Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > WTF Iowa???

WTF Iowa???
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 12:24 AM
 
Santorum.... Really?? Really!!!??

Are you f-ing kidding me?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 12:29 AM
 
All the troubles facing this country and you guys pick somebody who has made political inroads fussing over where penises should go?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 12:31 AM
 
I blame the Evangelicals.

Santorum has no chance somewhere else, he blew all his thunder in one state.
But: it shows how weak Mormomney really is.

At any rate: the outcome of this election is pretty simple:

If Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, he will run as a Liberitarian.
He can easily get 15% of the votes doing that.
That means: NO Republican candidate has ANY chance to beat Obama.

Therefore, it's either Ron Paul with a chance to beat Obama, or Obama guaranteed for a second term.

Really, simple as that.

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 12:39 AM
 
I don't think it matters who wins, as I've said, but man... Iowa is really a ****ed up place, or else a great percentage of Republican voters are really that dumb, or both.

Let's hope you are right and Santorum is nowhere near the top 3 in the next state. I couldn't live with him in office, my stomach turns at the mere thought. I know you committed Republicans would say that anything would be better than Obama, but **** that, not ****ing Rick Santorum!
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 12:42 AM
 
Hey ebuddy, it's not too late for you to run for office, is it?

You're not Rick Santorum, are you?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I know you committed Republicans
No, I'm definitely NOT committed. If anything, I'm committed Libertarian.

I would never vote for Romney, Perry or Gingrich. Let alone Bachmann. I'd rather vote for the White Muslim from Kenya.

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 12:54 AM
 
You Republicans are really good with coming up with catchy words and phases!

Mormomney... Owe-bama... Ob$ma... ObamaCare... Obama Hussein Obama (some people on the right really seem enthralled with Obama's middle name)... Nobama... Change we can't believe in (just taking a guess here). All the left can come up with is "the party of no"!

Keep voting for Santorum, keep the river of catchy word puns and cleverness flowing, and look out, we'll soon be partying like it was the 1950s all over again!
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 12:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
No, I'm definitely NOT committed. If anything, I'm committed Libertarian.

I would never vote for Romney, Perry or Gingrich. Let alone Bachmann. I'd rather vote for the White Muslim from Kenya.

-t
White Muslim? Where do you come up with this stuff? You should be Santorum's campaign manager!

Just ribbing you, I didn't necessarily mean any of this directed at you... It's just that.... People voted for Rick Santorum, I'm kind of delirious.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 01:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Therefore, it's either Ron Paul with a chance to beat Obama, or Obama guaranteed for a second term.

I like things about Ron Paul, but I hope you don't mean to say that this is a likely outcome. I don't see how it is logical that voters would decide against Ron Paul as a Republican, but would vote for him en masse as a Libertarian? If people don't vote for Ron Paul as a Republican it means they don't like Ron Paul. Him changing parties will not give him a chance to beat Obama.

I do agree that he could get some significant votes as a Libertarian though, it would certainly be enough to ensure that no Republican wins, and it might even entice some voters that would have otherwise voted Democrat, but it's not doing to be enough to beat Obama.

Don't feel bad though, I really don't think it matters unless we start to see a whole new breed of constructive politician run for Congress and Senate. I don't even care what party they run for or what their ideology is, they just have to be constructive with a genuine interest to pass legislation and bring forth well researched ideas, and not tethered to brainless party voting. This is going to take more than one election cycle though. It's also going to take voters that don't vote for Rick Santorum... Likewise, another slow changer. History will look back upon this period in America's history as their decade (or however long) of idiocracy.

As long as you have Congress with approval ratings of 11%, you could bring George W. Bush back after a brain injury, it's not going to matter.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I like things about Ron Paul, but I hope you don't mean to say that this is a likely outcome. I don't see how it is logical that voters would decide against Ron Paul as a Republican, but would vote for him en masse as a Libertarian? If people don't vote for Ron Paul as a Republican it means they don't like Ron Paul. Him changing parties will not give him a chance to beat Obama.
Huh ?

Go back and read again what I said. It's perfectly logical.

The same 15%-20% that vote for him in the caucuses will also vote for him as a 3rd candidate.

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 01:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Huh ?

