from the debate -

HARRIS: Governor Perry, you said you wrote the book "Fed Up" to start a conversation. Congratulations. It's certainly done that in recent weeks.

In the book, you call Social Security the best example of a program that "violently tossed aside any respect for states' rights." We understand your position that it's got funding problems now. I'd like you to explain your view that Social Security was wrong right from the beginning.

PERRY: Well, I think any of us that want to go back and change 70 years of what's been going on in this country is probably going to have a difficult time. And rather than spending a lot of time talking about what those folks were doing back in the '30s and the '40s, it's a nice intellectual conversation, but the fact is we have got to be focussed on how we're going to change this program.

And people who are on Social Security today, men and women who are receiving those benefits today, are individuals at my age that are in line pretty quick to get them, they don't need to worry about anything. But I think the Republican candidates are talking about ways to transition this program, and it is a monstrous lie.

It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you're paying into a program that's going to be there. Anybody that's for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it's not right.

HARRIS: OK. Thank you, sir.

Let me follow on that. You mentioned the phrase "Ponzi scheme."

Just this morning, your former political adviser, Karl Rove, said that type of language could be "toxic," as he put it, in a general election. Vice President Cheney gave an interview today to ABC News, when he said it's not a Ponzi scheme, "It's a program that a great many people depend on."

My understanding is you're standing by every word you've written in that book. Is that right?

PERRY: Yes, sir. You know, Karl has been over the top for a long time in some of his remarks. So I'm not responsible for Karl anymore. But the fact is --

HARRIS: Vice President Cheney though said it's not a Ponzi scheme. You say it is.

PERRY: Absolutely. If Vice President Cheney or anyone else says that the program that we have in place today, and young people who are paying into that, expect that program to be sound, and for them to receive benefits when they research retirement age, that is just a lie. And I don't care what anyone says. We know that, the American people know that, but more importantly, those 25-and-30-year-olds know that.

HARRIS: Governor, time. Thank you. Governor, time.

HARRIS: Governor Romney, let's be blunt. Let's be blunt. Democrats are itching to use that kind of provocative language against Republicans, yet you acknowledge yourself that Social Security has funding problems.

How do you have a candid question about Social Security without scaring seniors?

ROMNEY: Well, the issue is not the funding of Social Security. We all agree and have for years that the funding program of Social Security is not working, and Congress has been raiding the dollars from Social Security to pay for annual government expenditures. That's wrong. The funding, however, is not the issue.

The issue in the book "Fed Up," Governor, is you say that by any measure, Social Security is a failure. You can't say that to tens of millions of Americans who live on Social Security and those who have lived on it.

The governor says look, states ought to be able to opt out of Social Security. Our nominee has to be someone who isn't committed to abolishing Social Security, but who is committed to saving Social Security.

We have always had, at the heart of our party, a recognition that we want to care for those in need, and our seniors have the need of Social Security. I will make sure that we keep the program and we make it financially secure. We save Social Security.

And under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it's a failure. It is working for millions of Americans, and I'll keep it working for millions of Americans. And we've got to do that as a party.

HARRIS: Thank you, Governor.

Governor Perry, a 30-second rebuttal. Governor Romney said Vice President Cheney is right and you're wrong about Ponzi schemes.

PERRY: Well, here's -- again, we're not trying to pick fights here.

HARRIS: Understood.

PERRY: We're about fixing things. You can either have reasons or you can have results. And the American people expect us to put results in place.

You cannot keep the status quo in place and not call it anything other than a Ponzi scheme. It is. That is what it is. Americans know that, and regardless of what anyone says, oh, it's not -- and that's provocative language -- maybe it's time to have some provocative language in this country and say things like, let's get America working again and do whatever it takes to make that happen.

- that baby is full of zombie-killing sound bits.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well I guess you'll never know the answer.
By the way, I'm fairly sure that it was loathing in the other case:

It really wasn't intended to be loathing. I suppose I can see how one could see that though.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Would some one please start a thread for personal attacks and criticisms? It could save a lot of us a lot of time.

For the record, two things get people onto my ignore list: endless repetition of the same lame points, and personal abuse. It includes both ends of the political spectrum.

David, it appears Brian has done the job as far as the Theoretical Discussion is concerned, but I doubt your apparently rhetorical statement will not find it's own Thread. And, I'm not sure it would be appropriate.

