PDA

View Full Version : Political ideologies



Kaa
04-08-2013, 01:11 PM
This looks like a good framework for thinking about political ideologies:

"...progressives, conservatives, and libertarians view politics along three different axes. For progressives, the main axis has oppressors at one end and the oppressed at the other. For conservatives, the main axis has civilization at one end and barbarism at the other. For libertarians, the main axis has coercion at one end and free choice at the other."

(From http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/it-is-sometimes-appropriate/ and there's much more at http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/category/libertarian-thought/three-axes-model/)

Kaa

Paul Pless
04-08-2013, 01:13 PM
fart

Paul Pless
04-08-2013, 01:14 PM
:d ...

Kaa
04-08-2013, 01:19 PM
Aw Paul, I have a reputation to maintain. I can't be seen talking *only* about tangible stuff like trucks and towing... :-P

Kaa

Chip-skiff
04-08-2013, 01:38 PM
Yes, we CAN reduce it all to the most simple-minded analogies... it makes it all soooo much clearer :)

Reducing the differences among these ideological groupings to three sets of polar opposites is perhaps a useful tool to stimulate thinking. But it doesn't seem like a thoughtful analysis of what the people involved actually think and what motivates them.

Kaa
04-08-2013, 01:50 PM
Reducing the differences among these ideological groupings to three sets of polar opposites is perhaps a useful tool to stimulate thinking. But it doesn't seem like a thoughtful analysis of what the people involved actually think and what motivates them.

It's a framework -- a tool for thinking. It's not meant to be "thoughtful analysis", that is what you get by *using* the tools.

Kaa

Arizona Bay
04-08-2013, 01:55 PM
Ahh, living in the maya ;)

ljb5
04-08-2013, 01:59 PM
I think that's a good summary of the rhetoric, however I no longer believe that there is any real relationship between conservatives' rhetoric and their ideology.

Republicans have the ideology of the carnival barker or the cardsharp. Their only goal is to snatch every tidbit and crumb that crosses their path.

Their rhetoric serves only to entice victims and provide an aura of legitimacy so people don't realize they're being robbed until it's too late.

Ian McColgin
04-08-2013, 02:00 PM
As one dimensional notions go, it's not the worst way of looking at how you might address someone else. For example, if I'm thinking as a this paradigm's stereotypical progressive, the main reason I might oppose Monsanto's monopoloy tactics is how they oppress both farmers and consumers. But if I'm to address a libertarian on the point, I'd concentrate on how they use vast economic and governmental powers to thwart farmers' and consumers' free choice.

Kaa
04-08-2013, 02:02 PM
Their only goal is to snatch every tidbit and crumb that crosses their path.

Their rhetoric serves only to entice victims and provide an aura of legitimacy so people don't realize they're being robbed until it's too late.

So, in an ideal world they should all be sent to re-education camps, if only to stop them from robbing the people, right?

Kaa

ljb5
04-08-2013, 02:06 PM
So, in an ideal world they should all be sent to re-education camps, if only to stop them from robbing the people, right?

In my ideal world, every voter would be so well informed and clear-headed that they'd never vote for another Republican.

How do you think people should be held accountable for poor decisions and failing policies?

Shall we just keep voting for the same group of clowns over and over again because they promised us tax cuts, deficit control and a healthy economy? Did that work last time?

The fact is, it did not work. Rhetoric is only valid as long as it supports and reflects reality. You can't have rhetoric that says the sky is green if everyone can see that it's blue.

BrianY
04-08-2013, 02:09 PM
As long as you acknowledge the shortcomings, a simple model can be an effective tool for framing thought and discussion around complex issues. With that in mind, I think that what Kaa posted is pretty good. As Ian points out above, it does seem to work.

The only quibble I might have is the conservatives' "civilization vs barbarism" thing. I think it's important to refine that a bit and define "civilization " as " Traditonal American Society with Traditional American Values" and "barbarism" as almost anything other than that, especially if there's a bit of communism, socialism and a lack of Christianity involved.

Kaa
04-08-2013, 02:19 PM
In my ideal world, every voter would be so well informed and clear-headed that they'd never vote for another Republican.

So every single person who voted Republican recently is either poorly informed or muddle-headed -- correct?

That's certainly one way to look at reality... :-D


How do you think people should be held accountable for poor decisions and failing policies?

<shrug> Depends on which people and by whom. In a democracy, presumably the voters hold the politicians accountable, no? Oh, but then you believe at least half of the voters are stupid... Does that present a problem for democracy in your view, I wonder... :-/


Shall we just keep voting for the same group of clowns over and over again because they promised us tax cuts, deficit control and a healthy economy? Did that work last time?

"We" vote for many different groups of clowns :-) By the way, didn't Obama promise "us" lower deficits, less unemployment, better economy?

Kaa

Ian McColgin
04-08-2013, 02:24 PM
I think that one problem is the difference between the heuristic value of these somewhat artificial axes and the actual practices of various folk who lay claim to those ideological stances.

This is not unlike the membership problem the Mormons confronted a decade or so back when missionaries were gaining lots of conversions but a year later involved membership was about zero - the ideology was LDS but the practice was more like a pyramid sales club. Which, for those reading today's Globe about a family struggle in Belmont, makes an ironic sense.

