straightUp Loc: California

Well, if you are lobbying for TRUTH and LIBERTY then you need some serious practice. For instance, you are convinced that I "shill of the pustule democrats". But that simply is not the case... In fact in all my 51 years I have never once registered as a Democrat. So already you've proven yourself to be less than accurate.


You DO realize that this is what almost EVERYONE says. Personally, I never make that claim. I am always open to the possibility that I might have left something out. There is always a question mark on my paper. That's because my thinking style is that of a scientist not an evangelist.


Well, again... you aren't really setting yourself apart. The liberals for which you have such disdain are actually saying the same exact thing... that they KNOW what they believe and why and just like you they THINK their perception is all based on facts. In that sense the similarities between you and those you hate is uncanny.


Me too.


I think any change in policy carries with it a certain risk, but I think (based on what I've been able figure out) that Obama's policies carry less risk to the American people as a whole than the alternatives do.


Most people can recognize harm when they see it. The problem is recognizing the causes of harm before it happens.


Again, there's an abundance of those on the other side saying (and believing) the exact same thing about people like you.

I attribute it to limits of an average person's patience with rhetoric. This is what has allowed me to reconcile with the fact that among liberals AND conservatives there are some very smart people. The key is where they apply that intelligence. For many people, their jobs command the lion's share of their intellectual attention, leaving them with the tired ends of the day to consider 30 minutes of spin on the television. This results in smart technicians with hardly a clue about what's really happening in politics.

I think this can be applied equally to liberals and conservatives.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

I will only address the wonderful picture of your family. My family has two patent lawyers. You may say, "what the hay does that have to do with the picture?" I want to patent your body. You say, "WHAT?" I want to patent your body because if the picture is accurate you are the only person responsible for your son. Your wife did not have any part of his appearance. Further, I will find a publisher for your pregnancy story. :D

straightUp Loc: California

LOL... I've heard people say that before. My son and I used to snowboard regularly at a local resort and we got to know a group of people there, one of which was suprised to learn after two seasons that I am his father not his older brother.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Am in a stupidly silly mood.

Do you pictures of your pregnancy for the book? :lol:

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I apologize for not having read your introduction earlier - but I would like to clarify something. You talk about conservative vs. liberal - and use names. I believe there are some who claim they are conservatives - and are villified for being conservative - when in reality they aren't.

For example, you mention Nixon and take issue with him taking us off the gold standard. I agree that he might not have been correct to do that, but doing that was not a conservative move - any more than his imposing wage and price controls was conservative. If one clearly analizes Nixon's domestic policies they'd see clearly a liberal by any standards - his conservatism to the degree that it existed at all was in foreign relations.

W Bush also was more of a liberal in at least two of his major initiatives. No child left behind, legislation largely written by Ted Kennedy, furthered federal involvlement in education - hardly a conservative move. Bush also was behing Midicate Part D - another unfunded entitlement not subject even to needs evalauation - again not consrvative. Signing Sarbannes-Oaxley and expanding federal regulators by hiring an additional 90,000 was not conservative.

Both Nixon and W Bush fostered policies that sullied the name conservative while those policies were anything but conservative.

straightUp Loc: California

Actually, I do tend to be vague with my references to "conservative" and "liberal".

With regard to policy, I think the terms are somewhat ambiguous. Certainly, as you have mentioned the Bush Administration has often leaned toward a liberal tact, while preaching conservative "values" and I think this indicates how superficial the division really is and for that reason my references to "liberal" and "conservative" is almost always in reference to people, rather than policy.

There is without a doubt a very strong commitment among people who call themselves conservatives to the idea of "being" a conservative and I think, to a lesser degree, a reciprocal sentiment exists among liberals. I think politicians take advantage of this because there is less need for explanation when you brand your politics this way. Bush didn't have to explain his liberal policies as long as he continued to rally his supporters behind the banner of conservatism and today the conservative brand is the most effective weapon the loyal opposition has to the current government. Likewise, Obama doesn't have to explain much to his devoutly self-branded liberal followers - or zombies as I think conservatives call them. (so, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that I think the term applies equally to brand-loyal conservatives)

This "branding" is fortified by the charges of outrage broadcasted by culture icons like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly who have established lucrative careers in exaggerating the rift between the "righteous right" and the "looney left". Same can be said for the comic interjections of Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr.

