This is awesome
-
Majerus wrote:
That's some serious projection on your part.
Oh? Did you decide that remark was aimed at you? Well, if the shoe fits. . .
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
I doubt you were actually describing yourself, so I'll stick with projection. If you want to continue trolling, I won't be joining you. But if you'd like to discuss something, let's. I'd like you to prove Le Gauchiste right in his opinion of you. So far you have failed.
modified on Monday, November 8, 2010 3:05 PM
-
It is not because you said it, but I think the same from you and some others. It is just Stan that leaves me flabbergasted sometimes. :-D
Le Gauchiste wrote:
It is just Stan that leaves me flabbergasted sometimes
Me, too. But please understand that Stan is (proudly) a social conservative. He is just as willing to use governmental power to enforce his belief system as Nancy Pelosi is - and is thus, just about as far away from my thinking as she is.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
One of the reasons I prefer SB1 is that opinions have to be argued, not voted down in a hit and run. But I countered the whiney-boy who gave you a one rather than engaging you.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
He is a privateer…
I made sergeanteer once and corporaleer twice, but they keep busting me for insubordination. ;)
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
I made it only to corporaleer; as they used to say in the Bulgarian army “Better daughter in a whore house than a son corporal”. :-D
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
http://imvotingteaparty.com/[^]
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
The biggest problem with the Tea Party, is the fact that its goals and philosophy are not well thought out - they are mostly a reactionary group as opposed to a political school of thought. Even their official website shows that to be true. For example, their Core Beliefs section (non-bold text mine): Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally. Well, duh! Currently our laws do indeed say that it is a misdemeanor to be here in the country without having a green card or visa. But that doesn't even begin to touch on the complexity of the actual issues of what our immigration policy should be. Stronger Military Is Essential. Stronger how? What determines this need and how do we know when it is strong enough? Special Interests Eliminated. Good point maybe, but care to define it better? National Budget Must Be Balanced. Every politician in congress will agree with this, more or less. The question is, how should it be balanced? Deficit Spending Will End. Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must. Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens. Intrusive Government Stopped.
All noble goals but I have yet to see truly well thought out philosophies from them on how to do this best (at least not that differ from other parties). Government Must Be Downsized. Agreed, but a significant portion of our spending is on military. How much else are we likely to have to cut in order to downsize if we're increasing military spending from its current levels? Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable. Gun Ownership Is Sacred. English As Core Language Is Required.
What is the philosophy behind these? Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged. What are these? How do we "encourage" these within a government without infringing on people's rights? After all a core value is supposedly "Intrusive Government Stopped". Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance Define this...? Libertarianism addresses the issues of big government, personal liberties, etc, but it addresses the issues with well-defined philosophy and political thought. -
Le Gauchiste wrote:
To him, I am far left
Not at all*. I think you are left of center, often able to make cogent and well-informed arguments for your point of view. I enjoy debating you because you make me think, occasionally, you even teach me something. The nice thing about SB1 is that the Neanderthals on both sides of the spectrum get spanked and end up leaving.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Speaking of that private forum, it is opened to any member that is at least 6-month subscriber to Code Project.
You shouldn't tease Majerus. He's a newbie. *Far left are the guys who regurgitate the day's release from Daily Kos as if it is their own.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
The biggest problem with the Tea Party, is the fact that its goals and philosophy are not well thought out - they are mostly a reactionary group as opposed to a political school of thought. Even their official website shows that to be true. For example, their Core Beliefs section (non-bold text mine): Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally. Well, duh! Currently our laws do indeed say that it is a misdemeanor to be here in the country without having a green card or visa. But that doesn't even begin to touch on the complexity of the actual issues of what our immigration policy should be. Stronger Military Is Essential. Stronger how? What determines this need and how do we know when it is strong enough? Special Interests Eliminated. Good point maybe, but care to define it better? National Budget Must Be Balanced. Every politician in congress will agree with this, more or less. The question is, how should it be balanced? Deficit Spending Will End. Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must. Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens. Intrusive Government Stopped.