While plenty of folk rather laughed at and condemned LDS from the outside for what amounted to missionary fraud, those within that church took reform efforts. So also, we liberal types condemn the corrupt right wing phony "conservatives" who currently work the Republican party in the service of their oligarchs, but the remaining honorable conservative Republicans along with any remaining liberal Republicans might attempt to renew their party's commitment to democratic governance.

It's a bit like questions in physics - your stance and the question you can either ask or answer are mutual contexts.

Kaa
04-08-2013, 02:27 PM
The problem is that when you frame the political debate this way, you end up satisfying no one...

The point isn't to satisfy the most, Norman... :-D

Kaa

ljb5
04-08-2013, 02:29 PM
Yes, I think it is true that Republicans fear "barbarism," but that's hardly a valid ideology. That's like saying a thief fears having an empty pocket or a burglar fears not owning your television set.

Think of the example of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Clearly hunting down and shooting an innocent, unarmed man in the street is an act of barbarism. But conservatives rallied to the defense of the shooter.

Why?

Because they define barbarism as anything they're not comfortable with, or any situation which might result in them not being at the top of the heap and dominating others.

Gerarddm
04-08-2013, 02:35 PM
So, in an ideal world they should all be sent to re-education camps, if only to stop them from robbing the people, right?

Don't stop there, Kaa. If you are going to indulge in reductio ad absurdum, why not just shoot 'em?


Jeesh.

ljb5
04-08-2013, 02:36 PM
So every single person who voted Republican recently is either poorly informed or muddle-headed -- correct?

Not exactly. There are a few legitimate reasons to vote for Republicans. If, for example, you care about no issue other than abortion, that would be a valid reason.

But to claim you care about the economy and then vote for a Republican is to contradict yourself.... and there are quite a large number who do that.


In a democracy, presumably the voters hold the politicians accountable, no? Oh, but then you believe at least half of the voters are stupid... Does that present a problem for democracy in your view, I wonder... :-/

It does. I sincerely wish people were smarter.

I think you're confused about what a Democracy is. Democracy does not mean that the voters hold the politicians accountable. Democracy means that voters can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reason they want.

Holding politicians accountable is one possible outcome, but it is definitely not built into the system.

Having the right to vote gives you the power to hold politicians accountable, but if you refuse to exercise that power, it does no good.


By the way, didn't Obama promise "us" lower deficits, less unemployment, better economy?

Aye.

And now the challenge to you is to see if you can admit that the economy is improving, jobs are being added and the deficit is dropping.

Don't think of it as a rhetorical challenge, but rather a test of your integrity. In other words seek to accept the truth, rather than argue it away.

Kaa
04-08-2013, 02:42 PM
It does. I sincerely wish people were smarter.

It seems that you define "smarter" as "closer to my political beliefs".

I don't remember the details of the voter breakdown by IQ but it certainly wasn't as clear-cut as you like to believe.

Kaa

johnw
04-08-2013, 02:57 PM
Yes, I think it is true that Republicans fear "barbarism," but that's hardly a valid ideology. That's like saying a thief fears having an empty pocket or a burglar fears not owning your television set.

Think of the example of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Clearly hunting down and shooting an innocent, unarmed man in the street is an act of barbarism. But conservatives rallied to the defense of the shooter.

Why?

Because they define barbarism as anything they're not comfortable with, or any situation which might result in them not being at the top of the heap and dominating others.

Or, you could argue that conservatives see things on the axis of the oppressor and the oppressed. They just happen to favor the oppressor, or those Marxists would view as the oppressor. It would be as bad an analysis as claiming liberals see things on the axis of oppressor and oppressed and happen to favor the oppressed.

I've even had a conservative argue to me that conservatives favor greater freedom, even though they have historically favored making more things illegal and locking more people up. If you make the categories too broad, they become meaningless.

I suspect such oversimplifications have done a great deal to make it difficult to understand one another. If you look at the history of the terms, liberalism was so named because it advocated liberty, that is, freedom. Libertarianism differs mainly in that it denies the legitimacy of forms of human values and organization other than the market. Conservatives wished to conserve traditional society. They still do.

Seeing things on the axis of the oppressor and the oppressed is a funny way of looking at things, because then the issue becomes, who are the oppressed? Gun owners and Christian fundamentalists have insisted that they are oppressed, so clearly they see things on this axis. Business people faced with red tape that prevents them from doing what they wish with their property have insisted that they are oppressed, and have made a minor deity of Hayek for a rather bad book making the argument that government planning leads to oppression. Marxists have claimed that working stiffs are oppressed by owners of property, and having grasped that central point, seized property and done the oppressing themselves.

I doubt any of these groups sees things on only one axis.

BrianY
04-08-2013, 02:59 PM
I can't even figure out, for THIS particular axis, which end is which. Is 'increasinigly conservative' supposed to be aligned with 'more civilized', or 'more barbarous'? It can be interpreted either way.

Stop looiking at it from your POV and try to look at it from THEIR POV and you'll find your answer.

ljb5
04-08-2013, 03:00 PM
It seems that you define "smarter" as "closer to my political beliefs".

Not at all.

For the purposes of this conversation, I define 'smarter' as "being more aware of actual facts."'

As it turns out, I know quite a few people who have a hard time admitting that the economy crashed while Bush was in office... and who can't admit that it has improved since Obama was sworn in.

