[quote]kamui wrote:
I was just amused at the thought of someone using buffalogenic climat change to deny anthropogenic climat change.
[/quote]
Using real science to debunk populist pseudoscience - crazy I know.
Actually environmentalists claim frog consumption causes major damage to ecosystems. Then there’s the fact that a quarter of the world’s population are Muslims most of whom consider frogs haraam.
Very cool(it seems to show that many citizens in at least one district actually want some freedom) that this guy won the nomination.
David Brat, the Libertarian Who Beat Eric Cantor, Doesn’t Believe in the “Common” Good – Mother Jones -good information on Brat
David Brat campaign manager scrubs Facebook page after election -good information on Brat’s campaign manager
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Very cool(it seems to show that many citizens in at least one district actually want some freedom) that this guy won the nomination.
David Brat, the Libertarian Who Beat Eric Cantor, Doesn’t Believe in the “Common” Good – Mother Jones -good information on Brat
David Brat campaign manager scrubs Facebook page after election -good information on Brat’s campaign manager[/quote]
I’m not quite sure I understand. Do you agree with the criticisms in those two links?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Very cool(it seems to show that many citizens in at least one district actually want some freedom) that this guy won the nomination.
David Brat, the Libertarian Who Beat Eric Cantor, Doesn’t Believe in the “Common” Good – Mother Jones -good information on Brat
David Brat campaign manager scrubs Facebook page after election -good information on Brat’s campaign manager[/quote]
I’m not quite sure I understand. Do you agree with the criticisms in those two links?
[/quote]
I just stated that it’s good information; I did not say that they were good articles. I don’t view anything in either article as being negative. The few opinions in the articles are from either idiots or ignoramuses.
Take the following from the Mother Jones article, for instance:
"In his campaign speeches, Brat has pointed out that he isn’t worried about climate change because ‘rich countries solve their problems’:
If you let Americans do their thing, there is no scarcity, right? They said we’re going to run out of food 200 years ago, that we’re goin’ to have a ice age. Now we’re heating up…Of course we care for the environment, but we’re not mad people. Over time, rich countries solve their problems. We get it right. It’s not all perfect, but we get it right.
Update: After Mother Jones published this piece, several videos referenced were set to private.
He did not say what might happen to not-so-rich countries due to climate change and the consequent rise in sea levels, droughts, and extreme weather."
I don’t see that as a criticism. I see it as the author pointing out the obvious. Brat also didn’t say who might win next year’s Super Bowl. If one is too stupid to make a decent criticism, I don’t pay much attention to what he/she says.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This point of JB’s needs to be emphasized:
“IF (emphasis added) the grass roots sticks to economic issues and cutting the crap out of government; instead of getting bogged down in social issues; it will become very dominant across party lines”.
This certainly is a big “if”…but it is something a lot of Americans are looking for.
[/quote]
A point that is often missed is that social issues and economic issues are intertwined. Part of the reason welfare dependence is so high is due to the breakdown of the family unit. In fact the family unit is the basis for the whole society. When the family unit breaks down society crumbles.
[/quote]
I like your style man.
To get to an even more causal relationship, history has shown us that the debasement of money is ultimately followed by the breakdown in community. The cause of fiat currency failure is the erosion of trust in the value. When money can’t be trusted, business becomes much more difficult to conduct, scarce resources are bid up (i.e. inflation) and people generally begin to behave like barbaric hordes rather than strong, resilient communities. No planning for the future can be seriously contemplated since no one expects units of currency to maintain their value.
This model describes many past revolutions quite well. “The Creature From Jekyll Island” is a great book to read more detail. One of the best researched books I have ever read.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Couple of points:
Not sad to see Cantor go. He was a liberal with an “R” next to his name.
The national so-called TEA parties had nothing to do with this. The grass-root efforts to return to small government that inspired the TEA party had everything to do with this.