Go back and read again what I said. It's perfectly logical.

The same 15%-20% that vote for him in the caucuses will also vote for him as a 3rd candidate.

-t
Misunderstood you, sorry!
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 01:46 AM
 
As much as I think Iowa Republicans are a bunch of retards for voting Santorum, it's kind of cool that he has a 5 vote edge on Romney.. Talk about razor thin margin!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 02:22 AM
 
I've already decided I'm voting for Paul or no one. If, for some reason, he completely drops out I'll just write-in "f*** you" on the ballot.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 02:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I blame the Evangelicals.

Santorum has no chance somewhere else, he blew all his thunder in one state.
But: it shows how weak Mormomney really is.
I think the opposite. The fact that Romney did this well in Iowa pretty much cements his front-runner status.

Santorum is a blip. He hasn't been targeted by the other candidates so far. When Bachmann and Perry drop out, their evangelical base will switch to Santorum, and he will become an even more serious target. But evangelicalism is a dying force politically, and the neo-cons who control the Republican party want Romney or Gingrich. And when Santorum drops out, he will endorse Romney.

Gingrich will eventually drop out and endorse Romney. Paul will fight to the bitter end, and being an idiot, he will Nader the Republicans and crown Obama.

Basically, none of the dropping candidates will switch to Paul, guaranteeing a Romney win.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 02:49 AM
 
I don't see anything wrong with Ron "Nadering" the Republicans.

Maybe the US deserves another 4 years of Obama, no matter if the President is called Barack or Mitt.

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 03:13 AM
 
What kind of stupid name is "Mitt" anyway? That's like a catcher's mitt or something. Stupid.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 04:21 AM
 
Romney has won in Iowa.

First comment in the Fark thread was a gem: "I guess this means that after a huge thrust and a late surge, Santorum comes in behind."

/knee slap
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 05:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I don't see anything wrong with Ron "Nadering" the Republicans.

Maybe the US deserves another 4 years of Obama, no matter if the President is called Barack or Mitt.

-t
You are 100% right. They're the same type of animal, so might as well stick with the devil you know, if you have to choose between them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 08:20 AM
 
I can't handle another 4 years of the great divider chastising success, constant blame-shifting, and some of the most egregious bs ever spewed by a POTUS. If you think he's got failure written all over him now, wait until he's no longer concerned about another election. While others are complaining about Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich; Barack Obama makes Dennis Kucinich look like a leader. If it's Romney or Gingrich, so be it and they'll get my vote happily over the status quo. Ron Paul has already claimed that any of the candidates in these debates would be an upgrade from the current administration and I agree. (meh... to an extent) For this reason, Ron Paul is selfless enough that he will not run on another ticket and if the Potheads for Paul couldn't deliver a win for him in Iowa, they sure as hell aren't going to show up in a general.

Santorum performed well in Iowa because he's been everywhere there and back. His entire campaign had been focused on making grounds in the midwest and it paid off for him. I see him slumping back in near Bachmann throughout the remainder of the process.
ebuddy
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I can't handle another 4 years of the great divider chastising success, constant blame-shifting, and some of the most egregious bs ever spewed by a POTUS. If you think he's got failure written all over him now, wait until he's no longer concerned about another election. While others are complaining about Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich; Barack Obama makes Dennis Kucinich look like a leader. If it's Romney or Gingrich, so be it and they'll get my vote happily over the status quo. Ron Paul has already claimed that any of the candidates in these debates would be an upgrade from the current administration and I agree. (meh... to an extent) For this reason, Ron Paul is selfless enough that he will not run on another ticket and if the Potheads for Paul couldn't deliver a win for him in Iowa, they sure as hell aren't going to show up in a general.

Santorum performed well in Iowa because he's been everywhere there and back. His entire campaign had been focused on making grounds in the midwest and it paid off for him. I see him slumping back in near Bachmann throughout the remainder of the process.
Funny stuff. Thanks, as always.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 10:00 AM
 
I knew I was going to ask this weeks ago, but when was the last time Iowa mattered for the republican nomination?

And yes, they should be embarrassed about Santorum. Life must be good there right now if such a strong percentage of voters are concerned primarily with abortion.