What I mean is that, in my opinion, this Message Board often appears to be representative of dynamics that occur in the "Outside World". Given the apparent increase in polarization in regard to many Opinions(one of which is Politics) in the "Outside World", I find it very natural for it to occur in our "Inside World" here on T4T Message Board. Now, it has been said that there is a pre-ponderance of MBTI-"N"s on this site, so I'm not saying that this "Inside World" actually is representative of the "Outside World". I would add that I'm also assuming a higher level of exposure to Education here(not that it leads to being more Wise/Intelligent; Only better educated).

So, getting back to the thread's opening title, I see striking similarities to the apparent dynamics on this thread(and Message Board) and our current Election 2012 Environment(and the Real World). It is difficult not to notice the lack of Consideration for the Viewpoints of Others. Also, a misunderstanding(or better put, an assumption in understanding) of those viewpoints appears prevelant. A lack of agreement i/r/t terminology is always problematic; Lack of consideration and assumptions speak to something larger, in my opinion.

There also appears to be Generational Aspects at-play here as well(which is somewhat interesting to me).

I would be more than willing to discuss the differences i/r/t certain political groupings from a generational standpoint (or even from other standpoints) for analysis purposes, but without a higher level of the stated consideration and attempts at non-assumptions, I will for the most part abstain(which is probably generational, as well!).

I did watch the GOP "Debate"(after the fact on MSNBC.com). I haven't listened to any "commentary" as of yet. There are productive discussions to have on some of these issues, IMO.


Sincerely, Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I've stopped reading this thread for content. Now I read it for entertainment.

~Chas'88

I agree with you Chas. I might add that it is also a-musing(ie: a lack of "musing").

mus·ing
adj.
Deep in thought; contemplative.

n.
1. Contemplation; meditation.
2. A product of contemplation; a thought.

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's an awful lot of musing about an a-musing thread.

Please excuse my Mind, Rani; It's "Pretty Mess"-y. I haven't had the opportunity to clean it, lately.

Prince-"Dirty Mind"

PS: "Dirty Moments" of Lauren Graham's character Lorelai Gilmore from Gilmore Girls. Caveat: It's "Dirty"!

I must say, watching the President for a few minutes, it was a toss-up as to whether he or the Republican debate was more boring. I expected the latter to be appalling; it was only soporific. Do turn your tv on for a minute, though, to see Biden nodding in avuncular approval (he's almost exactly Obama's mother's age, by the way), while Boehner sits there looking glum. The Democrats are applauding loudly, the Republicans are sitting there without saying a word.

I am appalled that a Democratic President is slowly whittling away at social security taxes. I don't think the Republicans will be able to resist that one, even though their playbook obviously calls for rejecting anything he puts forward.

P of C, it's not that I expect this to be a love fest, I just can't stand paragraphs and paragraphs of psychoanalysis. Not that I can't psychoanalyze with the best of them, but not here. At times I want some one to say, "I admit I'm powerless over poster X, and my life is becoming unmanageable," and stop paying attention to them. I have done that myself several times here, for the record. It was a big turning point in my life about 20 years ago when I learned about co-dependence. My father was co-dependent on the American people. Any Republican victory had to be a mistake.

........
........
........
........

Eric Cantor is an immature ***hole, this photo from the president's speech proves it





Seriously, the rest his fellow Republicans are standing and applauding. What childishness.

Originally Posted by Odin

Eric Cantor is an immature ***hole, this photo from the president's speech proves it





Seriously, the rest his fellow Republicans are standing and applauding. What childishness.

Why is it childishness? So he didn't stand up and applaud. So what? Maybe he was taking notes or something. Frankly I think its absurd to be annoyed over whether someone is standing up and applauding or not.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This point of view you and Galen raise is more of a philosophical question, maybe not resolvable on this thread; that would be a long "process!" Obviously I don't see the world in the same way as you or Galen, as you both are quite outspoken to point out. There is truth in what you say, that the world is mathematical; but in my view that is only one of several perspectives on reality, and not sufficient in itself. Numbers are at bottom just symbols based on a view of the world as separate things, unless it describes instead the rhythms of life. To understand where mathematics fits in, you need to throw over the conventional materialist metaphysics, which I'm not sure either of you have done, and look to the Pythagorean and Hermetic traditions. But clearly humans cannot ever be understood as robots, because robots are programmed machines, and humans are free creative spirits. And no model however complex can ever be the same as the subject of the model, just as no map is sufficient to describe the territory it pictures.