Most negative references I make to conservatives is aimed at the people who have fallen hook, line and sinker for this branding game, without asking for explanations and consequently missing the inconsistencies. And what about these inconsistencies, the liberalism of Bush, or for that matter the conservatism of Clinton?

Well, I think the real power struggle is between what I call "gravity wells of capital" and the battleground is nothing less than global. The real kings of the 21st century are obscure and our frustrations can find no targets but their effective servants... our politicians. Indeed, governments are strategic assets and ideologies are tools for swaying public opinion in countries where public opinion matters.

I think this real power struggle is what has been driving our foreign policy since we became a world power at the start of the 20th century and it explains why it's so hard to align our foreign policy with liberal or conservative ideologies. It also explains why our foreign policy has been so consistent across Democratic and Republican administrations alike.

The objectives have always been to satisfy the needs of large capital with one of two basic approaches to policy... liberal (soft) or imperial (hard)... conservatism doesn't seem to exist on the global theater but like nationalism, tends to be more isolated to more local concerns.

Liberalism is always the first tact - to open up foreign markets... "free" them from protectionism, nationalism, communism, whatever... Imperialism comes in when liberalism fails, and usually involves force. The Bush Administration did both to achieve the same objective - to take over the energy markets in the ME. When liberalism didn't go our way, we activated the troops and attacked so as to force it our way.

As Teddy Roosevelt, who authored several papers on the benefits of imperialism once said... "I've got a big stick". Hey, at least he was honest.

I realize imperialism is something most people associate with the forts and flags of the 19th century Europeans but imperialism has simply evolved, as has the European states themselves who are today much less influenced by the old title-based orders of aristocracy and far more influenced by the same gravity wells of capital (or I guess I can say plutocracy) that we are.

My understanding of conservatism in it's most universal sense, is a somewhat localized resistance to change, including modernization. There is a reverence for the past and frequent attachments to older orders such as religion.

This can be found in many different flavors all over the world from the Taliban in Afghanistan to the Christian Conservatives in Texas and although the methods may be very different the objectives are similar and so is the future, which doesn't bode well for conservatives anywhere.

The biggest threat to conservatism is probably globalization. Things like the Internet along with the advances in neoliberal infrastructures such as GATT/WTO have pushed us into an age where capital is 100% fluid across borders and as capital consolidates, which it always does - hence my use of the term "gravity-well" the threat of a world government will become more intense.

True conservatives like Newt Gingrich have been ringing the warning bell on this, but the new "so-called" conservatives like Bush have been driving the bus down this road as fast as they possibly can.

I don't know if you've read Thomas Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" but it's a great primer on globalization and his analogy is priceless. The Lexus represents the lure of neoliberalism and the Olive Tree represents the resistance of tradition. He explains how the Lexus as an analogy for U.S. foreign policy conflicts with the Olive Tree, an analogy for the Islamic fundamentalists with the result being a violent resistance, but the analogy can be applied equally to the same conflict in America.

Now... Liberals like me. Where do we stand in all this?

Well, I can see the momentum of globalization and I can see how effective the globalists have been at pulling the wool over our eyes. I can also recognize the Pandora effect. Like nuclear weapons... once it's invented how can you really expect it to not be a threat anymore?

So, I think resisting globalization is a loosing strategy. I prefer the idea of embracing globalization with the intent to keep democracy relevant and this is the source of my frustration. How can we do this if half the people in America are doggedly favoring business over government to the point where we are actually giving private money advantages over the public vote?

What I find most frustrating of all is when I open up discussion around this 21st century problem and it's immediately sunk with canned arguments based on antiquated prejudices chanted endlessly by half-wit entertainers like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck? I can't even get people to understand what I am actually trying to say because as soon as it smells different, which of course my arguments will because I'm not talking about things that Glenn Beck are concerned with, I am pegged as a liberal and my argument is shut out. What I usually get back isn't so much a response to my argument as it is a rant about the "Dark Side" or whatever.