Edit: Huckabee seems to be the sole exception in a long line of picking the winners.
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; Jan 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM. )
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I would never vote for Romney, Perry or Gingrich. Let alone Bachmann. I'd rather vote for the White Muslim from Kenya.
Whoa whoa whoa, stop the clock. I'd vote for any and every Republican candidate, including Paul, over what we have now. If I had no other choice, I'd write in Cain or Palin. You'd have to nominate Pat Buchanan or David Duke for me not to vote Republican, and being here in the sinking ship that is California, my presidential vote doesn't count at all. Surely you can't be serious, turtle? (I'll leave the white Muslim comment alone. . .)

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Whoa whoa whoa, stop the clock. I'd vote for any and every Republican candidate, including Paul, over what we have now. If I had no other choice, I'd write in Cain or Palin. You'd have to nominate Pat Buchanan or David Duke for me not to vote Republican, and being here in the sinking ship that is California, my presidential vote doesn't count at all. Surely you can't be serious, turtle? (I'll leave the white Muslim comment alone. . .)
I'm dead serious.

This country is going to hell with Obama, and it will go to hell with a technocrat like Romney. It really doesn't matter. At least, with Obama steering this country over the cliff, conservatives get less of a bad rep.

When it comes to keeping this country from going down the road of more tyranny, less individual freedom, more co-mingling of powerful business and a political elite, none of the Republican contenders (except Paul) would make any difference in the long, run compared to Obama.

-t
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 01:19 PM
 
I'm with Turty here. In the last general election here, I advocated voting Labour (who're morons) so the falling off the cliff would be more dramatic and the proles would start screaming out for a properly conservative government. Didn't happen, Labour lost, and now we've got "Blue Labour" in charge with the proles reasonably comfortable in their continuing delusion.

Principle is the same: Accelerate the idiocy/demise in order to wake the proles up (and at the same time tarring the left side of the equation for a generation).
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 01:32 PM
 
Republicans need to face reality. Their best bet to beat Pres. Obama is with Mitt Romney.

The Republican race just got boring.

Mitt Romney and Santorum? Snoozefest.

Bring back Herman Cain and start promoting Rick Perry again. Those guys are entertaining.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
First comment in the Fark thread was a gem: "I guess this means that after a huge thrust and a late surge, Santorum comes in behind."

/knee slap
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Santorum performed well in Iowa because he's been everywhere there and back. His entire campaign had been focused on making grounds in the midwest and it paid off for him. I see him slumping back in near Bachmann throughout the remainder of the process.

His campaigning hard in Iowa and going everywhere doesn't excuse people for voting for him. Those voters are still retards for buying his product.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
When it comes to keeping this country from going down the road of more tyranny, less individual freedom, more co-mingling of powerful business and a political elite, none of the Republican contenders (except Paul) would make any difference in the long, run compared to Obama.

Someone at ZH said it much better than me:

There is literally no difference between Obama and a moderate Republican when it comes to the truly important policies governing the nation's insolvent finances, its predatory financial sector, its corrupt and fraudulent sickcare system or its sprawling Empire.

Obama's policies have all aided and abetted existing Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms. He has changed absolutely nothing of import except further eroding civil liberties.

President Obama can be charitably characterized as an ineffectual Demopublican. From those demanding more, then he can be accurately described as a well-meaning puppet of Wall Street and the rest of the Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms.
Guest Post: President Obama, Demopublican | ZeroHedge

That's the sad reality. Politics as usual on both sides of the aisle.

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 04:24 PM
 
Okay, I can't restrain myself any longer.

Some of you guys on the right really desperately need a reality check. Badly.

Firstly, those of you going on about Obama's term being some unprecedented hellish term:

- Many of you lack any sort of objectivity because even before Obama was sworn in you were in the Jeremiah Wright, Ayers, etc. bandwagon looking for every little thing to hate about him, and let's face it, this never had a chance of changing.

- Many of you seemed to mock his whole premise of wanting change to the point where it made sense for the Republican opposition to not wage a campaign based on change. Now you guys seem to desperately want change, and for those of you that would say that they just never wanted Obama's change, what Obama change has come about? The parts you dislike the most about his health care bill - the mandatory inclusion stuff, government running an exchange program, etc. haven't even taken effect yet. Some of you guys go on about Obama being a crazy socialist, and some that he is Bush II (which is more accurate). Which is it?