All noble goals but I have yet to see truly well thought out philosophies from them on how to do this best (at least not that differ from other parties). Government Must Be Downsized. Agreed, but a significant portion of our spending is on military. How much else are we likely to have to cut in order to downsize if we're increasing military spending from its current levels? Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable. Gun Ownership Is Sacred. English As Core Language Is Required.
What is the philosophy behind these? Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged. What are these? How do we "encourage" these within a government without infringing on people's rights? After all a core value is supposedly "Intrusive Government Stopped". Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance Define this...? Libertarianism addresses the issues of big government, personal liberties, etc, but it addresses the issues with well-defined philosophy and political thought.The Tea Party movement is meant to get people to the polls and get the right people in office. End. Of. Story. Great example: http://paulryan.house.gov/[^] He did a stellar job on Fox News along with Darrel Issa the other night and will promote conservatism in US House of Representatives in the next two years.
-
The Tea Party movement is meant to get people to the polls and get the right people in office. End. Of. Story. Great example: http://paulryan.house.gov/[^] He did a stellar job on Fox News along with Darrel Issa the other night and will promote conservatism in US House of Representatives in the next two years.
-
I doubt you were actually describing yourself, so I'll stick with projection. If you want to continue trolling, I won't be joining you. But if you'd like to discuss something, let's. I'd like you to prove Le Gauchiste right in his opinion of you. So far you have failed.
modified on Monday, November 8, 2010 3:05 PM
Noob, you seem to think I either want or need to prove myself to you. Nothing could be further than the truth.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
I made it only to corporaleer; as they used to say in the Bulgarian army “Better daughter in a whore house than a son corporal”. :-D
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
“Better daughter in a whore house than a son corporal”
ROFL. I can think of a number of add-ons, but their obscenity level is quite high. I shall, however, remember the saying.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
How can someone tell who are the right people to vote in if they don't truly understand what they themselves stand for, other than vague statements that don't really define an actionable policy?
Certainly they should stay away from vague statements that singularly serve as a political platform like: hope and change. So, I agree with you. In the my interest of heading off to the pool tonight, I'll give a reasoned yet simple answer to your question: intuition. People remember the past, or they see rest of the world struggling with statism or liberalism via youtube--whether it be crowds protesting government austerity measures or riots in a self-proclaimed sovereign neighborhood by immigrants inside a first-world country. The Tea Party people don't want their next generation to become what they are seeing. The candidate that presents political solutions to these emerging problems wins the Tea Party vote.
-
Nope, 'tis alive and well and in its 14 months of existence has amassed more posts than all but 9 of the public forums. (Approximately four times as many as SB2 which came into being a couple of months earlier.) However, it is is about "climate change, religion and US politics," and the occasional flame war though those have died way down. I used to wonder if endless discussion of Canadian and Australian politics wasn't banned because Chris lived in those two countries, but after a little research, I realized he was simply saying that those subjects were so boring that any forum dedicated to them would be empty. ;)
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Certainly they should stay away from vague statements that singularly serve as a political platform like: hope and change. So, I agree with you. In the my interest of heading off to the pool tonight, I'll give a reasoned yet simple answer to your question: intuition. People remember the past, or they see rest of the world struggling with statism or liberalism via youtube--whether it be crowds protesting government austerity measures or riots in a self-proclaimed sovereign neighborhood by immigrants inside a first-world country. The Tea Party people don't want their next generation to become what they are seeing. The candidate that presents political solutions to these emerging problems wins the Tea Party vote.
-
Noob, you seem to think I either want or need to prove myself to you. Nothing could be further than the truth.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
One of the reasons I prefer SB1 is that opinions have to be argued, not voted down in a hit and run. But I countered the whiney-boy who gave you a one rather than engaging you.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Certainly they should stay away from vague statements that singularly serve as a political platform like: hope and change. So, I agree with you. In the my interest of heading off to the pool tonight, I'll give a reasoned yet simple answer to your question: intuition. People remember the past, or they see rest of the world struggling with statism or liberalism via youtube--whether it be crowds protesting government austerity measures or riots in a self-proclaimed sovereign neighborhood by immigrants inside a first-world country. The Tea Party people don't want their next generation to become what they are seeing. The candidate that presents political solutions to these emerging problems wins the Tea Party vote.