Well given that folks much smarter than any of us can't come to a definite conclusion over the nature of reality and mathematics, I suspect that we will all be mostly pissing into the wind.

Again I believe you are confusing model and process. The numerals and symbols are used to convey information in the form of a model that represents something very real. It's a language but is not "math." Math is the process in action. It is the work being done to calculate a result. It is entering information into one side of a machine and altering that information by the time it reaches the other end. The work done is the same regardless of numerals or symbols and the solutions for variables entered into an equation are the same using any number system. A mathematical answer is the same when you use base 2 (binary), base 10 (decimal system), base 16 (hexadecimal), or any other system. The process is very real and very tangible. At its most basic it is the manipulation of information in a universe made up of information. All of the rhythms of life (as you term it) can not only be described mathematically but they actually are mathematic.

You describe humans as being different than pre-programmed machines, yet they really are not different at all. Life is simply the description we apply to biological machines that convert energy. Plants and animals do indeed come pre-programmed (via DNA) and plants and animals are only free within the constraints they are bound by in the physical world (that is, you cannot fly without wings just because you are "free" and think you should.). Your brain simply interprets your surroundings based on evolution, stimulation and experience. When you touch some cloth, your brain interprets the signals coming from your fingers as "soft" because evolution designed your brain to do so. The reality is that there is no such thing as soft (or rough, hot or cold). When you touch a cloth the atoms in your fingers are repelled by the atoms in the cloth in a manner specific to the structure of both. That's it. You feel a particular sensation because there was an evolutionary advantage to an animal brain feeling these sensations. The very notions of "feeling" or "creativity" are constructs of evolution. Reality (as we define it) is simply a pre-programmed interpretation of our surroundings.

I know DNA was brought up. Would it interest you to know that DNA is extremely mathematical in nature? Just a warning, this paper is not for the faint of heart (some of it is beyond me). If you are looking for something a bit more digestible I will post this article on mathematic structures found in DNA, written by a devout Christian (which may come a surprise to some of you). He believes that mathematics in the universe is a sign of God (I neither agree nor disagree with his hypothesis). That said his article on this particular subject we happen to be discussing is spot on and presents some fascinating findings in DNA studies. I also suspect it may surprise Eric that to some, math is actually very spiritual.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The real issue Galen's post brings up, is that economics cannot be entirely or even mostly mathematical, because economics is about human behavior and the human factor. Humans can be studied and modeled, including mathematically, but you can't understand humans from the standpoint of mathematics or materialist metaphysics alone. Brian Rush pointed out that such models are only correct to the extent they correspond to the "real world" which we know empirically. My point (and others here too I believe) is that this "real world" consists mostly of free human spiritual beings and their behavior, (though often addicted rather than free behavior), in interaction with others and with the environment. Galen pointed out the limits of calculating the economy. So economics cannot be a centrally planned model, nor a model that proves laissez faire either (Social Darwinism has been used to justify both). It can only create models of human behavior using all kinds of knowledge, and not just one kind.

Again. Model vs. Process. All behavior can be modeled but not necessarily processed (yet).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is interesting that two "libertarians" are arguing here for a materialist point of view which denies free will and seeks to explain human behavior instead as a cause-effect mechanical or mathematical process. The real "freedom" is not found in such "libertarian" theories like those of Mises and Ayn Rand, or in other such justifications for "free" unregulated and untaxed misbehavior by businessmen; but instead in a process leading to spiritual liberation such as Buddha pointed towards. As I understood it you and/or Galen have some interest in Buddhism. And there are authors who have written about Buddhist economics.

Well for starters, I'm not libertarian. Saying I am "libertarian" implies I believe in some sort of governance. I don't. But this is tangential.