The fact is, we do need change, we have not had it yet, and that this seems revelatory to some of you just speaks to the slowness in which you observe reality. I'm sorry I don't buy the notion that you never supported Bush, I remember having the same sorts of debates here in the early 2000s where many of you vehemently defended him, particularly when it came to security and our foreign policy. Let's face it, that Bush sucked is something that took some of you longer to figure out, and likewise the notion that we really need to change stuff is something that took you longer to figure out too. I'm happy you did, but I'm also hoping that you might be willing to entertain that you are possibly a couple of steps behind reality now too.

- You go on as if Obama's presidency is been different than any other in the past decade or whatever, but it hasn't, and that's the problem. Moreover, you seem to imply that a different president would have brought us to a different outcome. A president McCain would have brought us pretty much to where we are at now, and any president you elect now including Ron Paul will bring us to the same place in 4 years from now.

Why? Cause any president needs votes and support to pass stuff, and our politics are not setup to be constructive in any way, shape, or form. Ron Paul wants to end all wars? Great, it's not going to happen. President x or y wants to cut all sorts of spending? Great, either not going to happen or will happen in ways that are dubious in having more to do with securing votes and support than an actual sober look at what programs do not have a RoI.


Some of you guys really need to wake up. I can't believe that I'm finding myself agreeing with Turtle, but he is right too (although for differing reasons and seeing things much differently, our conclusions seem similar though).

Ron Paul is not going to change anything substantially, Obama is not going to change anything substantially, nobody is going to change anything until much of our entire political system has been reformed. Obama is not the devil, he's just a member of the status quo. He and Ron Paul may both resent the status quo, but they alone are not going to change it. The problem is with that status quo, not Obama. He's relatively inconsequential.
( Last edited by besson3c; Jan 4, 2012 at 04:31 PM. )
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 04:36 PM
 
Guys, it's not just me that is a genius, Steve Jobs agrees with me too... In his biography he said that politics are basically about constructive vs. deconstructive, not left vs. right.

The problem is that deconstructive is winning at the lower levels of federal politics.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 04:38 PM
 
What about obstructive?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Guys, it's not just me that is a genius, Steve Jobs agrees with me too... In his biography he said that politics are basically about constructive vs. deconstructive, not left vs. right.

The problem is that deconstructive is winning at the lower levels of federal politics.
While I think that "constructive vs. deconstructive" is an interesting way of looking at it, it's also prone to (again) encounter very different IDEAS and PERCEPTIONS about what "constructive" or "deconstructive". means.

E.g. in some sense, what we need is DEconstructive, tearing down the politicis as we know it.
Sure, one could also say that would be CONstructive, but essentially, one would mean dumping the old and creating something new. Although, that "new" could just be going back to "less" of the past.

This makes my head spin, I need some alcohol.

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What about obstructive?
That too!
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
While I think that "constructive vs. deconstructive" is an interesting way of looking at it, it's also prone to (again) encounter very different IDEAS and PERCEPTIONS about what "constructive" or "deconstructive". means.

E.g. in some sense, what we need is DEconstructive, tearing down the politicis as we know it.
Sure, one could also say that would be CONstructive, but essentially, one would mean dumping the old and creating something new. Although, that "new" could just be going back to "less" of the past.

This makes my head spin, I need some alcohol.

-t

Your thinking is starting to sound progressive, just to make your head spin some more

I don't think that there is a differing perception as to what constructive is, or at least there shouldn't be.


Constructive has nothing to do with ideology.

Constructive has to do with genuine and consistent debate using facts, and not emotions, and keeping at it and at it and at it and at it some more until minds are opened, ideological blinders are destroyed, and until there is stuff that can be agreed upon based on a rationale assessment of what is going on, not what would be politically useful, what sponsors and supporters want, etc.

I know that this isn't cut and dry, but reforming politics to take all money out of it full stop would be a great start. Otherwise, these objectives will always be clouded.