I don’t get where anyone could get off saying the “TEA Party (or really, the grass-root effort to get actual conservatives/libertarians in office instead of fake Republicans) is dead.” The movement swept Texas state-wide, excepting Cornyn. They pick up about 1/4 of the seats targeted every year. In a few years, the Republic Elite will be a sad minority within the Republican party, relegated to liberal states.
I am happy to have a choice between capitalists and communists, instead of socialist (the Republican E) and communists (the Democrats).
If the grass roots sticks to economic issues and cutting the crap out of government, instead of getting bogged down in social issues, it will become very dominant across party lines.
Oh, and Cantor was not always an asshole. I liked what he did regarding education regarding Israel and liked how he showed that yes, a Jew can be a Republican and sort-of-conservative. But he lost his way and became another typical politician.
[/quote]
Haha, all I see is Hillary in the future if you conservatives keep going tea party. But, at least you think you have an option haha. You really think they are small gov capitalists lol. If they are small gov it’s to serve big corps like the Koch’s and Tobacco. They don’t want small gov for the sake of small gov. All it’s for is concentration of power over the market by creating smaller gov, which puts more power in fewer hands… Easier to control fewer hands… LOL[/quote]
I always take political advice from political enemies. They can’t possibly being trying to screw me. Or just stupid.
And the fact that they are wrong about everything can’t possibly mean they are wrong here too.
But regarding the substance of your post:
What is funny is the Democrat elites ARE the big corporations.
Big corporations need red tape and barriers of entry to prevent competition. They need cheap immigrants to abuse and dispose of. And most of all they need to destroy the small businesses that become successful because they are a threat.
I am not sure how idiots came to believe that Democrats are for the poor or the little people. The Democrat elites have created a structure to keep people down and them on top. Democrats elites exist for elites.
It’s would be funny if it was not so sad watching a slave like you (and, yes, Serviano, you are a slave) defend your masters.
I guess they don’t need whips and chains to keep you on the plantation anymore.
They are much more subtle.[/quote]
The thing is I’m in a position where I’d rather vote with my money and I encourage others, republicans and dems to to the same. What sucks is when we have people who get behind bullshit politics like climate denial simply because they remember Al Gore talking about it. So in a sense I agree with you, that people don’t realize they don’t really have a choice.
I’m saying that going in the direction of the Tea Party is what you say it is, it is smaller government. But for the reasons I explained in my post, for the sake of putting more power in fewer hands to consolidate control. Consolidation of power is there to have more influence on the market, and policies that can increase their income at the cost of the environment.
In the last election cycle the Tea Party had no problem winning their primary but could not win the General ???
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In the last election cycle the Tea Party had no problem winning their primary but could not win the General ???[/quote]
This particular area is pretty red and I believe the expectation is Brat will sail through the general.
The other thing to keep in mind is the Tea facets of the GOP are new. The GOP is actually trying to change as a party, have fresh life, new ideas and just generally do what the Democrats are afraid fo doing, change, rather than hope for some.
So, with that said, yes the Tea groups ran some pretty shitty candidates and some politically intelligent democrats took advantage of them. They would run ads attacking the GOP candidate that could beat them, framing the person who would lose the general as the “most conservative”.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Couple of points:
Not sad to see Cantor go. He was a liberal with an “R” next to his name.
The national so-called TEA parties had nothing to do with this. The grass-root efforts to return to small government that inspired the TEA party had everything to do with this.
I don’t get where anyone could get off saying the “TEA Party (or really, the grass-root effort to get actual conservatives/libertarians in office instead of fake Republicans) is dead.” The movement swept Texas state-wide, excepting Cornyn. They pick up about 1/4 of the seats targeted every year. In a few years, the Republic Elite will be a sad minority within the Republican party, relegated to liberal states.
I am happy to have a choice between capitalists and communists, instead of socialist (the Republican E) and communists (the Democrats).
If the grass roots sticks to economic issues and cutting the crap out of government, instead of getting bogged down in social issues, it will become very dominant across party lines.
