Sad but true... [modified]
-
wolfbinary wrote:
There aren't any strong opinions here are there?
To Stan? Why? He is a lost case. :rolleyes: Look: all his whining is b.s. The phase of "collectivism" he complains about (the post WWII era) is by far the biggest economic growth mankind has ever experienced (oh, and technological and scientific too, btw). If he can't see that by himself what is the point of explaining it?
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
The phase of "collectivism" he complains about (the post WWII era) is by far the biggest economic growth mankind has ever experienced (oh, and technological and scientific too, btw).
And it would be even bigger without the "collectivism" that he complains about.
Kevin
-
Oakman wrote:
While he will continue to defend Bush by blaming every other President that has held office in the last 100 years for the shape of our economy in an attempt to exonerate the incompetent S.O.B.,
No, I simply maintain that as long as we attempt to place all the blame on Bush rather than careully understanding the long histroy of how we got here, we are not going to fix it the real problems.
Oakman wrote:
he has every hope that we are entering a period of time that will destroy the U.S. because he believes that then it will be remade in his image.
I do indeed. I think it is going to take a major catastrophy to fix the real problems. But that isn't a hope, it is simply an observation. The current system is going to fail, and the only cure for it is a return to the principles currently promoted by American conservatives.
Oakman wrote:
as he himself has made clear, is to see the flag of the U.S. dragged through the mud.
You mean the flag that you think can be legally burned because some judge says so? That flag is already in the mud and has been there for a long time.
Oakman wrote:
I pretty sure he prefers the Stars and Bars.
Not really, but it was a flag that was never betrayed by its own nation as ours has been.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I simply maintain that as long as we attempt to place all the blame on Bush rather than careully understanding the long histroy of how we got here, we are not going to fix it the real problems.
So far you've defended him against any blame.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that isn't a hope, it is simply an observation.
Crap. Anyone who has read a majority of your posts in the early fall knows you have been chortling over what you predicted would be a complete meltdown. You said things to the effect that you couldn't wait for the US to fall apart.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That flag is already in the mud and has been there for a long time.
If true, that's no call for you to be happy about it. It flies over my house tall and true, btw.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not really, but it was a flag that was never betrayed by its own nation as ours has been.
Nor did it ever fly over a viable nation to be betrayed by. That's why you like it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
incestuous. It's not always with a sister.
Always wonder about Bo and Luke Duke with Daisy (perhaps Uncle Jesse). No wonder she always blew off Enos :laugh:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Always wonder about Bo and Luke Duke
Luke was saving himself for Martha Kent (nee Clark)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Sure, but he could have practiced on Daisy.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
insistuous involvment
incestuous. It's not always with a sister.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
recomended by knee-jerk Stan, for God's sake)
I articulated my considred opinion well. There was nothing knee-jerk about it. The only knee jerking around here is your reaction to anyone who disagrees with you.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Don't tell the CP members, bang on the doors of Congress and tell them as they are rather unlikely to read this internet Code Project Soapbox forum.
-
Sure, but he could have practiced on Daisy.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
Paul Conrad wrote:
Sure, but he could have practiced on Daisy
Did you know she wore pantyhose under her shorts? Network Standards and Practices allowed for shorter shorts if she was wearing "tights" underneath. :cool:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
insistuous involvment
incestuous. It's not always with a sister.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
It's not always with a sister.
I would'nt know.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
NO conservative believes that banks and corporations should be above the law.
There are more people in the world besides conservatives you know? For example, libertarians, classical liberals, Objectivists. It's not a question of being above the law, it's a question of what the scope of the law should be.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you mean 'force'?
I mean things such as murder, theft, assault...
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fraud has always been illegal.
Yes, and the question is what else other than fraud should be. A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting, e.g., a minimum wage law is a regulation. Even though you and I might both agree for me to pay you $1/hour, if the law says I can't then that's a regulation. A law against theft (or fraud) is not.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting
Hmmm.. Ok. Nevermind. In retrospect your definition is a reasonably objective one. I was going to comment something along the lines of "it also prevents employers from creating conditions where an employee will "agree" to sacrifice eyes and fingers if their need for work is bad enough" but you didn't express it as a value judgement so I can't really retort with that :)
-
Oakman wrote:
It's not always with a sister.