Even with no money in politics this will still be hard and it may not always be productive, but this coupled with persistence would certainly help a great deal. Persistence meaning, if there is deadlock, keep at it until there isn't. The job isn't done until changing things that are broken begins, and until we start seeing the results that we want. Until then, I don't give a rat's ass how hard it is to change minds in politics, that's the job, keep at it.

I'm far more comfortable with not always getting my way and what I want if I know that the process was genuine and not clouded by influences that are not aligned with the best interests of the majority of the population regardless of their ideology, and if there is a sound and rational, well researched and grounded explanation behind laws that are passed - even if I disagree with them. Wanting to score political points is not one of these reasons.

In this constructive world votes would not occur strictly down party lines, because people aren't robots that have to think and feel the same way within a party.

I realize that this is still all very hard to define, but one thing we can agree upon: what we have now doesn't resemble what I'm describing at all. Let's start there.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 05:07 PM
 
turtle: Why not Newt? He's the only one who legitimately claim credit for cramming an (ostensibly) balanced budget down Clinton's throat. Clinton got all the credit for the balanced budget and tech boom fueled 1990s, but Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming toward balance.

As for the sentiment by you and apparently Doofy that we should just reelect BHO and watch the country/world burn, I understand that in theory. In truth though, we on the Right have tried to convince ourselves that BHO's first term was a gift because it's going to jolt the country awake, as opposed to having McCain who would have kept us on the same course but at a slightly slower pace. I understand that argument, and it may have some truth, but I also see it for what it is: rationalization for not defeating him in 2008.

Moreover, accelerating the destruction of the West to punish the people for their stupidity sounds like a salvageable plan assuming you have a nice, stable island you own that you can retreat to. I don't think that's the best choice, but it's an option for those who can afford it and don't otherwise care about the country and its people.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
but it's an option for those who can afford it and don't otherwise care about the country and its people.
Politicians?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Moreover, accelerating the destruction of the West to punish the people for their stupidity sounds like a salvageable plan assuming you have a nice, stable island you own that you can retreat to. I don't think that's the best choice, but it's an option for those who can afford it and don't otherwise care about the country and its people.

Just don't make the argument that the peoples' stupidity has anything to do with who they voted for, because it doesn't.

The peoples' stupidity has more to do with not more readily calling out the entire flawed system of campaigning, how campaigns and political careers are run, what drives votes from people already in office, an attitude of general apathy, and not being more vocal about the corporatization of politics (save parts of OWS, who seem to get this, and possibly parts of the Tea Party).

However, you can't fault people for voting for the lesser of two evils, or possibly good (or bad) candidates surrounded by a flawed institution. The problem is with the entire institution, including the surrounding culture of our entire society, not any one individual politician or vote for that politician.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 05:35 PM
 
What's interesting to me is that once again, it seems like it just takes longer for reality to become apparent.

When Occupy Wall St. came to be they were mocked by many of you. Some of you mocked their tactics, which is and was fair, but others mocked their very cause or claimed they never had one.

Now that it seems apparent from looking over the candidates and seeing that they are all basically a product of political manufacturing, all (but possibly Ron Paul) deeply entrenched in the same system, it should hopefully also be apparent as to why this is so: what you get from mixing money with politics.

Guess what, money + politics was pretty much exactly what OWS was/is against, that is/was their primary cauase.


Just saying...
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
When Occupy Wall St. came to be they were mocked by many of you. Some of you mocked their tactics, which is and was fair, but others mocked their very cause or claimed they never had one.
Yeah, but let's not forget how you (you personally, and you, the Democrats) mocked the tea party. Same difference.

-t
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 05:43 PM
 
Hi Besson

I'm responding to this post because I like it, I am happy to see a re-imagining of the "sides," but I would like to offer a "change" or two.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Some of you guys on the right really desperately need a reality check. Badly.
...
- Many of you seemed to mock his whole premise of wanting change...
Likewise, many from the Obama/Pelosi cheerleading camp mock the premise of efficiency and saving money. I hope you can sympathize with this perspective, because you often go on as if this motivation doesn't even exist.