The universe is neither free nor deterministic and it doesn't have to be either one. Both are human ideas which are dreadfully insignificant to a universe which is in no way bound by our hopes, dreams and/or wishes. It merely is what it is and we are bound by the same simple natural laws as every other complex atomic structure found therein. There are no higher ideals to aspire to than these rules. Everything else invented and fabricated by humans are our arbitrary systems of control that we put in place over each other. As I am generally not interested in control over others, I tend to bow out of discussions of which economic system is superior. I don't read Rand on a regular basis because frankly, I don't give a shit about her work. Believe it or not, there are a few people who don't care about the modern political struggle... Like, at all.

I am generally in favor of letting the chips fall where they may. I'm an evolution guy.

You may apply the previous statement in whatever way you wish.

Originally Posted by Odin

Seriously, the rest [of] his fellow Republicans are standing and applauding. What childishness.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Why is it childishness? So he didn't stand up and applaud. So what? Maybe he was taking notes or something. Frankly I think its absurd to be annoyed over whether someone is standing up and applauding or not.

Hutch, I believe it may be "child-ish" because Odin says it's "child-ish".

I'm not so sure if it's "child-ish" or not. IMO, "child-ish" would be pointing-out(and correcting!) the fact that Odin apparently left-out a word in one of his sentences!


Prince: "Child of God/Nature/Universe"

PS: FWIW, I like being "Child"-ish(in case you couldn't tell).

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I'm an evolution guy.

What the hell is an "evolution guy"?

Originally Posted by Galen

God you are clueless about this subject. Genetic material is simply a storage device. In the case of human beings we have two information storage systems. The first is DNA and the second is the human brain the only difference is the representation and encoding of information. In this case it is ideas and behaviors that are selected. This selection is usually some form of bankruptcy. Ideas are just as much subject to mutation and crossover as the base pairs of DNA are. You are as bad as Eric because you can't be bothered to learn anything about the subject before saying something stupid.

Oh oh Brian, now you are as obtuse as me!

To address Eric's objection, the process of evolution is very much a mechanical process. I have wrote useful self-organizing systems in about three hundred lines of Ocaml code. It is often easier to use LISP to implement such systems because code and data representations are identical in that language. I bring this up because process itself can be described in the mathematics of Lambda Calculus which these languages are based on and are equivalent in computing power to Turing machines. I bring this up so that you will understand that computer programs themselves can be the objects of an evolutionary system. I am saying this explicitly because the loudest critics clearly have been too lazy to read and study the material before making comment and will no doubt continue to be so.

Evolution as a mechanical process has already been proven to be invalid on a philosophical basis. You would need to get on that level of discussion with me. I suggest meanwhile you give up your label of libertarian, because there is no freedom at all in a mechanical process. It is automatic, not free. "Liberty" means that decisions are made consciously on the basis of choice of the best. Your mathematical process only applies within the set of assumptions about life that you have already made. In the real world, the results of laissez faire are an economy and nation controlled by a few wealthy people. That is demonstrated by history, empirically. Mathematical models are only useful if they are maps of the real world as it operates. Life does not proceed on the basis of the models you make of it.

So unless you can come up with another way for the economy to self organize in the way that a market economy does we are stuck with having a selection process. Evolution is the only kind of decentralized decision making process that can cope with a state space as large as a real economy. Unless you want to tell me that central planning can work.

You demonstrate again your either/or view. The only workable alternatives are not the two extremes of the free market and the planned economy. Why are you so obtuse as to miss this, or deliberately ignore it? Why limit yourself to this dualism? No economy in the world matches these extreme labels, although maybe Somalia and North Korea come closest.

Originally Posted by Galen

The transmission device for the information stored in the brain are ideas expressed in some form of language which is subject to the same operators as are any other representation for information. Like I said before read and study the material before commenting because these are the sort of comments I expect from someone with next to no knowledge of how the process of evolution works in the general case.

It is incredible that someone could make a comment like this. "Evolution" is a very well-known theory and most educated people know how "evolution" works. Perhaps Galen you have some esoteric definition of the word that most people don't know. But then why should we use it, when most of us know perfectly well what most people mean by the word?

Originally Posted by Galen

Yes, this economic model has worked so well that all of these economies are deeply in debt both public and private and are showing signs of systemic failure on a truly grand scale. This is very strong evidence that the mixed economy is not working and beginning to fail because the various interventions being made are destroying the signals and processes needed to make rational economic decisions.