Ah... Sorry, Dave I didn't mean to go on and on like that. It's just a lot to get off my chest and I figured it's on my introduction thread.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I see the world considerably different than you. The split I see is those who look for the government to solve any and all problems vs. those who think it best that most problems are individual and should be addressed by individuals.

One of the great misconceptions of many today is that the question is between favoring business or government. In the real world of today, big business favors big government. Big government allows big business to have advantages over their competitors and restricts ease of entry from potential new ones. Examples of this are - GE, who gets the government to fund adventures with low probability of payback like wind turbines while protecting them against major losses, like the bail out of GE Finacial. Pepsi Cola is another example, they were some of the heaviest lobbyists for increased food stamps - seeing it as a great opportunity to have tax payers buy their products, indirectly of course, in greater volumes.

There are those who think the masses are not capable, that the elites must make decisions for them, to take greater control of all resources because the masses don't know any better. Of course, they are correct in one respect and that is we have a very poorly informed electorate. And, that is what I consider the biggest risk to our future as a representative democracy.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

Believe it or not, I agree with parts of your comments. Yes, people can change, can be changed, can rethink. I know you believe that those are things I never do.........and you would be wrong. You don't understand that, and I know it. I have evolved so much in the past 50 years as to be almost unrecognizable - except to people who have known me all those years. THEY KNOW my character, my integrity, my attention to detail, my honesty, my willingness to go the last mile - and THOSE traits are the basis behind my philosophy for living.

I had to work hard and I had to pay attention to what I was doing, then when I got home, I had to work just as hard until I fell into bed, totally exhausted. Not a problem because I was doing what I loved. But at first I paid virtually no attention to politics. What got me started paying attention and doing assessments of what happens, how and why does it happen, was it preventable, how can it be avoided the next time. So you know how long I've been at this. During that time I have come to view government completely differently than I once did. I have come to view individual freedoms differently than I once did. I have come to view politicians differently than I once did. I fully supported the Republican Party - 3 years ago I resigned from it. I supported Bush 43 because I liked him - I intensely dislike some of his programs that "sound" good, but are "freedom" grabbing programs, NOT good for America. Yet one politician I have admired the most was a grand liberal, Patrick Moynihan, deceased.

I want honesty and will not tolerate less than honesty in ANYONE. I want integrity - demand it. I want transparency in government - demand it, whether from a republican or from a democrat. President Bush 43 is the CAUSE of my focusing on individual liberties because I saw it abused by "one of my own", with some of his policies.

So you can complain that I "rant" about the "dark side",but you cannot begin to examine the passion I have for my philosophy. My philosophy harms NO ONE. The dark side wallows in harm for others, and no one stops me from telling the world how I view it, particularly when they are actively and joyously destroying the nation I have called home for 74 years. If you want to argue, start by explaining the goodness of Kathleen Sibilius, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Maxine Waters, Dick Durbin, Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Harry Reid. If you can manage to dredge up one plus for the lot of them, you are doing pretty good.

straightUp Loc: California

Yeah, it doesn't sound like you really get what i'm saying. Which probably isn't a reflection on you. We are all plastered with common arguments that shape our perceptions about each other and my arguments seem to be... outside that box.

I'm not suggesting that we should inherrently look for government to solve all our problems. My first inclination is to agree with you. In fact my starting point is the "self" as I have always preached to my children when they would complain to me about each other and I would tell them to solve the problem by changing their own reactions. "Don't let his teasing bother you and he will probably stop." But there is a sense of escalation and sometimes you need to appeal to an outside authority. My appeal to government, is in a sense an escalation. There are many areas where people simply cannot stand up to the overwhelming power of private business. In mild cases my preferred approach would be to build an alternate business, which is something I've done before. Try to build a better mousetrap, whatever... But in more severe cases, such as sanctioned monopolies and cartels, competition is out of the question. For instance, there is no way you or I could start a bank and stand toe-to-toe with any of the 12 banks in the most powerful business cartel in the world, the Federal Reserve. So government is a last resort.