There are people who blame the unemployment problem on Obamacare and believe that Saddam was responsible for 9-11.

I don't know if they believe this stuff because they are stupid or because they place their ideology above intelligence. It really doesn't matter to me. If it's not true, it's not a smart thing to believe.

Paul Pless
04-08-2013, 03:03 PM
Quite the useful conversation you've got here kaa. Care to go back to posting about tow vehicles?:D

Kaa
04-08-2013, 03:07 PM
For the purposes of this conversation, I define 'smarter' as "being more aware of actual facts."'

So, let's take me for example. For the purposes of this conversation would I count as smart or dumb? And does the example of me fit the explanation that you're offering?

Kaa

Kaa
04-08-2013, 03:08 PM
Quite the useful conversation you've got here kaa. Care to go back to posting about tow vehicles?:D

Useful..? You're applying wrong criteria :-P

Kaa

Paul Pless
04-08-2013, 03:09 PM
For the purposes of this conversation would I count as smart or dumb? let's see, that's a tough question kaa, here you are rolling around in bilge muck with one of the most inflammatory pure trolls the forum has ever known. . .

Kaa
04-08-2013, 03:23 PM
let's see, that's a tough question kaa, here you are rolling around in bilge muck with one of the most inflammatory pure trolls the forum has ever known. . .

Nah, no rolling in the muck needed, that's what you use long sticks with pointy ends for... :-)

Kaa

ljb5
04-08-2013, 03:29 PM
So, let's take me for example. For the purposes of this conversation would I count as smart or dumb? And does the example of me fit the explanation that you're offering?

I hesitate to call you dumb.... but I sense a certain reluctance on your part to be at the forefront of embracing facts.

For example you said:
"By the way, didn't Obama promise "us" lower deficits, less unemployment, better economy?"

I think a person who was really on the leading edge of gathering facts and accepting information would not have phrased that in the form of a question, but rather would have thought through what the actual sitation is.

Since unemployment really has droppoed while Obama has been in office, you could have lead with that fact.... unless you're either unaware of it or not honest enough to acknowldge it.

Also, in post #11, you presented an obvious fallacy -- an illogical attack. That's either a dishonest argumentative technique, or it's a failing on your part to understand logic. Either way, I wouldn't consider it very smart.

Kaa
04-08-2013, 03:44 PM
I hesitate to call you dumb.... but I sense a certain reluctance on your part to be at the forefront of embracing facts.

ROFL... You should practice saying that in Darth Vader's voice: "I sense a certain reluctance on your part..."

Kaa

ljb5
04-08-2013, 04:00 PM
ROFL... You should practice saying that in Darth Vader's voice: "I sense a certain reluctance on your part..."

Kaa

Yes... but back to the more fact-based part of the discussion.

Do you understand why I rolled my eyes a bit when you broached the issue of unemployment and the economy under Obama?

You mentioned it as if you were going to challenge it or use it to support your position.... but didn't quite get as far as mentioning any facts or the actual situation.

It seems that facts don't much help your argument.

Kaa
04-08-2013, 04:03 PM
It seems that facts don't much help your argument.

Confused, as usual? :-) I don't recall making any argument in this thread.

Kaa

ljb5
04-08-2013, 04:27 PM
Confused, as usual? :-) I don't recall making any argument in this thread.

No, you didn't.

You briefly mentioned that Obama promised "lower deficits, less unemployment, better economy...."

And then it apears that you very quickly lost interest in pursuing that line of thought.

It's almsot as if part of you wanted to start the argument, but part of you knew you weren't going to win, so you tucked tail and ran.

Kaa
04-08-2013, 04:33 PM
It's almsot as if part of you wanted to start the argument, but part of you knew you weren't going to win, so you tucked tail and ran.

It's interesting what kind of fantasies you're having when reading the Bilge... :-D

And, by the way, when I run I don't tuck the tail -- it's an important part of my propulsion style :-P

Kaa

leikec
04-08-2013, 04:44 PM
So, let's take me for example. For the purposes of this conversation would I count as smart or dumb? And does the example of me fit the explanation that you're offering?

Kaa


That one is too easy.... :D


You've accused LJ of the very same affliction you suffer from--of looking at the world through a set version of ideological standards...

Jeff C

ljb5
04-08-2013, 05:06 PM
It's interesting what kind of fantasies you're having when reading the Bilge...

So do you think I imagined the fact that you said, "By the way, didn't Obama promise "us" lower deficits, less unemployment, better economy?"

Were you going to go somewhere with that line of attack, or were you just kinda casting about?

If you had realized that argument would have worked so well in my favor, would you have brought it up?

Surely you don't mean to pretend that it was your intention to support my argument so well, do you?

Keith Wilson
04-08-2013, 05:51 PM
Perhaps it would be better, or at least less fractious, to get back to something like the subject of the original post?

I propose another way of looking at it. Three civic values, all good things, but sometimes in conflict: liberty, equality, and community (probably a better translation than 'fraternity', which seems an unreliable cognate). One's political ideology is a reflection of the relative weight one gives these three. Libertarians value liberty, and don't care much if at all about the others. A traditional conservative might value community most highly; modern libertarian-influenced conservatives community and liberty, both value equality a distant third. A utopian socialist, or even a genuinely idealistic communist (rare breeds these days) would value equality much more highly than the others. An orthodox Catholic distributist would value community above all, with equality perhaps second.

Personally, I think the trick is to try and maximize all three, or at least maintain a pretty good balance.

ljb5
04-08-2013, 08:32 PM
Perhaps it would be better, or at least less fractious, to get back to something like the subject of the original post?

I propose another way of looking at it. Three civic values, all good things, but sometimes in conflict: liberty, equality, and community (probably a better translation than 'fraternity', which seems an unreliable cognate). One's political ideology is a reflection of the relative weight one gives these three. Libertarians value liberty, and don't care much if at all about the others. A traditional conservative might value community most highly; modern libertarian-influenced conservatives community and liberty, both value equality a distant third. A utopian socialist, or even a genuinely idealistic communist (rare breeds these days) would value equality much more highly than the others. An orthodox Catholic distributist would value community above all, with equality perhaps second.

Personally, I think the trick is to try and maximize all three, or at least maintain a pretty good balance.

I think you're being far too charitable in attributing any sincere or admirable values to these people at all. And I rather think you were stretching a bit to come up with the word "community." Many conservatives loathe the word (root of communism, the 'C' in 'ACORN') and many liberals lay as much claim to it ("Community Organizer" anyone?). It may actually be the most hated word in the conservative lexicon... and you tried to praise them with it.

It's as if a guy picked your pocket and you stood there, dumbfounded grasping for the words to praise his "dexterity." Some actions just don't need to be praised.

Other than trying to be polite, why do we have to? In political discourse, there is a tradition of presupposing that the other side is a honorable and fair adversary.

But let's suppose for a second that we don't presuppose this, but rather we place an onus upon them to prove it. Would the modern conservative ideology merit such a distinction on its own?

Have they told the truth? Have the succeeded? Have they accomplished admirable goals? Have they left the world a better place?

Kaa
04-08-2013, 08:40 PM
You've accused LJ of the very same affliction you suffer from--of looking at the world through a set version of ideological standards...

I don't believe I ever claimed that everyone who votes Democrat is blind, stupid, or malevolent. ljb5 goes far beyond saying that Democrats are better than Republicans -- he says, basically, that no decent person can be a Republican (or if he is, he's in severe denial of reality). I don't think you can accuse me of similar attitudes.

Kaa

ljb5
04-08-2013, 08:47 PM
I don't believe I ever claimed that everyone who votes Democrat is blind, stupid, or malevolent.

If you did, I'd challenge you to prove it. :D


ljb5 goes far beyond saying that Democrats are better than Republicans -- he says, basically, that no decent person can be a Republican (or if he is, he's in severe denial of reality).

Prove me wrong. :D

I'm past the point where mere politeness compels me to presuppose that you're decent honorable, honest and logical.

I am a skeptic in all things and I demand proof. I respect nothing other than proof.

If you wish me to believe that you are decent, honorable, honest and logical, bring not only your cries for pity, but also your compelling argument.

Where is your proof? Where is your list of great accomplishments? What evidence of your success? Where is your budget surplus, your 4.3% unemployment, your booming economy, your peace, success and prosperity?

All the things the Republican brag about.. all the accomplishments they claim will follow their policies seem never to appear. Why should I believe anyone who never seems to be able to deliver?

Kaa
04-08-2013, 08:59 PM
I'm past the point where mere politeness compels me to presuppose that you're decent honorable, honest and logical.

Heh. You're past a lot of points, actually. But anyway, be my guest, shake yourself free of that "mere politeness", don't "presuppose" anything, and tell the world what you REALLY think! :-)


I am a skeptic in all things and I demand proof. I respect nothing other than proof.

That statement looks iffy to me. Can you prove it? :-D


If you wish me to believe that you are decent, honorable, honest and logical...

No, no, no! Why would I ever wish you to believe that? It might undermine your basic conviction in your superiority over mere mortals without an Ivy degree, and that could lead to a nervous breakdown and all other kinds of unpleasantness...

Kaa

ljb5
04-08-2013, 09:13 PM
...be my guest, shake yourself free of that "mere politeness", don't "presuppose" anything, and tell the world what you REALLY think! :-)

I'll make it simple for you:

I believe the record of the Republican party, especially quite recently, is one of failure to succeed, failure to deliver on promises, and nothing more than greed disguised with a thin veil of ideological mumbo-jumbo.

I believe (nay! I know) that a great many people were hurt by these policies.

Millions upon millions of people lost their jobs. Thousands lost their lives.

Innocent and decent people were hurt. Our nation was hurt.

You cannot simply wipe your hands and walk away from a record like that. You cannot claim to be blameless when all of your rhetoric claims responsibility and success.

Do you deny any of this?

Kaa
04-08-2013, 09:15 PM
I'll make it simple for you:

I believe the record of the Republican party, especially quite recently, is one of failure to succeed, failure to deliver on promises, and nothing more than greed disguised with a thin veil of ideological mumbo-jumbo.

I believe (nay! I know) that a great many people were hurt by these policies.

Millions upon millions of people lost their jobs. Thousands lost their lives.

Innocent and decent people were hurt. Our nation was hurt.

You cannot simply wipe your hands and walk away from a record like that. You cannot claim to be blameless when all of your rhetoric claims responsibility and success.

So... what's the next step?

All that believing that you do sounds a bit pointless. What do you think should be done?

Kaa

ljb5
04-08-2013, 09:24 PM
So... what's the next step?

All that believing that you do sounds a bit pointless. What do you think should be done?

You sound like a dog that just pooped on the floor.

'What are you going to do about it?' makes everything my responsibility because you're incapable of making it your responsibility.

The difference, of course, is that we know when a dog poops on the floor, we shouldn't elect him president. Republicans like to poop on the floor and then claim they're just as accomplished as anyone else.

Imagine for a second that you are the failure, not me. What am I going to do about it becomes what do you need to do about it?

Why should I have to tell you what you should do after you fail?

David G
04-08-2013, 09:27 PM
Back to your old tricks, eh Kaa?

Kaa
04-08-2013, 09:46 PM
You sound like a dog that just pooped on the floor.

'What are you going to do about it?' makes everything my responsibility because you're incapable of making it your responsibility.

The difference, of course, is that we know when a dog poops on the floor, we shouldn't elect him president. Republicans like to poop on the floor and then claim they're just as accomplished as anyone else.

Imagine for a second that you are the failure, not me. What am I going to do about it becomes what do you need to do about it?

Who, me? I don't need to do nuthin' :-) Well, maybe get another beer. But what about *your* civic responsibility, your duty to participate in the fate of your country? Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.. err... who failed what, the present is here, what do you need to do?

Kaa

Kaa
04-08-2013, 09:47 PM
Back to your old tricks, eh Kaa?

Well, I just got called a dog so clearly I'm incapable of learning new tricks...

Kaa

ljb5
04-08-2013, 09:57 PM
Who, me? I don't need to do nuthin' :-) Well, maybe get another beer. But what about *your* civic responsibility, your duty to participate in the fate of your country? Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.. err... who failed what, the present is here, what do you need to do?

Kaa

Imagine for a second that you weren't talking to me, but rather to your boss, a client, a customer, your girlfriend's father, a prospective investor or anyone else that you wanted to impress.

Imagine for a second that you wanted your kids to be proud of you. You wanted your brother to admire you. You wanted to have your own high standards of success and live up to them.

Now, try again. What is success and what do you need to do?

Don't try to put it off on me. Own it.

L.W. Baxter
04-08-2013, 10:00 PM
New thread title:

Political Spittle

Kaa
04-08-2013, 10:06 PM
Imagine for a second that you weren't talking to me, but rather to your boss, a client, a customer, your girlfriend's father, a prospective investor or anyone else that you wanted to impress.

Imagine for a second that you wanted your kids to be proud of you. You wanted your brother to admire you. You wanted to have your own high standards of success and live up to them.

Now, try again. What is success and what do you need to do?

I don't do these kinds of things.

What do I need to do? Grin.

:-P

Kaa

Kaa
04-08-2013, 10:07 PM
New thread title:

Political Spittle

Well, aren't you curious what lies beyond ljb5's facade of mere politeness..? :-D

Kaa

L.W. Baxter
04-08-2013, 10:11 PM
Actually, I've changed my title preference based on something I just learned about on another thread (praise McMullen):

Political Yiffery

ljb5
04-08-2013, 10:17 PM
I don't do these kinds of things.

What do I need to do? Grin.

:-P

Kaa

Imagine you were the CEO of a company and an employee came up to you and said, "I'm a failure. I don't know what to do. I can't figure out what to do. I cannot succeed. But I insist I am right. I demand to be praised and rewarded."

What would you do?

See, that's the thing. I don't really care what you do, just so long as you stay away from me.

You have a record of failure. We'd all be better off if you succeeded, but we cannot achieve that for you.

Kaa
04-08-2013, 10:24 PM
See, that's the thing. I don't really care what you do, just so long as you stay away from me.

Dude. You jumped into my thread and started blabbering...


You have a record of failure. We'd all be better off if you succeeded, but we cannot achieve that for you.

Um. I have a record of failure? I am getting confused. Are you sure you're addressing me?

Kaa

L.W. Baxter
04-08-2013, 10:24 PM
Imagine you were the CEO of a company and an employee came up to you and said, "I'm a failure. I don't know what to do. I can't figure out what to do. I cannot succeed. But I insist I am right. I demand to be praised and rewarded."

What would you do?

See, that's the thing. I don't really care what you do, just so long as you stay away from me.

You have a record of failure. We'd all be better off if you succeeded, but we cannot achieve that for you.

Yiff! Yiff!

David G
04-08-2013, 10:28 PM
Well, I just got called a dog so clearly I'm incapable of learning new tricks...

Kaa

Well... based on past performance... I'd find myself hard-pressed to argue with you. But I still have my suspicions about a certain sneaky little distinction between incapable and disinclined.

Kaa
04-08-2013, 10:31 PM
Well... based on past performance... I'd find myself hard-pressed to argue with you. But I still have my suspicions about a certain sneaky little distinction between incapable and disinclined.

Well... that all depends on the capability to provide proper motivation... :-)

Kaa

L.W. Baxter
04-08-2013, 10:37 PM
Well... that all depends on the capability to provide proper motivation... :-)

Kaa

Swing and a yiff!

Kaa
04-08-2013, 10:42 PM
...yiff!

Errr... You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means...

:-D

Kaa

ljb5
04-08-2013, 11:21 PM
Ronald Reagan couldn't have said it better.

Reagan said a lot of things.

But he never once balanced the budget.

Fine words only get you so far. Putting numbers on the board counts for something too.

ljb5
04-09-2013, 07:59 AM
And speaking of the budget, what is the percentage of debt to GDP during obamaco's time in office for his first term compared to Reagans' two terms?

When Reagan was sworn in, debt to GDP was about 25%. By the time he left, it was over 40%.

Before Obama even took the oath of office, debt to GDP was about 40% and the economy was crashing.

Believe it or not, the deficit is now falling fast than it has since any time since WWII. (http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm)

It's not exactly a straightforward comparison, is it?

There simply is no reasonable way discuss the deficit under Obama without recognizing the crisis that existed before he took office.

ljb5
04-09-2013, 10:19 AM
I did recognize the fact that bushco screwed us. The point is obamaco is doing the same thing, only with more zeal and has the numbers to prove it.

I'm glad you can admit that Bush screwed us. That's a start, at least. It seems so obvious to those of us who weren't in a coma in 2008, but some people seem to have such difficulty admitting it.

No doubt the economy has a long way to go to recover.... but the facts are pretty clear. In 2008 we were in a crisis. Now, things really are better. As much as you may hate to admit it (and as much as some people are incapable of admitting it), things really are better.

ljb5
04-09-2013, 10:34 AM
Just keep an eye on the bond markets, we'll see how much "better" things really are.

Here's a quote from the article you just posted:


The final point to keep in mind is that many of the countries with the highest ratios also have high credit ratings, while many of those on the low end of the list (such as Russia and Kazakhstan) don’t have particularly robust ratings. Again, this shows that there is more to a country’s fiscal health – and bond yields – than debt-to-GDP ratio

So, yeah... keep an eye on the bond markets, but that's not the only indicator of fiscal health.

Have you kept an eye on the stock market, the jobs market, the housing market and the rest of the economy? All of these things really are better now than they were after eight years of Bush.

ljb5
04-09-2013, 11:39 AM
Rod, there's no denying that times are tough and we need to see more improvment, however that doesn't change the basic fact of timing.

The crash occurred before Obama was elected. It occurred after Bush had nearly 8 full years in office.

So, while you might complain that the recovery is slow or lackluster or disappointing, you cannot, cannot, cannot blame it on Obama.

If you believe that the president has responsibility for the economy, you must blame Bush for the crash.

That's not about ideology. That's about the dates on the calendar. And you can't argue with that.

If you look at that graph, you will see clearly that mean duration of unemployment spiked about a year or so after each and every recession. Since it's obvious that the recession started before Obama was sworn in, it stands to reason that the spike in mean duration of unemployment is not a result of any Obama policy.

Again: it's not about ideology. It's just about being able to look at facts.

Kaa
04-09-2013, 11:42 AM
So, while you might complain that the recovery is slow or lackluster or disappointing, you cannot, cannot, cannot blame it on Obama.

LOL. So, you cannot blame the recovery on Obama? That's an interesting statement coming from you... :-D

Kaa

ljb5
04-09-2013, 12:05 PM
LOL. So, you cannot blame the recovery on Obama? That's an interesting statement coming from you... :-D

Kaa

The recovery came after the crash.

The crash came before Obama was elected, so I know for sure that wasn't Obama's fault.

Since the recovery came after Obama was elected, one might argue, quite logically that it was due to Obama's policies.

Do you really not understand the concept of "before" and "after"... or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it?

Kaa
04-09-2013, 12:09 PM
Since the recovery came after Obama was elected, one might argue, quite logically that it was due to Obama's policies.

Since the global warming started after the pirates were greatly reduced in numbers, one might argue, quite logically that it was the pirates who were holding the global warming back.

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

Kaa

David G
04-09-2013, 12:26 PM
Yup... time to set off the Kaa Alert ------

Beware of MORE Bootless Pedantic Quibbling Ahead.

Folks... I know it's entertaining. Just don't get any one ya, ok. Modern medical science has no idea whether it's contagious or not.

johnw
04-09-2013, 12:39 PM
Since the global warming started after the pirates were greatly reduced in numbers, one might argue, quite logically that it was the pirates who were holding the global warming back.

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

Kaa

I'm afraid that chart has no relation to the number of pirates operating. The golden age of piracy was from about 1650 to 1730. There was very little piracy in the 1950s and '60s, and a dramatic increase in piracy as Somalia's central government collapsed.

Woodes Rogers is blameless in global warming.

It was an amusing attempt to evade logical discussion, Ho Ha! But I'm sure there were more than 17 pirates operating in the Malaca Strait, let alone Somalia, by 2000.

It would be funnier if it were true. Don't quit your day job for a career in comedy.

Kaa
04-09-2013, 12:46 PM
It would be funnier if it were true. Don't quit your day job for a career in comedy.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster will sustain me and protect me against challenges! :-)

Kaa

P.S. You know where this chart is from, don't you?

ljb5
04-09-2013, 12:52 PM
Since the global warming started after the pirates were greatly reduced in numbers, one might argue, quite logically that it was the pirates who were holding the global warming back.