The debt problem began in the 1980s when Reagan began a process of dismantling the mixed economy in favor of a more laissez faire approach. The debt is almost entirely a problem of the Reagan/Bush policies. This statement of yours also neglects the fact that although debt can be dangerous, because interest payments may in the long run get too high, it is not by itself an indication of economic failure. Debt is only one factor.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Back to topic -

When it comes to the Libertarian wing of the GOP, you don't mess with da old man -

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-09-08/force-vs-reason/

Perry is little short of a thug. It is difficult to imagine a political figure today who could better represent all that is wrong today with America.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Well given that folks much smarter than any of us can't come to a definite conclusion over the nature of reality and mathematics, I suspect that we will all be mostly pissing into the wind.

Again I believe you are confusing model and process. The numerals and symbols are used to convey information in the form of a model that represents something very real. It's a language but is not "math." Math is the process in action. It is the work being done to calculate a result. It is entering information into one side of a machine and altering that information by the time it reaches the other end. The work done is the same regardless of numerals or symbols and the solutions for variables entered into an equation are the same using any number system. A mathematical answer is the same when you use base 2 (binary), base 10 (decimal system), base 16 (hexadecimal), or any other system. The process is very real and very tangible. At its most basic it is the manipulation of information in a universe made up of information. All of the rhythms of life (as you term it) can not only be described mathematically but they actually are mathematic.

I hope I understand your distinction. My problem appears to be that you give so little importance to the model and what it represents, and give yourself over to the manipulation of the symbols, as if that were what life is.

You describe humans as being different than pre-programmed machines, yet they really are not different at all. Life is simply the description we apply to biological machines that convert energy. Plants and animals do indeed come pre-programmed (via DNA) and plants and animals are only free within the constraints they are bound by in the physical world (that is, you cannot fly without wings just because you are "free" and think you should.). Your brain simply interprets your surroundings based on evolution, stimulation and experience. When you touch some cloth, your brain interprets the signals coming from your fingers as "soft" because evolution designed your brain to do so. The reality is that there is no such thing as soft (or rough, hot or cold). When you touch a cloth the atoms in your fingers are repelled by the atoms in the cloth in a manner specific to the structure of both. That's it. You feel a particular sensation because there was an evolutionary advantage to an animal brain feeling these sensations. The very notions of "feeling" or "creativity" are constructs of evolution. Reality (as we define it) is simply a pre-programmed interpretation of our surroundings.

I don't share your assumptions. Many other people do not agree with your assumptions about the universe. To take them as given seems rather naive to me. Your view is proven false to my satisfaction with the simple observation that there are no objects without subjects. Consciousness is left out of your picture, but in my view it is the prior reality, not the atoms which consciousness observes.

I also suspect it may surprise Eric that to some, math is actually very spiritual.

How could it be surprising to someone like me who has extensive acquaintance with Pythagoras, Plato, hermetic philosophy, fractiles and holograms? (and whose favorite music is Bach, whose Toccata in F I have listened to and played more than any other human on Earth who has ever existed?)

Well for starters, I'm not libertarian. Saying I am "libertarian" implies I believe in some sort of governance. I don't. But this is tangential.

Same difference. Anarchism is just an extreme form of libertarian. Same point of view.

I am generally in favor of letting the chips fall where they may. I'm an evolution guy.

You may apply the previous statement in whatever way you wish.

I'm a conscious evolution guy. I "wish" for that view to be more commonly accepted. It will make for a better world if it is.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You describe humans as being different than pre-programmed machines, yet they really are not different at all. Life is simply the description we apply to biological machines that convert energy. Plants and animals do indeed come pre-programmed (via DNA) and plants and animals are only free within the constraints they are bound by in the physical world (that is, you cannot fly without wings just because you are "free" and think you should.). Your brain simply interprets your surroundings based on evolution, stimulation and experience. When you touch some cloth, your brain interprets the signals coming from your fingers as "soft" because evolution designed your brain to do so. The reality is that there is no such thing as soft (or rough, hot or cold). When you touch a cloth the atoms in your fingers are repelled by the atoms in the cloth in a manner specific to the structure of both. That's it. You feel a particular sensation because there was an evolutionary advantage to an animal brain feeling these sensations. The very notions of "feeling" or "creativity" are constructs of evolution. Reality (as we define it) is simply a pre-programmed interpretation of our surroundings.