I repeat... I believe government is a last resort solution.


And this is precisely what explains my position. As i've already stated governments are strategic assets. Remember me saying that in my last post? The companies you mention are also strategic assets. The motives originate from people with controlling interest over large capital including corporations AND controlling influence over government. I think I referred to them as the kings of thr 21st century. Trust me, they are out there and they manipulate their corporations and the governments to create a favorable path for their ambitions.

So, of course, big business is in bed with big government.

I had assumed you would have understood my point about governments and corporations being a means to an end, not an end in themselves and how I see the struggle being between "gravity wells" of capital. Let me know if that isn't clear. I would rather you say that than make assumptions that I am simply subscribing to a common argument.

I guess the "common" argument that comes closest to my perceptions is the 1% vs 99% argument hoisted by the Occupy Wall Street movement. The fact that so much wealth is concentrated in so few hands indicates the advanced state of the emergency and the need to escalate to the only recourse we have left that stands any chance against big money. Our own constitutional democracy.

It's not a matter of government vs business... It's a matter of people vs big money in a fight for control of the strategic assets that control our lives. People do have some marginal control over corporations via the consumer market, but as Wal*Mart has made very clear, people and their boycotts don't really have much leverage... they may as well be playing pattycake in the parking lots in hopes that it will influence the companies policies. Many governments are just as impenetrable, but our government is fortunately a democracy so there is yet a chance to regain control... So long as every citizen gets one vote... AND access to the information needed to make sound decisions.

I wouldn't feel this way if wealth wasn't so concentrated. But here we are with 80% of the wealth in the hands of LESS than 1% of the people who own ALL the big business assets and United Citizens just handing our democracy over to big money like a sacrificial lamb.

Meanwhile, most Americans aren't being informed about this, or when they are, they are immediately assaulted with misinformation about socialist movements and other fallacies that disquise the real issue and divide us over imaginary conflicts of interest.



Yup.


Yup... the combination of corporate and governent strategic assets. Just what I am talking about.


Yes, it drives me nuts.
...oh, wait - you're referring to elite being the government... I thought you meant the elite being big business... I guess it works both ways.

See... you didn't think about that did you? ;)

Well, think about it... Trickle-down economics... the faith people have in the corporate elite... to the point where they agree to let the government to give the tax breaks to them on faith that the corporate elite will make better decisions, create jobs and ultimatley pass the advantages down the chain to the less capable masses.

Yeah, it's the same game just different players.


Well, hold on to your hat because the electorate is about to enter a new phase of misinformation thanks to the fact that big money, under protection of the 1st Amendendment (has perverse as that is), can now funnel unlimited money into political campaigns which will of course be used to fund massive misinformation campaigns on TV, radio, Internet and everywhere else. Every effort to maintain some level of electoral sanity is gone now. Thanks to Citizen's United.

Even Stephen Cobert's tounge in cheek example seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

I'm already flipping to the next chapter in my book... "Too Late to Save Democracy - How to Survive the Decline Between Confirmed Plutocracy and America's Second Revolution"

As Jefferson himself had predicted, we are coming full circle. Once again, being subjected to the tyranny of powerful corporations such as those that owned the colonies and the governments they manipulate.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - Jefferson

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

So, of course, big business is in bed with big government.

The solution is to reduce government - and markets will largely reduce big business.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

in more severe cases, such as sanctioned monopolies and cartels,

Big governments are the ones that sanction monopolies and cartels - free markets are what breaks them up

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I wouldn't feel this way if wealth wasn't so concentrated. But here we are with 80% of the wealth in the hands of LESS than 1% of the people who own ALL the big business assets

The concentration of wealth bothers me far less than it seems to bother you - I'm more concerned about the concentration of power - and wealth is part of that concentration - but both are sustained by strong and over reaching governments.

Wealth, in and of itself, in the hands of whomever needs to be understood - it is in all reality a transitory thing. By that I mean in the modern economy one can either consume wealth or invest it. Consumption of wealth creates opportunities for others to gain it. Investment of wealth creates opportunities also. Each and every person, no matter how wealthy can be in one home at one time, even if they own thousands of them. Each home they own requires maintenance which provides opportunity for those in the business or profession of maintaining structures.