That is a good answer, I must say... actually it is one of the reasons that I gravitate towards libertarianism. However I what bothers me about the Tea Party movement is the fact that if it is not based on well thought out principles, it can easily degenerate into only being those vague concepts, such as "hope" and "change", or worse, into the very things the movement is fighting against, for example government intrusion and control (whether it is under the guise of "promoting family values", or of "increasing our military", or "taking care of the immigration problem", etc). Intuition and reaction to the problems in governments is a good starting point and is important for motivating political change, but must be grounded in a coherent political philosophy.
-
That is a good answer, I must say... actually it is one of the reasons that I gravitate towards libertarianism. However I what bothers me about the Tea Party movement is the fact that if it is not based on well thought out principles, it can easily degenerate into only being those vague concepts, such as "hope" and "change", or worse, into the very things the movement is fighting against, for example government intrusion and control (whether it is under the guise of "promoting family values", or of "increasing our military", or "taking care of the immigration problem", etc). Intuition and reaction to the problems in governments is a good starting point and is important for motivating political change, but must be grounded in a coherent political philosophy.
It worries me, too. I see various agenda-groups attempting to co-opt a genuine grass-roots old fashioned (small "L") libertarian demand for a return to a Constitutional Federal Republic into their particular brand of social conservatism. I think the next battle will be between the libertarian-oriented Tea Party and the Tax and Spend (but less) old guard Republicans.
J. Dunlap wrote:
Intuition and reaction to the problems in governments is a good starting point and is important for motivating political change, but must be grounded in a coherent political philosophy.
However, I really question whether the average joe dumping tea into Boston Harbor in 1775 had a coherent political philosophy beyond a desire to fight against government control expressed as "Kick the fracking lobstercoats out of town."
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
It worries me, too. I see various agenda-groups attempting to co-opt a genuine grass-roots old fashioned (small "L") libertarian demand for a return to a Constitutional Federal Republic into their particular brand of social conservatism. I think the next battle will be between the libertarian-oriented Tea Party and the Tax and Spend (but less) old guard Republicans.
J. Dunlap wrote:
Intuition and reaction to the problems in governments is a good starting point and is important for motivating political change, but must be grounded in a coherent political philosophy.
However, I really question whether the average joe dumping tea into Boston Harbor in 1775 had a coherent political philosophy beyond a desire to fight against government control expressed as "Kick the fracking lobstercoats out of town."
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Oakman wrote:
It worries me, too. I see various agenda-groups attempting to co-opt a genuine grass-roots old fashioned (small "L") libertarian demand for a return to a Constitutional Federal Republic into their particular brand of social conservatism.
Agreed. There are a lot of nutters putting themselves under the banner of the tea party, and I know they don't represent what the tea party movement is meant to be.
Oakman wrote:
I think the next battle will be between the libertarian-oriented Tea Party and the Tax and Spend (but less) old guard Republicans.
The tea party philosophy follows libertarian principles to a fair extent - for example, small government - but then in other areas it still leans strongly toward big government. One example is increased military spending in a country that has the largest military in the world, much bigger than it has ever been other than World War II. That issue is an example of where they deviate strongly from the principles our country was founded on.
Oakman wrote:
However, I really question whether the average joe dumping tea into Boston Harbor in 1775 had a coherent political philosophy beyond a desire to fight against government control expressed as "Kick the fracking lobstercoats out of town."
I see your point - however the founding fathers themselves were perhaps the most insightful people of their time, and put a huge amount of thought into the foundation of our country. Without them, our new nation would have ended up like those of so many other revolutions we've seen, rather than being a beacon for other countries to follow.
-
Oakman wrote:
It worries me, too. I see various agenda-groups attempting to co-opt a genuine grass-roots old fashioned (small "L") libertarian demand for a return to a Constitutional Federal Republic into their particular brand of social conservatism.
Agreed. There are a lot of nutters putting themselves under the banner of the tea party, and I know they don't represent what the tea party movement is meant to be.
Oakman wrote:
I think the next battle will be between the libertarian-oriented Tea Party and the Tax and Spend (but less) old guard Republicans.