Oh, and Cantor was not always an asshole. I liked what he did regarding education regarding Israel and liked how he showed that yes, a Jew can be a Republican and sort-of-conservative. But he lost his way and became another typical politician.
[/quote]
Haha, all I see is Hillary in the future if you conservatives keep going tea party. But, at least you think you have an option haha. You really think they are small gov capitalists lol. If they are small gov it’s to serve big corps like the Koch’s and Tobacco. They don’t want small gov for the sake of small gov. All it’s for is concentration of power over the market by creating smaller gov, which puts more power in fewer hands… Easier to control fewer hands… LOL[/quote]
I always take political advice from political enemies. They can’t possibly being trying to screw me. Or just stupid.
And the fact that they are wrong about everything can’t possibly mean they are wrong here too.
But regarding the substance of your post:
What is funny is the Democrat elites ARE the big corporations.
Big corporations need red tape and barriers of entry to prevent competition. They need cheap immigrants to abuse and dispose of. And most of all they need to destroy the small businesses that become successful because they are a threat.
I am not sure how idiots came to believe that Democrats are for the poor or the little people. The Democrat elites have created a structure to keep people down and them on top. Democrats elites exist for elites.
It’s would be funny if it was not so sad watching a slave like you (and, yes, Serviano, you are a slave) defend your masters.
I guess they don’t need whips and chains to keep you on the plantation anymore.
They are much more subtle.[/quote]
The thing is I’m in a position where I’d rather vote with my money and I encourage others, republicans and dems to to the same. What sucks is when we have people who get behind bullshit politics like climate denial simply because they remember Al Gore talking about it. So in a sense I agree with you, that people don’t realize they don’t really have a choice.
I’m saying that going in the direction of the Tea Party is what you say it is, it is smaller government. But for the reasons I explained in my post, for the sake of putting more power in fewer hands to consolidate control. Consolidation of power is there to have more influence on the market, and policies that can increase their income at the cost of the environment. [/quote]
AL Gore started the talk about Global Warming, and everyone jumped on his lap like he was Santa Claus. Problem is, no one considered that he might be wrong, or even slightly wrong.
He wasn’t just talking about Global Warming, he was making wild predictions, and turned out to be shamelessly wrong. Do you have any idea how wrong that fucker was ? Laughably wrong, clinically wrong, certifiably wrong.
Then we started making policy on false predictions, see our very own 2006 Global Warming Final Solutions Act in California, where they are juicing businesses up to a Billion dollars on shit that is STILL not proven.
If that doesn’t make your dick twitch, consider that when people reacted to the claims of Global Warming (driving less, and driving more fuel efficient cars), the state reacted by raising the gas tax to compensate for the lost revenue. Remember, this was supposed to be about the climate, not revenue.
Germany, Australia, Canada, and Japan are no longer complying with Climate Change policies, those fucking deniers !
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This point of JB’s needs to be emphasized:
“IF (emphasis added) the grass roots sticks to economic issues and cutting the crap out of government; instead of getting bogged down in social issues; it will become very dominant across party lines”.
This certainly is a big “if”…but it is something a lot of Americans are looking for.
[/quote]
A point that is often missed is that social issues and economic issues are intertwined. Part of the reason welfare dependence is so high is due to the breakdown of the family unit. In fact the family unit is the basis for the whole society. When the family unit breaks down society crumbles.
[/quote]
So we pass laws to keep people married? Outlaw porn? Shoot people who have unmarried sex?
I don’t disagree with you that the breakdown of the family causes serious economic problems, but what government can do to solve it is limited.
Really, the only the government can do is to restore the moral hazard of having out-of-wedlock children — that is, basically remove the welfare state.
And that is a pure fiscal conservative idea.
But given Obama has created the greatest generation of people not even in the workforce wholly dependent on taxpayer largess, this is unlikely, by design.
He cynically created an unemployable mass of people dependent on the Democrat party to eat.