I could go on and on with this, but I do have to accomplish some work - although I am approaching my 71st year, I am one of those who feel being productive is required to be happy.

straightUp Loc: California

I don't doubt that you can and do... I know that most people including myself aren't always willing to "rethink" during a heated argument where the biggest challenge in the world seems to be to get the other person to rethink. Human nature I guess.


I guess I have a hard time accepting the notion that anyone is "joyously destroying the nation." I don't even put that on the politicians I hate most of all, some of which I think *are* destroying the nation that *I* love, but I don't think that destruction is so much their objective as it is the unintended consequences of their primary objectives.

I'm offering a LOT of ground here, because some of the destruction I'm referring to came from very intentional actions, but I give this ground up because I also have a hard time understanding how the nation can be viewed as a singularity. I think the people of this nation are far to diverse for there to be a single interest that fits all. You said you've called this nation home for 74 years... That includes a period of time where black people were not allowed to vote and were forced to sit in specific seats on buses. That wasn't a very nice America for them. Is that the America you want?

I guess what I am saying is different people are going to have different ideas about what they think America should be. So when you see people destroying the America YOU remember and love, they might actually be succesfully making America a better place for themselves and their families.

For instance, the idea that Bush was talking about adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide a seperate set of rules for gay people... OMG... I always though the concept of equality was one of the most admirable tenants (all men are created equal), indeed one of the very pillars of what I call the great American society and here we have a president basically pissing on it. That's VERY dark to me and constitutionally destructive and yet, I try to understand that in a different mindset it was somehow seen as a positive effort to "save marriage" perhaps seen by them as a cornerstone of the great American society. In any case, I don't think destroying America was their prime directive.

I do think "evil" is out there ... in the form of aggressive agendas that don't care about the collateral damage, but I really don't think that kind of evil conforms to party lines. I think you can find darkness on both sides.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

[quote=straightUp]I guess I have a hard time accepting the notion that anyone is "joyously destroying the nation." Are you then implying they are innocent of the damage they are doing though they are supposedly intelligent humans, or do you believe they are too dumb to know history and that repetition of a negative will beget a negative? If they are not joyously doing the damage, yet are intelligent enough to grasp history, what would be the rationale for their actions? Your words sound good, but when exposed to the light of day may seem sort of fairyland quality.

I'm offering a LOT of ground here, because some of the destruction I'm referring to came from very intentional actions, but I give this ground up because I also have a hard time understanding how the nation can be viewed as a singularity. [color=green]Why would you give up logical and sensible thought because of a nefarious thought that you cannot begin to prove? Sounds like a waste of a good mind to me.[color/] I think the people of this nation are far to diverse for there to be a single interest that fits all.Of course there is a single interest that fits ALL. It is called "self interest". Some can control it, some cannot,but ALL have it. You said you've called this nation home for 74 years... That includes a period of time where black people were not allowed to vote and were forced to sit in specific seats on buses. That wasn't a very nice America for them. Is that the America you want? That was the America in which I grew up on a farm, working side by side with blacks, visiting in their homes and they in mine, sharing water dippers in the fields, staying over in their homes when my mother was hospitalized, giving piano lessons to my black girl friend in my house where my parents would not tolerate intolerance of any sort to any person for any reason. MUCH later in life, that girl friend and I ran into each other again after over a 40 year separation and contact - in a political context. She was a city Councilwoman in a neighboring town to mine where I was Mayor. Yes, THAT is the life I want to return to, without the segregation which I never saw as good, and which I never had a say in. Nor am I ready to re-discuss racism ad nauseum because I have never been racist, nor have most of the friends I grew up with in Texas.