I see your point, Kaa, and I agree that you are right to some extent. Correlation does not indicate causation and post hoc does not necessarily mean propter hoc.

I whole-heartedly agree.... but the problem you have is that so much of Republican talking points and political arguments are based on the idea that there is a real and causal relationship between who we vote for and what the economy will do.

If you want to shoot down the idea of a link between politics and economics, you have shot down nearly the entire basis of the Republican party.

I am perfectly happy to accept the idea that there is no direct relationship between party politics and the economy.... but that means you have to stop claiming it.

Republicans have spent four years crying and moaning that the economy is bad because of Obama..... and now you turn around and say there's no link?

Republicans always claim that if we elect them and follow their policies the economiy will improve. And now you say there is no direct relation?

You just shot yourself in the foot.

Kaa
04-09-2013, 01:19 PM
I whole-heartedly agree.... but the problem you have is that so much of Republican talking points and political arguments are based on the idea that there is a real and causal relationship between who we vote for and what the economy will do.

So? Watch me care... Exactly the same is true for Democrat talking points as well.


...but that means you have to stop claiming it.

You're really confused about the proper use of pronouns. I -- Kaa -- have to stop claiming it?

Kaa

ljb5
04-09-2013, 02:45 PM
Exactly the same is true for Democrat talking points as well.

Not exactly. We don't have to explain away failures like the Bush crisis or the Reagan deficits. :D

That's a distinction. We don't have to go into each election cycle touting the same voodoo economics and hoping that no one will noticed how badly it failed last time.

That's the problem Republicans have. They start off every election promsing success and finish every administration claiming "Well, that one doesn't count. Let's pretend that never happened and try the same thing next time."


You're really confused about the proper use of pronouns. I -- Kaa -- have to stop claiming it?

If you pick up an instruments and start marching, don't be surprised if people think you're in the band.

PhaseLockedLoop
04-09-2013, 02:51 PM
Perhaps it would be better, or at least less fractious, to get back to something like the subject of the original post?

I propose another way of looking at it. Three civic values, all good things, but sometimes in conflict: liberty, equality, and community (probably a better translation than 'fraternity', which seems an unreliable cognate). One's political ideology is a reflection of the relative weight one gives these three. Libertarians value liberty, and don't care much if at all about the others. A traditional conservative might value community most highly; modern libertarian-influenced conservatives community and liberty, both value equality a distant third. A utopian socialist, or even a genuinely idealistic communist (rare breeds these days) would value equality much more highly than the others. An orthodox Catholic distributist would value community above all, with equality perhaps second.

Personally, I think the trick is to try and maximize all three, or at least maintain a pretty good balance.

I have no idea what you mean by "community." From what I see, conservatives are interested in only one kind of community: gated.

johnw
04-09-2013, 07:59 PM
The Flying Spaghetti Monster will sustain me and protect me against challenges! :-)

Kaa

P.S. You know where this chart is from, don't you?

Well, simple faith in the spaghetti monster takes care of most things.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Kaa
04-09-2013, 08:56 PM
If you pick up an instruments and start marching, don't be surprised if people think you're in the band.

I dunno about "people", but I'm still curious about your pronoun confusion. Let's try a direct question: do you think I am a Republican? Do I carry a party card in my secret pocket? Do I sneak out at night to vote for Republicans?

Kaa

Kaa
04-09-2013, 08:57 PM
Well, simple faith in the spaghetti monster takes care of most things.

Those who have not been touched by His Noodly Appendage cannot comprehend the clarity and simplicity that Pastafarianism brings to one's life :-P

Kaa

ljb5
04-09-2013, 09:32 PM
Let's try a direct question: do you think I am a Republican?

I have no way of knowing (nor do I care) what your true political affiliation is. I have noticed that you like to argue from a point in support of Republicans.

Back in post #11 you made a rather fantastic leap of illogic to take such an argumentative stance.

You seem to do that a lot.

Later, in post #14, you started to take an argumentative stance against Obama policies. I tried to get you to explain what exactly you meant by that, but you suddenly got extremely coy and evasive.

Did you notice that?

Kaa
04-10-2013, 12:52 AM
I have no way of knowing (nor do I care) what your true political affiliation is.

Well, then, could you please sort out your pronoun problem?

I speak for myself only. Please do not address me as a representative of anything.

Kaa

ljb5
04-10-2013, 08:19 AM
Well, then, could you please sort out your pronoun problem?

I speak for myself only. Please do not address me as a representative of anything.

Kaa

I don't think you're really bothered by the use of pronouns.

I think you're bothered by the fact that you started out arguing (rather stridently) from a Republican stance, and then quickly figured out that wasn't going to work out for you.

You haven't been able to repair (or evade) your earlier position, so now you're trying to change the subject.

Kaa
04-10-2013, 10:05 AM
I think you're bothered by the fact that you started out arguing (rather stridently) from a Republican stance, and then quickly figured out that wasn't going to work out for you.

Didn't you already agree that I made argument, none at all in this thread? (see posts #34 and #35)

It seems you have problems with more than pronouns... :-P

Kaa

ljb5
04-10-2013, 02:38 PM
Didn't you already agree that I made argument, none at all in this thread? (see posts #34 and #35)

It seems you have problems with more than pronouns... :-P

Kaa

As I said, you started out with an argument about Obama's economic policies, but quickly aborted it when you realized it wasn't going to pan out for you.