The fact is, we do need change, we have not had it yet
In the big picture, every politician tries to make improvements. The country was founded with a rulebook that they really did try their best to make as good as possible (and it was quite good). Generally intelligent, well-meaning people then spent the next 235 years trying to make improvements on it, and indeed it is even better than when it started. From this general framework, we can conclude that most changes would be detrimental, and only a few possibilities remain to further improve. I object to the idea that "change is good on principle." That's like saying that all previous US legislators have been total failures, and the people we elect today will outshine all US statesmen that preceded them combined. I think you can agree that this is improbable. On average, change is bad.

This is not to say that I'm opposed to change, I'm not, I just don't take it on faith that change in and of itself can be expected to be an improvement. In an ideal world, we would have reached the finish line after working over 200 years on a country, and an ideal legislature shouldn't have to do anything. The only reason for change is because we don't live in an ideal world. But keep in mind that the "new guy" (whomever he may be) is also not ideal.

Ron Paul is not going to change anything substantially, Obama is not going to change anything substantially, nobody is going to change anything until much of our entire political system has been reformed. Obama is not the devil, he's just a member of the status quo. He and Ron Paul may both resent the status quo, but they alone are not going to change it. The problem is with that status quo, not Obama. He's relatively inconsequential.
I agree that Ron Paul wouldn't be able to effect very much change as president. But if he won, that victory in itself would effect change. Because right now no (other) candidate would dare running on a "common sense" or "outsider" platform, for fear of being Ross Perot. This is something I think we really need to change. But for that to happen, someone has to win on such a platform, or at least come close. Many times the policies of a candidate can't be enacted by that candidate, but the fact that they won the election makes them be adopted by many future candidates, who eventually do get some of them enacted. Plus if Paul does get in office, at the very least we can expect him not to make things worse by adding more "constructive" changes

politics are basically about constructive vs. deconstructive, not left vs. right.
I don't think that language is fair. "Deconstructive" is not necessarily bad. I went through a policy change in my household to get rid of cell phones and go back to land line only. This can only be described as "deconstructive," but it's saving me a ton of money and time. This is a good change. Even despite not meeting turtle's explanation of erecting a new structure in place of what was taken down. Deconstruction can be just about trimming fat, not about replacing inefficient old infrastructure with leaner modern kit. This speaks directly to the first thing I said in this post: saving money and increasing efficiency is a worthwhile goal, just as much so as new "construction."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yeah, but let's not forget how you (you personally, and you, the Democrats) mocked the tea party. Same difference.

-t

It is, but I don't recall ever mocking their cause, just their tactics and ridiculousness of their demonstrations. I've never been against mockery of OWS demonstrations, I'd be right there with the mockers anyway
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Hi Besson
Hi Skeleton!

(I've given up on having people call me by my real name, besson3c, so I'll just call you Skeleton)

Likewise, many from the Obama/Pelosi cheerleading camp mock the premise of efficiency and saving money. I hope you can sympathize with this perspective, because you often go on as if this motivation doesn't even exist.
If that is true, then they should be ridiculed for this mockery. I didn't see it. I mean, who wouldn't want efficiency?

In the big picture, every politician tries to make improvements. The country was founded with a rulebook that they really did try their best to make as good as possible (and it was quite good). Generally intelligent, well-meaning people then spent the next 235 years trying to make improvements on it, and indeed it is even better than when it started. From this general framework, we can conclude that most changes would be detrimental, and only a few possibilities remain to further improve. I object to the idea that "change is good on principle." That's like saying that all previous US legislators have been total failures, and the people we elect today will outshine all US statesmen that preceded them combined. I think you can agree that this is improbable. On average, change is bad.
I'd say it depends on the area in question. I'd say that it is pretty hard to make our health care system much worse in terms of accessibility, for instance. Sure it's possible to make it worse, but I'm far more open to the idea of changing our health care system than I am, say, our FDA regulations or something. See what I mean? (Please don't dig in to the wisdom of changing FDA regulations, it was just a random example)

I agree that Ron Paul wouldn't be able to effect very much change as president. But if he won, that victory in itself would effect change. Because right now no (other) candidate would dare running on a "common sense" or "outsider" platform, for fear of being Ross Perot.
This is exactly what people said about Obama winning.