You are correct about us being subject the laws of nature in this universe. Whether or not we are conscious and what that actually means are not questions that science can answer, at least at this time. What I do know from the evolutionary systems I have created is that evolution is a mechanical process involving the manipulation of information structures. So far as the math involved is concerned there is no consciousness required for the process to work. Unless you wish to believe that the universe was set up by God much in the way I set up such systems in a computer.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I know DNA was brought up. Would it interest you to know that DNA is extremely mathematical in nature? Just a warning, this paper is not for the faint of heart (some of it is beyond me). If you are looking for something a bit more digestible I will post this article on mathematic structures found in DNA, written by a devout Christian (which may come a surprise to some of you). He believes that mathematics in the universe is a sign of God (I neither agree nor disagree with his hypothesis). That said his article on this particular subject we happen to be discussing is spot on and presents some fascinating findings in DNA studies. I also suspect it may surprise Eric that to some, math is actually very spiritual.

Interesting articles, the first analyzes DNA topographically and the second discusses what we computer science types call an error correcting code that he found. This is a most important discovery since it helps to explain why replication errors in biological systems are so low as well as indicating that there is more structure to the DNA coding than anyone has every realized. The Golden Ratio shows up in nature in some of the most surprising places. Evolution can not tell anything about God or even help you prove or disprove his existence.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Well for starters, I'm not libertarian. Saying I am "libertarian" implies I believe in some sort of governance. I don't. But this is tangential.

You must be some species of anarchist then, most likely an anarcho-capitalist to judge by the paragraph you wrote after words. I hope so since they are so much more fun than the Objectivists.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Evolution as a mechanical process has already been proven to be invalid on a philosophical basis.

This is total nonsense, Eric, and you know it.

All you need for Darwinian Evolution is:

1. replication with errors
2. a changing environment

Originally Posted by Odin

Eric Cantor is an immature ***hole, this photo from the president's speech proves it

Seriously, the rest his fellow Republicans are standing and applauding. What childishness.

You're gonna make a great 1T manager, Odin.

"At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute ... was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention ... ). The small hall echoed with "stormy applause, rising to an ovation." For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, the "stormy applause, rising to an ovation," continued. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly even to those who adored ... However, who would dare be the first to stop? The secretary of the District Party Committee could have done it. He was standing on the platform, and it was he who had called for the ovation. But he was a newcomer. He had taken the place of a man who had just been arrested. He was afraid! After all, ... men were standing in the hall applauding and watching to see who quit first! And in that obscure, small hall, unknown to the Leader, the applause went on -- six, seven, eight minutes! They were done for! Their goose was cooked! They couldn't stop now till they collapsed with heart attacks! At the rear of the hall, which was crowded, they could of course cheat a bit, clap less frequently, less vigorously, not so eagerly -- but up there with the presidium where everyone could see them? The director of the local paper factory, an independent and strong-minded man, stood with the presidium. Aware of all the falsity and all the impossibility of the situation, he still kept on applauding! Nine minutes! Ten! In anguish he watched the secretary of the District Party Committee, but the latter dared not stop. Insanity! To the last man! With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood, till they were carried out of the hall on stretchers! And even then those who were left would not falter.... Then, after eleven minutes, the director of the paper factory assumed a businesslike expression and sat down in his seat. And, oh, a miracle took place! Where had the universal, uninhibited, indescribable enthusiasm gone? To a man, everyone stopped dead and sat down. They had been saved! The squirrel had been smart enough to jump off his revolving wheel.
"That, however, was how they discovered who the independent people were. And that was how they went about eliminating them. That same night the factory director was arrested. They easily pasted ten years on him on the pretext of something quite different. But after he had signed Form 206, the final document of the interrogation, his interrogator reminded him:
"'Don't ever be the first to stop applauding!'"