Brat, a free-market purist and a devotee of Ayn Rand, read the op-ed and turned to his wife. As he recounted several times on the trail this spring, he told her, â??This guy just wrote my stump speech for me!â?? What was useful to Brat about the Wall Street Journal article was not that it echoed his own views, but that it clarified for him everything that Cantor was for and that Brat was against. â??Stability,â?? for Brat, was simply code for a status quo in which companies like AT&T fleece the government.
From what Iâ??ve observed, Brat has not talked like a forty-seven-per-cent conservative complaining about how tax dollars are being shovelled to the undeserving poor (although maybe he does believe that and didnâ??t emphasize it in the campaign). He comes across, instead, like a ninety-nine-per-cent conservative who sees the real villain as corporate America and its addiction to government largesse. One of his biggest applause lines is about how bankers should have gone to jail after the 2008 financial crisis.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Brat, a free-market purist and a devotee of Ayn Rand, read the op-ed and turned to his wife. As he recounted several times on the trail this spring, he told her, â??This guy just wrote my stump speech for me!â?? What was useful to Brat about the Wall Street Journal article was not that it echoed his own views, but that it clarified for him everything that Cantor was for and that Brat was against. â??Stability,â?? for Brat, was simply code for a status quo in which companies like AT&T fleece the government.
From what Iâ??ve observed, Brat has not talked like a forty-seven-per-cent conservative complaining about how tax dollars are being shovelled to the undeserving poor (although maybe he does believe that and didnâ??t emphasize it in the campaign). He comes across, instead, like a ninety-nine-per-cent conservative who sees the real villain as corporate America and its addiction to government largesse. One of his biggest applause lines is about how bankers should have gone to jail after the 2008 financial crisis.
[/quote]
Interesting article.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
One of his biggest applause lines is about how bankers should have gone to jail after the 2008 financial crisis.
[/quote]
brought a tear to my eye.
bigflamer are you from the former city of Detroit?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24300-the-dark-money-machine-that-beat-eric-cantor[/quote]
lmao…
That link is utter garbage. I’m surprised they did blame bush and call 9/11 an inside job lol.
It’s like “truth-out” is supposed to be ironic or something…
“pro-corporate” economics… What a fucking moronic “meme”.
I know its trendy to bash corporations these days, but it seems it is equally trendy to not have even a remotely basic understanding of what it means to be incorporated, what basic economics go into the choice to incorporate, or the vast amount of corporations that are not part of the problem.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
So we pass laws to keep people married?
[/quote]
No. But China gives tax breaks to one child families - or more correctly higher taxes to families that have more than one child. Western countries that have a rapidly declining birthrate could incentivise reproduction by offering tax breaks for having larger families.
That couldn’t really work in this day and age where everyone has a camera and internet access. What would be a good idea is public decency laws making it illegal to walk around naked/in underwear in public. A small thing I know, but it sends the right message.
Hell no! I don’t want to get shot!
Yeah I agree. But I still think the state can play a significant role in the preservation of traditional values. The Department of Education for example; instead of teaching six-year-olds to put condoms on cucumbers they could teach them the value of hard work, the primacy of the family etc.
Yep.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Really, the only the government can do is to restore the moral hazard of having out-of-wedlock children — that is, basically remove the welfare state.
And that is a pure fiscal conservative idea.
[/quote]
And just as unlikely to happen as the other actions you offered.
The welfare state is a guarantee of true individualistic ‘freedom’ and ‘liberation.’ Without, people would be more fearful to express their freedom/individualism.
So the idea of removing the welfare state is no less despicable and regressive than any of the other options listed. Perhaps, even worse. I can actually imagine a populace that has strained their nations finances (and with it, the welfare state) to the breaking point, of which neither party can no longer deny, adopting behavioral laws long before considering the removal of the welfare state.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No. But China gives tax breaks to one child families - or more correctly higher taxes to families that have more than one child.
[/quote]
You left out–at least until very recently–internship in forced labor camps and forced sterilization to those who violated the one-child rule.