I don't think that language is fair. "Deconstructive" is not necessarily bad. I went through a policy change in my household to get rid of cell phones and go back to land line only. This can only be described as "deconstructive," but it's saving me a ton of money and time. This is a good change. Even despite not meeting turtle's explanation of erecting a new structure in place of what was taken down. Deconstruction can be just about trimming fat, not about replacing inefficient old infrastructure with leaner modern kit. This speaks directly to the first thing I said in this post: saving money and increasing efficiency is a worthwhile goal, just as much so as new "construction."
I'd say that trimming fat is constructive though. Increasing efficiency is always constructive, isn't it?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Hi Skeleton!

(I've given up on having people call me by my real name, besson3c, so I'll just call you Skeleton)
I prefer "Skeleto"

If that is true, then they should be ridiculed for this mockery. I didn't see it. I mean, who wouldn't want efficiency?
Anyone who bristles up at the phrase "small government"

I'd say it depends on the area in question. I'd say that it is pretty hard to make our health care system much worse in terms of accessibility, for instance. Sure it's possible to make it worse, but I'm far more open to the idea of changing our health care system than I am, say, our FDA regulations or something. See what I mean? (Please don't dig in to the wisdom of changing FDA regulations, it was just a random example)
No, it's quite easy to make it worse. Just introduce another layer (government) in between spending and treatment selection. It's the exact same "constructive" change that the government made to try to increase accessibility to education and housing. In both cases, it created a bubble and irrational prices got even more irrational. This doesn't help accessibility. Accessibility remains in equilibrium, and the rich get richer at the expense of government (debt). Accessibility increases (drastically) when new products get refined and get cheaper. Government trying to push these products out the door ahead of this process only slows this process down. What's the point of making the product cheaper when the government is going to ensure your whole stock gets bought either way? It stifles innovation.

This is exactly what people said about Obama winning.
Fair enough, and in that case there is no point in his re-election; the benefits have already been reaped and only the costs remain. If Ron Paul was president, I would say there was nothing further to be gained from 4 more years.

I'd say that trimming fat is constructive though. Increasing efficiency is always constructive, isn't it?
No, isn't that like saying Obama's "change" meant to "change his mind and keep everything the same?" You brought it up to describe politics as "constructive vs deconstructive." I can't think of any fair way to classify "trimming" anything in the category of "constructive" in that context.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Hi Skeleton!

(I've given up on having people call me by my real name, besson3c, so I'll just call you Skeleton)
Is "besson" not an acceptable diminutive?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Anyone who bristles up at the phrase "small government"
That's bullshit though.

There is no relationship between efficiency and size. Would Apple be efficient if it consisted of 10 employees?

What is efficient is for something to be as small as possible, but the important caveat is *without starving it of the resources it needs to work accurately and effectively* (e.g. a company as massive as Apple only having 10 employees).

What I bristle at is the notion that everything should be small just because without taking into account the complexity of the organization and what would actually be necessary to accommodate that complexity. Ironically, by starving an organization of resources you could very well make it less efficient in its ability to operate and get stuff done in a timely and effective/accurate manner.

No, it's quite easy to make it worse. Just introduce another layer (government) in between spending and treatment selection. It's the exact same "constructive" change that the government made to try to increase accessibility to education and housing. In both cases, it created a bubble and irrational prices got even more irrational. This doesn't help accessibility. Accessibility remains in equilibrium, and the rich get richer at the expense of government (debt). Accessibility increases (drastically) when new products get refined and get cheaper. Government trying to push these products out the door ahead of this process only slows this process down. What's the point of making the product cheaper when the government is going to ensure your whole stock gets bought either way? It stifles innovation.
Trying to force accessibility with artificial stimulation is different than setting up conditions where something can be accessible on its own, in a more natural fashion. Right?

Fair enough, and in that case there is no point in his re-election; the benefits have already been reaped and only the costs remain. If Ron Paul was president, I would say there was nothing further to be gained from 4 more years.
I know I'm sounding like a broken record (Turtle style, just teasing ya Turtle), but I don't think there is much to be gained by any president in this current system.

No, isn't that like saying Obama's "change" meant to "change his mind and keep everything the same?" You brought it up to describe politics as "constructive vs deconstructive." I can't think of any fair way to classify "trimming" anything in the category of "constructive" in that context.
You lost me here.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is "besson" not an acceptable diminutive?
Ask the Jews in WORLD WAR 2!