(source)

I would characterize Cantor, Ryan, and the rest of the Republican leadership as what my now middle-aged punk rock friend would call "douchebags." What kind of human being willingly joins the Republican Party? And is not only capable of traversing the backstabbing, lying, thieving, brownnosing, bootlicking, ego-surrendering obstacles to stay in the party, but is actually able to rise through the ranks to lead such a group of soulless individuals? Not the kind of people you want to have deciding anything for you. What you see in that photo of Mr. Cantor is America circling the drain. You know, that kind of dirty runoff rainwater, with the rainbow-like streaks of grease reflected in the gray light? Add fecal matter to taste, and there you go. Don't believe me? Say the following names: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison ... Boehner. No, something is definitely wrong here. From what I have read, America does not believe in Obama's plan. But I have a hunch that Americans won't believe in any plan, or any politician. For some reason I see this crisis as dating back to around May 2003, when it became clear to Americans that they had been sold a war on the premise of weapons that didn't exist. Up until that point, a modicum of belief had been afforded the govs. Since then, and especially since the autumn of 2008, the emperor has worn no clothes. And Ron Paul isn't going to ever have his party's nomination, because its wealthy benefactors won't allow it. From where it stands now, I can see no democratic means to rectify the ills facing the United States. Which is severely troubling, if you think about it ...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What the hell is an "evolution guy"?

Copperfield believes that humans are headed for extinction.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Copperfield believes that humans are headed for extinction.

Which is necessarily and obviously true. Homo sap isn't an organism that has much long-term viability (when we talk about the cosmological long-term). So it's going to go extinct just like every other type of living thing.

Our hope is that the people who result in part from what we are and what we do are sufficiently more long-term viable than we humans are at the moment. What I believe Copperhead recognizes (and what I like to think that I recognize) is that in questions of long-term viability of localized-entropy-reducers like people, flexibility and adaptability are ultimately the key, and ossification the enemy. Hence the distaste for identifying Superior Systems and the preference for allowing a multitude of systems to develop, grow, and thrive or not as time continue to pass.

*I'm an 'evolution guy', too; as far as I understand the phrase.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You're gonna make a great 1T manager, Odin.

"At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute ... was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention ... ). The small hall echoed with "stormy applause, rising to an ovation." For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, the "stormy applause, rising to an ovation," continued. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly even to those who adored ... However, who would dare be the first to stop? The secretary of the District Party Committee could have done it. He was standing on the platform, and it was he who had called for the ovation. But he was a newcomer. He had taken the place of a man who had just been arrested. He was afraid! After all, ... men were standing in the hall applauding and watching to see who quit first! And in that obscure, small hall, unknown to the Leader, the applause went on -- six, seven, eight minutes! They were done for! Their goose was cooked! They couldn't stop now till they collapsed with heart attacks! At the rear of the hall, which was crowded, they could of course cheat a bit, clap less frequently, less vigorously, not so eagerly -- but up there with the presidium where everyone could see them? The director of the local paper factory, an independent and strong-minded man, stood with the presidium. Aware of all the falsity and all the impossibility of the situation, he still kept on applauding! Nine minutes! Ten! In anguish he watched the secretary of the District Party Committee, but the latter dared not stop. Insanity! To the last man! With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood, till they were carried out of the hall on stretchers! And even then those who were left would not falter.... Then, after eleven minutes, the director of the paper factory assumed a businesslike expression and sat down in his seat. And, oh, a miracle took place! Where had the universal, uninhibited, indescribable enthusiasm gone? To a man, everyone stopped dead and sat down. They had been saved! The squirrel had been smart enough to jump off his revolving wheel.
"That, however, was how they discovered who the independent people were. And that was how they went about eliminating them. That same night the factory director was arrested. They easily pasted ten years on him on the pretext of something quite different. But after he had signed Form 206, the final document of the interrogation, his interrogator reminded him:
"'Don't ever be the first to stop applauding!'"

(source)

Wow, proper decorum is Stalinist now? who knew?

Originally Posted by Odin

Wow, proper decorum is Stalinist now? who knew?

Proper decorum is standing up and applauding every time the President says something lest someone call the person an immature asshole?

Originally Posted by Odin

Wow, proper decorum is Stalinist now? who knew?

Applause isn't 'proper decorum'. Nor is rising to one's feet. Those are signs of respect and appreciation -- personal feelings which neither can, nor should be mandated from anyone, towards anyone. Your desire to mandate signs of respect and appreciation towards some Authority is what rings of 1T-era sovietism.

No surprise, though. The guys who demanded 'decorum' every time Stalin's name was mentioned were Civic-gen just like you. So it all works out, Generational-Theory-wise.