I guess what I am saying is different people are going to have different ideas about what they think America should be. So when you see people destroying the America YOU remember and love, they might actually be succesfully making America a better place for themselves and their families.Yes, you are saying that, and I believe you are sincere, but wrong in thinking I should ignore the difference as YOU do. When I see people destroying America, and see that they are turning it into the horrible mistake many countries have done, possibly with good intentions that have devilish results historically, I try to stop them from going down the road to loss of liberties, loss of individualism, loss of most of what regular people call good. They MAY actually be successful in making America a better place for themselves and their families,but the odds against that are tremendous, and the loss they will suffer is also tremendous,and when they arrive at the point when they realize what has been done - and they eventually WILL - and they know it is too late to go back to what was, they will despise all those who let them wander into danger.

For instance, the idea that Bush was talking about adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide a seperate set of rules for gay people... OMG...Sorry, you'll have to explain this one to me. Somehow I missed that even though I was on line blogging every day of Bush's tenure, and I never heard of a separate set of rules for homosexuals. I always though the concept of equality was one of the most admirable tenants (all men are created equal), indeed one of the very pillars of what I call the great American society and here we have a president basically pissing on it.Me, too. I still believe that. That's VERY dark to me and constitutionally destructive and yet, I try to understand that in a different mindset it was somehow seen as a positive effort to "save marriage" perhaps seen by them as a cornerstone of the great American society.Oh, I get it! Your reference to a separate set of rules for homosexuals is the denial of acceptance of same sex "marriage". LOL. Is that the best you can do? Homosexuals ARE equal to every American with the exception that they can't live with that sameness. Any one of them is free to marry. They choose instead to live with their own sex - which no one really cares about, but when they try to alter the meaning of a sacrament, that's pushing the envelope and demanding EXTARAORDINARY privilege, NOT equality. In any case, I don't think destroying America was their prime directive.No, it was the objective of those demanding extraordinary privilege.

I do think "evil" is out there ... in the form of aggressive agendas that don't care about the collateral damage, but I really don't think that kind of evil conforms to party lines. I think you can find darkness on both sides.[/quote]OF COURSE it can be found on both sides, but it reeks on the left and is more rare on the right.

straightUp Loc: California

Obviously, you didn't read what I wrote, because I explained exactly what their rationale is and how political change can be viewed as a positive or a negative depending on what the observer thinks is a good thing or a bad thing. I was referring to politics in general, because despite your strong feelings that all liberals are stupid morons and all conservatives are smart and pure, *I* think the human nature that I am describing applies to both sides without prejudice.


Are you having trouble grasping the concept of multiple, simultaneous views?


OK... My "self-interest" is to rid the nation of conservative morons. How's that fit ya? LOL


I wasn't talking about MUCH later in life... I was talking about the days when blacks couldn't vote.


I didn't ask if you had a say in the segregation, I asked if that was the America you want back.


I didn't ask you to discuss racism, I just asked if you wanted that America back and you can't seem to give me an answer.


OK... hold it right there... "good intentions"? They *may* have destroyed the nation but "possibly with good intentions?" That's not the same thing as "joyously destroying the nation" Tasine.


So then you tried to vote Bush out? Good for you!


How do you figure?


I'm not so sure about that... I think the people who *I* think are destroying the nation, IF they EVER come to a point where they can recognize that destruction, will simply deny any part in it while stretching for excuses to blame others.


It was called the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment)


Exceptions deny equality Tasine. Black people were equal in many ways to white people too but there were exceptions. Jews in Nazi Germany were equal in many ways to Christians but again, there were exceptions. What makes these exceptions significant is that they were written in law.


The sacrament has NOTHING to do with the rules of a secular state and no one had any interest in altering it anyway. This fuss about violating the "sacrament" was nothing more than the dramatic reactions of intolerant jerks who think the Christian "sacrament" has some kind of exclusive rights over the concept of marriage.
I'm not going to get into one of these moronic discussions with another uptight prude about the limits of their stupid sacrament. Bottom line is an effort was made by the Bush Administration to write into law... Into the U.S. Constitution no less, a limit that only applies to a specific category of people. If you can't recognize THAT inequality then I have to assume that all your "talk" of equality being a virtue of this nation is disingenuous.


So... what you're saying is that any request from a gay person to be treated the same as anyone else is an extraordinary privilege? How disgusting. If that's what your "sacrament" says then I have NO respect for it and I'm glad we are a secular nation.


Oh, of course... :roll: