Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: 2012 Elections - Page 109







Post#2701 at 08-17-2011 01:42 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
08-17-2011, 01:42 PM #2701
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Yeah, except... Not that at all. He's been pretty clear that, while he opposes abortion, he considers it a matter for the people of each state to decide for themselves. How any rational person gets what you said from what he says is baffling to me.
State government = government. States having the right to outlaw abortion = increasing government intrusion into private lives in those states that do so. Not really that hard to figure out.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#2702 at 08-17-2011 02:05 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
08-17-2011, 02:05 PM #2702
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

A very interesting article based on long-term polling data about who the Tea Party actually are. No extreme group has ever had comparable power in American politics in my opinion. It may however not last.







Post#2703 at 08-17-2011 02:09 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
08-17-2011, 02:09 PM #2703
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Obama didn't run to win either.
My ass, he didn't. He was selected to run practically from the get-go. IIRC, only Clinton was around as a plausible alternative, but she never had the broad showing that HopeyChangey did.

And in any case, it's not about what Paul wants (if it were even reasonable to guess about that). It's what the system wants. And in addition to power for its own sake, the system wants to retain legitimacy. Paul serves that second purpose extremely well.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#2704 at 08-17-2011 03:13 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
08-17-2011, 03:13 PM #2704
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
State government = government. States having the right to outlaw abortion = increasing government intrusion into private lives in those states that do so. Not really that hard to figure out.
It really should not be necessary to say this, but hate to just let it pass. The purpose of limiting abortion is to protect the life of the person in the womb. From that perspective, it has nothing to do with protecting individual freedom, but everything to do with protecting life. This is the great and continuing divide of the abortion debate.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#2705 at 08-17-2011 03:26 PM by Dedalus [at Maryland joined Sep 2010 #posts 314]
---
08-17-2011, 03:26 PM #2705
Join Date
Sep 2010
Location
Maryland
Posts
314

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
"Leaving people the hell alone." Yeah, right. He would force women to have children they don't want and use the power of the state to enforce a ban on abortion.
He isn't running for God, or even King. He could not become president and suddenly decree that abortion is illegal, anymore than Obama could become president and decree sharia law to be the law of the land.

Abortion is a non-starter anyway. Both the parties love the controversy, it keeps a fair amount of people in both of their camps. The GOP can say "we want to end it or at least curtail it, vote for me!" and the Dems can say "oh, those Republicans are getting mighty close to overturning it, vote for me to stop them!" Another way they keep the sheep divided.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Malcolm Reynolds

"I ran across a book recently which suggested that the peace and prosperity of a culture was solely related to how many librarians it contained. Possibly a slight overstatement. But a culture that doesn't value its librarians doesn't value ideas and without ideas, well, where are we?"
Lucien, Librarian of Dream (from The Sandman, issue 57 (1993) by Neil Gaiman)

Early-wave GenX










Post#2706 at 08-17-2011 03:31 PM by Dedalus [at Maryland joined Sep 2010 #posts 314]
---
08-17-2011, 03:31 PM #2706
Join Date
Sep 2010
Location
Maryland
Posts
314

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
State government = government. States having the right to outlaw abortion = increasing government intrusion into private lives in those states that do so. Not really that hard to figure out.
And I might add:
Federal government having the right to tell it citizens they must buy health insurance = increasing government intrusion into private lives. Not really that hard to figure out.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Malcolm Reynolds

"I ran across a book recently which suggested that the peace and prosperity of a culture was solely related to how many librarians it contained. Possibly a slight overstatement. But a culture that doesn't value its librarians doesn't value ideas and without ideas, well, where are we?"
Lucien, Librarian of Dream (from The Sandman, issue 57 (1993) by Neil Gaiman)

Early-wave GenX










Post#2707 at 08-17-2011 03:32 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
08-17-2011, 03:32 PM #2707
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
State government = government. States having the right to outlaw abortion = increasing government intrusion into private lives in those states that do so. Not really that hard to figure out.
Right. Except that, by that very argument, we already have the situation today that Kiff seems to be decrying. After all, since the federal government has the right to outlaw abortion (and, of course, since it has the right to legalize it, the converse necessarily follows), that means, by your argument, that the government already intrudes into private lives.

So again, what Paul has said represents at the very least absolutely no increase whatsoever in the government's intrusion in private lives.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#2708 at 08-17-2011 03:42 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-17-2011, 03:42 PM #2708
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
You put it pretty well. I would have to say their long string of Presidents was a pretty unmemorable one, too--probably the least memorable of any generation's Presidents, with the possible competitor of the Transcendentals other than Lincoln.
So far Boomers have Clinton (OK, but far from great) and one of the absolute worst (Dubya). Should Rick Perry or Michele Bachman succeed President Obama in 2012, then the Boom Generation likely comes out the worst generation in American political history. The Gilded at least left America in better economic shape than they knew in childhood. If President Obama should be a well-defined success (which will require a second term and Democrats taking the House while holding onto the Senate), then the ambiguity of someone on the boundary between Boom and X might be resolved in the direction of Obama as a Boomer. I see Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann as figures incompetent enough that either could go down in a military coup if elected, especially under questionable circumstances.

Whether one puts President Obama in the Boom or Thirteenth may become a quibble. Boomers are not too young to succeed even two terms of Barack Obama...Andrew Cuomo (60) and Amy Klobuchar (56) would still be young enough in 2017 to rescue the reputation of the Boomer generation. Maybe President Obama is the one who sets most things straight before some elderly Boomer gets to be the political equivalent of the Grey Champion. Remember that a bunch of Republican winners of 2010 -- Tea Party types likely to be far out of step with their states (Ayotte in New Hampshire, Toomey in Pennsylvania, Portman in Ohio, Kirk in Illinois, Johnson in Wisconsin, and perhaps Rubio in Florida or Paul in Kentucky, the last legacy of the Tea Party Cult influence in America) and some very old Republican Senators who have gone decidedly from moderation to the Hard Right (McCain in Arizona, Grassley in Iowa) will be likely to retire.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#2709 at 08-17-2011 03:47 PM by Galen [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 1,017]
---
08-17-2011, 03:47 PM #2709
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
1,017

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
It really should not be necessary to say this, but hate to just let it pass. The purpose of limiting abortion is to protect the life of the person in the womb. From that perspective, it has nothing to do with protecting individual freedom, but everything to do with protecting life. This is the great and continuing divide of the abortion debate.
The question of abortion isn't even completely settled among Libertarians. Libertarians tend to be pro-choice simply because when they have doubt about an issue they default to not infringing on freedom.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises

Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long







Post#2710 at 08-17-2011 05:26 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
08-17-2011, 05:26 PM #2710
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

God knows, I want Obama to succeed, but this bus tour stuff is depressing.

"We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again," Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. "But over the last six months we've had a run of bad luck." Obama listed three events overseas -- the Arab Spring uprisings, the tsunami in Japan, and the European debt crises -- which set the economy back.
Guess I am into the Heinlein quotes today:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."
Please, Mr. President, I don't want to hear about bad luck. Hope was better.

James50
Last edited by James50; 08-17-2011 at 05:28 PM.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#2711 at 08-17-2011 05:37 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
08-17-2011, 05:37 PM #2711
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Dedalus View Post
And I might add:
Federal government having the right to tell it citizens they must buy health insurance = increasing government intrusion into private lives. Not really that hard to figure out.
Well, since I don't buy into Right Libertarian dogma, I'm okay with some levels of intrusion.

I don't personally think that having to purchase health insurance is all that intrusive. The consequences of not having it in a catastrophic situation are pretty dire. It just makes sense to have it.

Having the government -- state OR federal -- telling me I can't use birth control (some anti-abortion folks DO take it that far) is much more intrusive.







Post#2712 at 08-17-2011 05:40 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
08-17-2011, 05:40 PM #2712
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Dedalus View Post
Abortion is a non-starter anyway. Both the parties love the controversy, it keeps a fair amount of people in both of their camps. The GOP can say "we want to end it or at least curtail it, vote for me!" and the Dems can say "oh, those Republicans are getting mighty close to overturning it, vote for me to stop them!" Another way they keep the sheep divided.
No, that's what the disinterested cynics keep on saying, and it's crap. It is a significant issue and a very real divide between two ways of thinking in this country.







Post#2713 at 08-17-2011 05:42 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
08-17-2011, 05:42 PM #2713
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
Guess I am into the Heinlein quotes today:
He must have been channeling Ms. Rand (via John Galt) that day. Blech.







Post#2714 at 08-17-2011 05:45 PM by Hutch74 [at Wisconsin joined Mar 2010 #posts 1,008]
---
08-17-2011, 05:45 PM #2714
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
Wisconsin
Posts
1,008

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
No, that's what the disinterested cynics keep on saying, and it's crap. It is a significant issue and a very real divide between two ways of thinking in this country.
I don't think it is crap. Both parties use social issues as a matter to point to the opposing party and say "look, they're trying to take your rights away!".

You're right about the religious conservatives who make gay rights and abortion an issue. Intrusiveness.

At the same time you have leftists (Eric Green here comes to mind) who make guns an issue. More intrusiveness. Both parties use fear on these social issues to win elections.

The right thing to do would be for both parties to drop the social issues entirely and focus on economic ones. But neither party will do this.







Post#2715 at 08-17-2011 05:48 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
08-17-2011, 05:48 PM #2715
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
So far Boomers have Clinton (OK, but far from great) and one of the absolute worst (Dubya). Should Rick Perry or Michele Bachman succeed President Obama in 2012, then the Boom Generation likely comes out the worst generation in American political history. The Gilded at least left America in better economic shape than they knew in childhood. If President Obama should be a well-defined success (which will require a second term and Democrats taking the House while holding onto the Senate), then the ambiguity of someone on the boundary between Boom and X might be resolved in the direction of Obama as a Boomer. I see Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann as figures incompetent enough that either could go down in a military coup if elected, especially under questionable circumstances.

Whether one puts President Obama in the Boom or Thirteenth may become a quibble. Boomers are not too young to succeed even two terms of Barack Obama...Andrew Cuomo (60) and Amy Klobuchar (56) would still be young enough in 2017 to rescue the reputation of the Boomer generation. Maybe President Obama is the one who sets most things straight before some elderly Boomer gets to be the political equivalent of the Grey Champion. Remember that a bunch of Republican winners of 2010 -- Tea Party types likely to be far out of step with their states (Ayotte in New Hampshire, Toomey in Pennsylvania, Portman in Ohio, Kirk in Illinois, Johnson in Wisconsin, and perhaps Rubio in Florida or Paul in Kentucky, the last legacy of the Tea Party Cult influence in America) and some very old Republican Senators who have gone decidedly from moderation to the Hard Right (McCain in Arizona, Grassley in Iowa) will be likely to retire.
If there is one thing Barack Obama has proven beyond a doubt, it is that he is not, and has no intention, of being a Prophet. He has bragged about not being a Boomer--and he isn't. His mother was! (Well, actually, I'd say a *Silent, like my brother, same age, also graduated HS in 1960--but she is a '43er.)

I think he will probably be re-elected--the competition looks worse every day--and not accomplish very mujch.

You did forget about Romney.







Post#2716 at 08-17-2011 05:48 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
08-17-2011, 05:48 PM #2716
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
He must have been channeling Ms. Rand (via John Galt) that day. Blech.
Yea, I understand, but every time he talks about bad luck, I will think of it. Hopefully some political adviser will tell him to talk about something else. Its not what we need.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#2717 at 08-17-2011 05:50 PM by Hutch74 [at Wisconsin joined Mar 2010 #posts 1,008]
---
08-17-2011, 05:50 PM #2717
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
Wisconsin
Posts
1,008

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
If there is one thing Barack Obama has proven beyond a doubt, it is that he is not, and has no intention, of being a Prophet. He has bragged about not being a Boomer--and he isn't. His mother was! (Well, actually, I'd say a *Silent, like my brother, same age, also graduated HS in 1960--but she is a '43er.)

I think he will probably be re-elected--the competition looks worse every day--and not accomplish very mujch.

You did forget about Romney.
I wouldn't want to put any money on Obamas re-election chances. Gallup came out today showing only 26% approve of how Obama is handling the economy. And the GOP candidate (whoever it is) has over a year to reinvent themselves to the public as a better alternative to Obama.

Short story is..he needs to show some results..and soon.







Post#2718 at 08-17-2011 05:59 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-17-2011, 05:59 PM #2718
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
If there is one thing Barack Obama has proven beyond a doubt, it is that he is not, and has no intention, of being a Prophet. He has bragged about not being a Boomer--and he isn't. His mother was! (Well, actually, I'd say a *Silent, like my brother, same age, also graduated HS in 1960--but she is a '43er.)

I think he will probably be re-elected--the competition looks worse every day--and not accomplish very much.

You did forget about Romney.
Unlike Bachmann and Perry, Romney is difficult to figure out except that he is a Boomer. I can't predict what sort of President he would be because he is all over the map. Bachmann and Perry would both be execrable -- both worse than Dubya because Bachmann would impose a witch-hunt and because Perry would open the warehouse to the Religious Right.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#2719 at 08-17-2011 08:48 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
08-17-2011, 08:48 PM #2719
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
Well, since I don't buy into Right Libertarian dogma, I'm okay with some levels of intrusion.

I don't personally think that having to purchase health insurance is all that intrusive. The consequences of not having it in a catastrophic situation are pretty dire. It just makes sense to have it.

Having the government -- state OR federal -- telling me I can't use birth control (some anti-abortion folks DO take it that far) is much more intrusive.

Ahhh and there is the meat of it. You are okay with government intrusion as long as you happen to agree with the intrusion (Those folks who don't? Fuck em.). You are just fine with being a loyal subject as long as your side is king. Well if you please, allow me to say that I find that sort of "thought" completely pathetic.

That said I applaud your honesty. It is a rare thing indeed to see someone come out in support of their "massa."



† And in deference to our hyper-politically-correct-cowardice-legalese-driven-culture, allow me to confirm that the previous statement is in no way aimed at the current President of the United States, nor should it be construed in any such fashion that would imply it does. And let me also state publically that I briefly considered posting this paragraph using a smaller font and typeface as a joke but decided against it because some hyper-politically-correct-cowardice-legalese-driven-folks might not get "the joke." Oh screw it, I am going to post this paragraph using a small font size and different typeface anyway. I am a "risk driven" person, so sue me.







Post#2720 at 08-17-2011 09:41 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
08-17-2011, 09:41 PM #2720
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
Ahhh and there is the meat of it. You are okay with government intrusion as long as you happen to agree with the intrusion (Those folks who don't? Fuck em.). You are just fine with being a loyal subject as long as your side is king. Well if you please, allow me to say that I find that sort of "thought" completely pathetic.

That said I applaud your honesty. It is a rare thing indeed to see someone come out in support of their "massa."
Gah, what is it with y'all, anarchists? So either-or, black-or-white?

I am a freedom lover or I'm a "loyal subject?"

(Talk about pathetic -- it's funny how the "massa" thing rears its ugly head whenever you pure libertarian types get challenged)

Laughable.
Last edited by Child of Socrates; 08-17-2011 at 09:45 PM.







Post#2721 at 08-17-2011 09:44 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
08-17-2011, 09:44 PM #2721
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I find it more ludicrous than pathetic.
Who the heck is trying to outlaw birth control?
As I understand it, the pill doesn't necessarily prevent conception, only implantation. So the pill may be "murdering" a fertilized egg and should be outlawed, if you take these arguments to their logical conclusion.







Post#2722 at 08-17-2011 09:57 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
08-17-2011, 09:57 PM #2722
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
My ass, he didn't. He was selected to run practically from the get-go. IIRC, only Clinton was around as a plausible alternative, but she never had the broad showing that HopeyChangey did.

And in any case, it's not about what Paul wants (if it were even reasonable to guess about that). It's what the system wants. And in addition to power for its own sake, the system wants to retain legitimacy. Paul serves that second purpose extremely well.
Well said but let me flesh this out a bit because it is important.

Everyone has seen The Matrix series correct? Not a particularly great series outside of the original film. A poor and anti-climactic ending in Revolutions which unfortunately ignored the revelations in the second film ruined it for the most part. But it is in the philosophy behind The Matrix where things really shine. You see The Matrix is not an action piece; it's a parody of human society. It's a mockumentary of the human "need" to be governed as a whole but for our sake let’s just focus on it as a critique of our modern society/government. The primary plot is a parody (drenched in sci-fi) of the current systems of control that keep humans obedient, asleep and generating "power." In the second film is a scene with a character named The Architect. Most non-computer programmers missed the point of this scene so I will explain it because it is important to Justin's point and is one of the most perfect illustrations of it found in media.

In any system of control over a species with the ability of freedom of choice it becomes possible (and in fact likely) that a small percentage of the controlled population will in fact reject the control. If left alone the population rejecting the system will grow over time and eventually cause the system to collapse. Thus anyone wishing to run a system with the goal of dominating a population needs to not only account for the controlled population but also for the small portion that rejects the control. In The Matrix universe this accounting takes the form of an imaginary war. This war means a great deal to those who believe they are rejecting control but ultimately end up simply playing the game within the system under a different layer of control. The anomalies are eventually disposed of, the system recycles and the rejections begin again all while being completely predictable under the current system. The rejection of control is not the act of a more-intelligent maverick, lone wolf or counter-culture. Quite the opposite is true. The rejection of control is something that can be modeled and controlled itself.

Computer programmers do this today, not with people, but with errors. Errors are controlled by the use of error dumps of various sorts. These dumps have the same purpose; to make sure that small errors do not grow over time and collapse the system.

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Ralph Nader, the Tea Party, the Green Party, the Red Party, and all so-called "Independents" are error dumps. They keep the few errors that reject the system under control and in sight where they can be dealt with in the appropriate manner.







Post#2723 at 08-17-2011 10:15 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
08-17-2011, 10:15 PM #2723
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
Gah, what is it with y'all, anarchists? So either-or, black-or-white?

I am a freedom lover or I'm a "loyal subject?"

(Talk about pathetic -- it's funny how the "massa" thing rears its ugly head whenever you pure libertarian types get challenged)

Laughable.
Oh you aren't challenging me, nor am I a "libertarian type." You might not realize this but anarchist != libertarian. You are a librarian type right? You might want to look those philosophical differences up just to... You know... Avoid that confusion in the future.

I also would never state that you love freedom. Your comments suggest otherwise.







Post#2724 at 08-17-2011 10:18 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
08-17-2011, 10:18 PM #2724
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
It really should not be necessary to say this, but hate to just let it pass. The purpose of limiting abortion is to protect the life of the person in the womb. From that perspective, it has nothing to do with protecting individual freedom, but everything to do with protecting life. This is the great and continuing divide of the abortion debate.

James50
This is why discussions about "freedom" in the abstract are useless. One person's "freedom" is another person's "atrocity".
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#2725 at 08-17-2011 10:23 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
08-17-2011, 10:23 PM #2725
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Hmmm ... I might agree with this, if not for the exclusion of Independents from the debates and Jon Stewart's observations about Ron Paul.
It seems to me that they are trying to keep independents OUT of sight.
Right! But look at the design of the system. If the primary layer of control acts as though those who reject the control are illegitimate and adversarial by design, then the reactions of the rejected can be modeled and also controlled. They are still playing the game and fighting the war within the system. Indeed the only way to beat the system then becomes not playing by its rules. The error must willingly crash the system.
-----------------------------------------