*Edit* I first wrote this as "World War II", but I realized that this was kind of silly because using roman numerals for numbers is a marketing technique for movies, and World War 2 was not a movie.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That's bullshit though.

There is no relationship between efficiency and size. Would Apple be efficient if it consisted of 10 employees?
So what ?
Just because there is no NECESSARY relationship doesn't mean it can't be true.

In the case of the US government, nobody in their right mind could deny that there are huge inefficiencies.
That means, you have to choices:

a) be more efficient and do the SAME with LESS manpower
b) be more efficient and do MORE with the SAME manpower

The discussion if MORE should eb done or not is a different one.
But no doubt you could shrink the government w/o loss of functionality and efficiency.

Btw, if you studied organizational development you would know that the law of diminishing returns also applies to most big organizations and their bureaucracies.
Sure, there *are* ways to set up big organizations so that they act as smaller, independet sub-organizations (e.g. holding companies). But that does NOT apply to our Federal government.

-t
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That's bullshit though.

There is no relationship between efficiency and size. Would Apple be efficient if it consisted of 10 employees?
There most certainly is a relationship between efficiency and size. The correlation is not 100%, but there is definitely a correlation.

What I bristle at is the notion that everything should be small just because without taking into account the complexity of the organization and what would actually be necessary to accommodate that complexity. Ironically, by starving an organization of resources you could very well make it less efficient in its ability to operate and get stuff done in a timely and effective/accurate manner.
Ideally the organization would be able to audit itself, identify areas where resources are less needed, and voluntarily give up those resources. Unfortunately, government is not well suited to this task, so starving it of resources becomes the only option. If there were an in-built culling mechanism for unneeded or obsolete functions, like the free market has in consumer demand, then this starving tactic wouldn't be needed. (edit: actually consumer demand is a starving of resources, and it's an example of where doing so is perfectly appropriate)

Trying to force accessibility with artificial stimulation is different than setting up conditions where something can be accessible on its own, in a more natural fashion. Right?
Yes. When does that happen?

I know I'm sounding like a broken record (Turtle style, just teasing ya Turtle), but I don't think there is much to be gained by any president in this current system.
In that case a symbolic victory is the best we can hope for. I think Ron Paul would be the only symbolic victory of any of the candidates running. All the others are things we've seen before.

You lost me here.
No, I don't think "constructive" applies to cutting the fat. Not in the context of "constructive vs deconstructive." That meaning of "constructive" is out of context.
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Jan 4, 2012 at 08:09 PM. Reason: typo)
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
So what ?
Just because there is no NECESSARY relationship doesn't mean it can't be true.
I didn't say it can't be true.

In the case of the US government, nobody in their right mind could deny that there are huge inefficiencies.
I didn't say there weren't.

The discussion if MORE should eb done or not is a different one.
But no doubt you could shrink the government w/o loss of functionality and efficiency.
It all depends, but sure you could, in theory.

Sure, there *are* ways to set up big organizations so that they act as smaller, independet sub-organizations (e.g. holding companies). But that does NOT apply to our Federal government.
Maybe, but whether we should reduce particular government programs all depends on a host of factors. My point is that I'm not comfortable with just saying that everything should be shrunk just because.

One of those factors is RoI. It would obviously be idiotic and nonsensical to cut programs that save the government money or are badly needed. For instance, if we just cut off all food safety regulation programs and everybody started to get food poisoning as a result, this would put a strain on Medicare.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
There most certainly is a relationship between efficiency and size. The correlation is not 100%, but there is definitely a correlation.
There is a tendency, but no direct relationship that would satisfy the scientific minded such as yourself.

Yes. When does that happen?
How about the funding of NASA and our moon landing?

In that case a symbolic victory is the best we can hope for. I think Ron Paul would be the only symbolic victory of any of the candidates running. All the others are things we've seen before.
Maybe, but symbolic victories don't excite or inspire me.

No, I don't think "constructive" applies to cutting the fact. Not in the context of "constructive vs deconstructive." That meaning of "constructive" is out of context.
I guess, I dunno, *shrug*, maybe... I guess this is just a semantic thing.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,