I would'nt know.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I simply maintain that as long as we attempt to place all the blame on Bush rather than careully understanding the long histroy of how we got here, we are not going to fix it the real problems.
So far you've defended him against any blame.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that isn't a hope, it is simply an observation.
Crap. Anyone who has read a majority of your posts in the early fall knows you have been chortling over what you predicted would be a complete meltdown. You said things to the effect that you couldn't wait for the US to fall apart.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That flag is already in the mud and has been there for a long time.
If true, that's no call for you to be happy about it. It flies over my house tall and true, btw.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not really, but it was a flag that was never betrayed by its own nation as ours has been.
Nor did it ever fly over a viable nation to be betrayed by. That's why you like it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So far you've defended him against any blame.
No, I haven't. I have repeatedly asserted my desire to have his actions investigated by congress. I simply wish to have the appropriate institutions conduct a legal process rather than associate myself with a political witch burning.
Oakman wrote:
Crap. Anyone who has read a majority of your posts in the early fall knows you have been chortling over what you predicted would be a complete meltdown. You said things to the effect that you couldn't wait for the US to fall apart.
I believe the sooner the inevitable meltdown occurs the better off we will all be. The longer the delay, the worse the ensueing chaos will be. And, yes, I also believe that, as the only workable, viable set of political principles, conservativtism would ultimately be the most likely benefactor of such an event. The flow of power to the center is going to fail precisely as it has always failed. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when.
Oakman wrote:
If true, that's no call for you to be happy about it. It flies over my house tall and true, btw.
Yet, you don't support any of the principles it was created to symbolize. How ironic...
Oakman wrote:
Nor did it ever fly over a viable nation to be betrayed by. That's why you like it.
Probably true. I am glad the South lost, Jon. Had they won, I probably would have been born into a third world economy. Of course, it looks like I'm likely to die in one anyway. So maybe it didn't really matter after all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
NO conservative believes that banks and corporations should be above the law.
There are more people in the world besides conservatives you know? For example, libertarians, classical liberals, Objectivists. It's not a question of being above the law, it's a question of what the scope of the law should be.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you mean 'force'?
I mean things such as murder, theft, assault...
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fraud has always been illegal.
Yes, and the question is what else other than fraud should be. A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting, e.g., a minimum wage law is a regulation. Even though you and I might both agree for me to pay you $1/hour, if the law says I can't then that's a regulation. A law against theft (or fraud) is not.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
There are more people in the world besides conservatives you know? For example, libertarians, classical liberals, Objectivists.
Yes, but I was referring to conservatives. I'll let all those others speak for themselves.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I mean things such as murder, theft, assault...
I can understand concern for theft. But murder and assault? Who has done that?
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting, e.g., a minimum wage law is a regulation. Even though you and I might both agree for me to pay you $1/hour, if the law says I can't then that's a regulation. A law against theft (or fraud) is not.
And, yes, those are the kinds of regulations conservatives have problems with. They represent the government inteferring in the natual processes of capitalism. The US federal government has no constitutional authority telling two private citizens how they can arrive at some kind of financial accomodation. Nor should it have. Interference of that sort is precisely the reason we are having the kinds of financial problems that are occuring now. There is a word for a political system in which the private insitutions of a society work to achieve state defined goals. That word is fascism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point of disagreement is that American democray was purposefully designed to work in a highly specific, proscribed manner
Sure thing. It was originally designed to work with a relatively small group of people - 22 Senators, 59 Congressmen all representing agrarian economies that were dependent on trade with Europe to stay afloat.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is absurd to suggest that such changes have any other possible source aside from the 19th century economic theorists personified by Karl Marx
Marx must have as a time machine. In 1789, The U.S. established a system of Marxist tariffs to put an end to all that free trade b.s. the capitalists were throwing around. In 1790, the first Marxist bail-out occurred when Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison agreed that the feds would assume all state debts. Also in 1790 the Marxist patent system and copyright system were established, further restraining free trade. And in 1791, the Marxist First Bank of the U.S. (precursor to the Federal reserve Bank) was established.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Sure thing. It was originally designed to work with a relatively small group of people - 22 Senators, 59 Congressmen all representing agrarian economies that were dependent on trade with Europe to stay afloat.
And your point is what? I completely agree that the system should evolve and change to accomodate changing conditions. But mechanism were created to allow for that. Such change was expected and planned for.
Oakman wrote:
Marx must have as a time machine. In 1789, The U.S. established a system of Marxist tariffs to put an end to all that free trade b.s. the capitalists were throwing around. In 1790, the first Marxist bail-out occurred when Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison agreed that the feds would assume all state debts. Also in 1790 the Marxist patent system and copyright system were established, further restraining free trade. And in 1791, the Marxist First Bank of the U.S. (precursor to the Federal reserve Bank) was established.
Jon, is that the best you can do? If so, its pathetic. But you are the one that associated fascism with Rome and 'proved' that nazis were religious because they worshipped Wotan, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Why don't you throw in the Louisiana Purchase? All of those (with the exception of patents perhaps) were highly contentions issues. Jefferson and Madison regretted agreeing with Hamilton's tariff compromise. But simply raising taxes or tariffs does not equate to Marxism in any way at all. None of those guys were toying with the idea that it was the role of centralized government to redistribute one person's wealth to others.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There was nothing knee-jerk about it.
An impartial observer would label you as spastic. :laugh:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
Tim Craig wrote:
An impartial observer would label you as spastic.
Oh, really? Tim, you have never posted anything other than knee jerk reactions to statments you disagree with. You have never once even attempted to articulate a rational defense of anything you appear to believe.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the US broke the system, that doesn't mean there is something wrong with us. It means there is something wrong with the system
This particular system, is that one of capitalism or has the United States been living a lie since the arrival of the industrial revolution into the United States.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Europeans
The Europeans do not always get it right, and neither do the Americans. Europe has not always been to the left of politics, many nations are right or centre-right of the political spectrum.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The underlieing problem
Won't go away while everybody is blaming everybody else. If there is to be a solution, it doesn't matter where the bloody solution comes from as long as solution works. And you Stan, you have to give it time as the solution, whatever it may entail, is not instant.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Won't go away while everybody is blaming everybody else. If there is to be a solution, it doesn't matter where the bloody solution comes from as long as solution works. And you Stan, you have to give it time as the solution, whatever it may entail, is not instant.
We Americans already have a perfectly workable solution. It worked for nearly two centuries, it worked flawlessly and led inexorably to ever greater wealth, freedom and human accomplishment. It is now demonized precisely for those very reasons. American does not need to be looking to Europe for anything. Europe has no solutions and has never had them and never will. We need to look to our own foundation, knock away the debry from 70 years of neglect, and just spruce the old place up a bit and we will be fine.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
So far you've defended him against any blame.
No, I haven't. I have repeatedly asserted my desire to have his actions investigated by congress. I simply wish to have the appropriate institutions conduct a legal process rather than associate myself with a political witch burning.
Oakman wrote:
Crap. Anyone who has read a majority of your posts in the early fall knows you have been chortling over what you predicted would be a complete meltdown. You said things to the effect that you couldn't wait for the US to fall apart.
I believe the sooner the inevitable meltdown occurs the better off we will all be. The longer the delay, the worse the ensueing chaos will be. And, yes, I also believe that, as the only workable, viable set of political principles, conservativtism would ultimately be the most likely benefactor of such an event. The flow of power to the center is going to fail precisely as it has always failed. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when.
Oakman wrote:
If true, that's no call for you to be happy about it. It flies over my house tall and true, btw.
Yet, you don't support any of the principles it was created to symbolize. How ironic...
Oakman wrote:
Nor did it ever fly over a viable nation to be betrayed by. That's why you like it.
Probably true. I am glad the South lost, Jon. Had they won, I probably would have been born into a third world economy. Of course, it looks like I'm likely to die in one anyway. So maybe it didn't really matter after all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have repeatedly asserted my desire to have his actions investigated by congress
And when I suggested that it might happen once he left office, your reaction was, predictably, that it would be a political witch hunt.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I believe the sooner the inevitable meltdown occurs the better off we will all be.
You admitted that you deserved to be called a traitor, by your own definition.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet, you don't support any of the principles it was created to symbolize. How ironic...
Oh bullshit. You're the guy who arranged to stay out of combat. You're the guy who roots for people he considers America's enemies. You're the guy who thinks that everything America has stood for in the last 100 years is reprehensible.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Of course, it looks like I'm likely to die in one anyway.
Not if Obama can undo the damage Bush has done.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Won't go away while everybody is blaming everybody else. If there is to be a solution, it doesn't matter where the bloody solution comes from as long as solution works. And you Stan, you have to give it time as the solution, whatever it may entail, is not instant.
We Americans already have a perfectly workable solution. It worked for nearly two centuries, it worked flawlessly and led inexorably to ever greater wealth, freedom and human accomplishment. It is now demonized precisely for those very reasons. American does not need to be looking to Europe for anything. Europe has no solutions and has never had them and never will. We need to look to our own foundation, knock away the debry from 70 years of neglect, and just spruce the old place up a bit and we will be fine.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We need to look to our own foundation, knock away the debry from 70 years of neglect, and just spruce the old place up a bit
. . .go back to an Agrarian economy. Re-enslave the blacks, take the vote away from women, and undo every bit of social legislation since Lincoln. . .
Stan Shannon wrote:
and we will be fine
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Sure thing. It was originally designed to work with a relatively small group of people - 22 Senators, 59 Congressmen all representing agrarian economies that were dependent on trade with Europe to stay afloat.
And your point is what? I completely agree that the system should evolve and change to accomodate changing conditions. But mechanism were created to allow for that. Such change was expected and planned for.
Oakman wrote:
Marx must have as a time machine. In 1789, The U.S. established a system of Marxist tariffs to put an end to all that free trade b.s. the capitalists were throwing around. In 1790, the first Marxist bail-out occurred when Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison agreed that the feds would assume all state debts. Also in 1790 the Marxist patent system and copyright system were established, further restraining free trade. And in 1791, the Marxist First Bank of the U.S. (precursor to the Federal reserve Bank) was established.
Jon, is that the best you can do? If so, its pathetic. But you are the one that associated fascism with Rome and 'proved' that nazis were religious because they worshipped Wotan, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Why don't you throw in the Louisiana Purchase? All of those (with the exception of patents perhaps) were highly contentions issues. Jefferson and Madison regretted agreeing with Hamilton's tariff compromise. But simply raising taxes or tariffs does not equate to Marxism in any way at all. None of those guys were toying with the idea that it was the role of centralized government to redistribute one person's wealth to others.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I completely agree that the system should evolve and change to accomodate changing conditions
No, you don't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Jon, is that the best you can do?
LOL. It's good enough to stymie you. Your attempts to discredit what I wrote are ineffectual and irrelevant.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Won't go away while everybody is blaming everybody else. If there is to be a solution, it doesn't matter where the bloody solution comes from as long as solution works. And you Stan, you have to give it time as the solution, whatever it may entail, is not instant.
We Americans already have a perfectly workable solution. It worked for nearly two centuries, it worked flawlessly and led inexorably to ever greater wealth, freedom and human accomplishment. It is now demonized precisely for those very reasons. American does not need to be looking to Europe for anything. Europe has no solutions and has never had them and never will. We need to look to our own foundation, knock away the debry from 70 years of neglect, and just spruce the old place up a bit and we will be fine.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.