The tea party philosophy follows libertarian principles to a fair extent - for example, small government - but then in other areas it still leans strongly toward big government. One example is increased military spending in a country that has the largest military in the world, much bigger than it has ever been other than World War II. That issue is an example of where they deviate strongly from the principles our country was founded on.
Oakman wrote:
However, I really question whether the average joe dumping tea into Boston Harbor in 1775 had a coherent political philosophy beyond a desire to fight against government control expressed as "Kick the fracking lobstercoats out of town."
I see your point - however the founding fathers themselves were perhaps the most insightful people of their time, and put a huge amount of thought into the foundation of our country. Without them, our new nation would have ended up like those of so many other revolutions we've seen, rather than being a beacon for other countries to follow.
J. Dunlap wrote:
One example is increased military spending in a country that has the largest military in the world, much bigger than it has ever been other than World War II.
Actually we were almost three times the same size as we are now at the time of the Vietnam War. However, your point is well-made. We should get the hell out of Asia, Europe and Oceania and let them figure out for themselves who is the big frog in their puddles. The amount we'd save - even if we kept the military the same size but all based between Hawaii and Bermuda - if we pulled out of NATO and the other agreements to police parts of the world of no interest to us, would be enormous. And, if we are no longer interested in being the global beat cop, lets dump the UN, too.
J. Dunlap wrote:
however the founding fathers themselves were perhaps the most insightful people of their time,
Of course it can be argued that the Jeffersons and Madisons never served in a wartime unit, and limited their participation in the revolution to hot air and fine words. Nonetheless, I agree that without them the revolution could have ended up like France's in the hands of a dictator and I suggest there is no-one presently in the forefront of any part of the U.S. political debate that could hold a candle to the political philosophers of the American revolution.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
One example is increased military spending in a country that has the largest military in the world, much bigger than it has ever been other than World War II.
Actually we were almost three times the same size as we are now at the time of the Vietnam War. However, your point is well-made. We should get the hell out of Asia, Europe and Oceania and let them figure out for themselves who is the big frog in their puddles. The amount we'd save - even if we kept the military the same size but all based between Hawaii and Bermuda - if we pulled out of NATO and the other agreements to police parts of the world of no interest to us, would be enormous. And, if we are no longer interested in being the global beat cop, lets dump the UN, too.
J. Dunlap wrote:
however the founding fathers themselves were perhaps the most insightful people of their time,
Of course it can be argued that the Jeffersons and Madisons never served in a wartime unit, and limited their participation in the revolution to hot air and fine words. Nonetheless, I agree that without them the revolution could have ended up like France's in the hands of a dictator and I suggest there is no-one presently in the forefront of any part of the U.S. political debate that could hold a candle to the political philosophers of the American revolution.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Oakman wrote:
Actually we were almost three times the same size as we are now at the time of the Vietnam War.
It is definitely less in terms of percentage of GDP, but in terms of actual spending, we have a higher (inflation-adjusted) military budget than we did back then, and also the cost of the Vietnam war was less than that of the Iraq war alone, even in inflation-adjusted terms. See here[^] here[^], here[^], here[^], etc.
Oakman wrote:
We should get the hell out of Asia, Europe and Oceania and let them figure out for themselves who is the big frog in their puddles. The amount we'd save - even if we kept the military the same size but all based between Hawaii and Bermuda - if we pulled out of NATO and the other agreements to police parts of the world of no interest to us, would be enormous. And, if we are no longer interested in being the global beat cop, lets dump the UN, too.
Agreed. I do see a use for the UN but only as a diplomatic forum and that type of thing, not as something that we have military obligations to.
Oakman wrote:
Of course it can be argued that the Jeffersons and Madisons never served in a wartime unit, and limited their participation in the revolution to hot air and fine words.
Well they were political philosophers, policy makers, and founders, not generals and war strategists. Both were important.
Oakman wrote:
I agree that without them the revolution could have ended up like France's in the hands of a dictator and I suggest there is no-one presently in the forefront of any part of the U.S. political debate that could hold a candle to the political philosophers of the American revolution.
Definitely.