

The PM function is very helpful. The Ignore function can also be useful if you simply cannot tolerate a certain individual's behavior but still want to interact with other people on the forum. And I really do think it is more about behavior than political viewpoint.

Hmmm, you were the one who told me I had a very limited audience here. Not that I care about your opinion but just thought I would remind you.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Actually, I don't think there is one dominant mode of thought here on this forum. There are conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, liberals, moderates, and hybrids of each. No one individual is in danger of being ostracized due to their point of view.

The PM function is very helpful. The Ignore function can also be useful if you simply cannot tolerate a certain individual's behavior but still want to interact with other people on the forum. And I really do think it is more about behavior than political viewpoint.

Hmmm....I think ASD65 would disagree with you on this.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Actually, I don't think there is one dominant mode of thought here on this forum. There are conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, liberals, moderates, and hybrids of each. No one individual is in danger of being ostracized due to their point of view.

The PM function is very helpful. The Ignore function can also be useful if you simply cannot tolerate a certain individual's behavior but still want to interact with other people on the forum. And I really do think it is more about behavior than political viewpoint.

There certainly isn't one dominant mode of thought. That's obvious. There are people here on both the left and right who freak out when others refuse to agree with them. I have been in lots of on-line arguments in forums other than this one, including one forum of professional historians that I've been active on long before this one. In general I have learned to disagree without getting personal. In addition, when I say "I think this because of A, B, and C," and some one immediately replies, "No, A, B and C are wrong, you should think this because of D, E, and F," I don't bother to make another post repeating A, B, and C. However, when some one makes personal attacks on me, I sometimes say things that I otherwise wouldn't.

People go onto my ignore list for one of two reasons. The first and more common one is that they prove themselves repeatedly to be mouthpieces for right-wing propaganda impervious to facts. I don't see any point in responding to them or, after a while, reading them. The second reason is personal abuse. I don't remember, as I've said, what the exact nature of the personal abuse that caused me to cite my credentials was, but it must have been pretty extreme. Some of what flies around here is more than differences of opinion, believe me. Literally from the moment he appeared on the forum, Marc Lamb made it clear that he hated my guts and would say literally anything to get my goat. He was very good at it, too. I did try to find some common ground even with him when Bill Strauss was dying but he brushed me off.

The PM function is helpful, among other things, when one feels the need of a reality check about another poster. But in any case, this is supposed to be discussion of issues, not group therapy. Craig is the only one who gets to do interventions and they tend to be pretty drastic, although he does seem to have a generous forgiveness policy as well.

On basketball, different kinds of teams win all the time. The Detroit Pistons were winning in the mid00s and before they one a championship detractors said they couldn't win without any superstars of course they proved that adage wrong. Actually NBA writers used to say the team with the best player wins and that's wrong. I think the team with the best players wins is more true, but then again that excludes the coach.
Usually a championship team has a least two great players though. I can think of lots of teams that made it to the finals on one players back, but not any that won the championship. James drug the Cavs to the finals in 07, but didn't have a chance against the Spurs defense. Allen Iverson got the 76s to the Finals.

An all-star team can win a championship and it has happened (the Lakers of recent history) , but it is cooler when a rag tag bunch of guys plays better than the sum of their parts.

Like this coming NBA finals the heat are only better at two positions on the floor with a weaker bench so will those two be able to overwhelm the whole Dallas team. It's hard to say since Nowitzsky is the best shooter I've ever seen (Sorry Ray Allen and Reggie Miller) somewhere close to Larry Bird, but he doesn't do everything that Bird could do. Bird was a play-maker as well as a shooter Dirk just gets by. James and Wade are going to have to drag this team to a title if they are gunna win Bosh of course is no slouch, but Nowitzky is better than he is.