You don't deny, do you, that you said:


"By the way, didn't Obama promise "us" lower deficits, less unemployment, better economy?"

I shouldn't have to remind you of what you wrote, nor should I have to prompt you so much to admit you wrote it and explain why.

If you had an explanation for why you wrote it and what you meant by it, you could have offered that already, instead of trying to squirm and weasel and pretend you didn't mean what you plainly meant.

Kaa
04-10-2013, 02:49 PM
As I said, you started out with an argument...

Nope, that's not what you said. Since you seem to have strange memory lapses, I'll remind you:



I don't recall making any argument in this thread.

No, you didn't. You briefly mentioned...


You really should make up your mind. If you're capable, that is...

Kaa

ljb5
04-10-2013, 03:23 PM
You really, really seem reluctant to address what you meant by that earlier statement.

You think you're acting coy, but to me, you just look weasely.

Give it a rest.

Kaa
04-10-2013, 03:46 PM
You think you're acting coy...

Coy..? Nah. I'm comfortably sitting in room 12, and you're desperately trying to persuade me to say something stupid. That looks funny so I'm enjoying the process :-)

Kaa

ljb5
04-10-2013, 03:50 PM
Coy..? Nah. I'm comfortably sitting in room 12, and you're desperately trying to persuade me to say something stupid.

Actually, I was kind hoping you'd say something intelligent...

Why did you mention Obama's economic promises back and the beginning? We're you going to praise him, or going to criticize him... or did you really just have no point at all?

You brought it up, after all. I kinda assumed you might have something to say about it, but ever since, you've been trying to evade it.

Kaa
04-10-2013, 03:58 PM
Actually, I was kind hoping you'd say something intelligent...

I rather doubt that :-D And how would you recognize "something intelligent", anyway..?

Kaa

ljb5
04-10-2013, 04:25 PM
I rather doubt that :-D And how would you recognize "something intelligent", anyway..?

My gosh, you're tiresome.

I'm being honest with you. I wish you would address the question.


Why did you mention Obama's economic promises back at the beginning? We're you going to praise him, or going to criticize him... or did you really just have no point at all?

Why won't you answer such a simple question?

You brought up the issue, and now you refuse to address it or even acknoledge it. How pathetic.

Are you really the type of guy who says things that have no point at all?

Kaa
04-10-2013, 04:33 PM
I'm being honest with you.

Nah, I don't believe this at all. :-)

Y'know, you probably would have made a good milk maid -- you're putting so much effort into trying to milk a throwaway sentence two pages ago...

On the other hand, no, I changed my mind. You'd make a lousy milk maid -- all these attempts at teat pulling and no milk at all :-D

Kaa

ljb5
04-10-2013, 04:44 PM
-- you're putting so much effort into trying to milk a throwaway sentence two pages ago...

Why did you write it if you didn't want it to be read?

You must have meant something when you wrote it, or else you wouldn't have written it at all.

I realize now that you are trying to evade it... yet at the time, you seemed to think it was worth the effort to write.

What made you change your mind?

hanleyclifford
04-10-2013, 04:58 PM
let's see, that's a tough question kaa, here you are rolling around in bilge muck with one of the most inflammatory pure trolls the forum has ever known. . . Gotta save this one.;)

oznabrag
09-22-2013, 09:22 AM
So every single person who voted Republican recently is either poorly informed or muddle-headed -- correct?

That's certainly one way to look at reality... :-D

By limiting the possible causes to only two, you distort the problem and display your own, biased, political ideology. There are other factors that could cause one to vote Republican. Greed, money psychosis, megalomania, sadism, masochism all spring to mind instantly as possible causes of a vote for a Republican, these days. If the Republican Party still represented anything resembling a 'conservative' position, this would be a ridiculous statement, but these are the factors that have driven the utter corruption of the Republican Party for the past 30 years, and the ugly, amoral, downright evil organization that represents 'Republicans' these days is far, far more Anarchist or Plutocratic than anything Ike could have stood for.



<shrug> Depends on which people and by whom. In a democracy, presumably the voters hold the politicians accountable, no? Oh, but then you believe at least half of the voters are stupid... Does that present a problem for democracy in your view, I wonder... :-/

No, no, no, no, no. Half the voters are 'below average', not 'stupid'.

There are many inherent problems both with government and from lack of it. All these problems seem to stem from the corruption brought by obtaining to power, so it would seem to me that the best systems are those with built in ways of removing the corrupted at the will of the governed.




"We" vote for many different groups of clowns :-) By the way, didn't Obama promise "us" lower deficits, less unemployment, better economy?

Kaa

Obama has delivered lower deficits, less unemployment, and a better economy. There are many areas where one may legitimately criticize the Obama Administration, but that ain't one of 'em.

Elsewhere in this thread, the subject of Monsanto comes up and, as I recall, you slither to their defense saying something about 'in an ideal world', etc.

In an ideal world, when Monsanto patents it's genes, it should be sued for criminal trespass whenever the wind blows their GMO pollen into a non-participating farmer's field.

Failing that, the fate of Nicolae Ceaușescu seems appropriate... in an Ideal World, of course. Greed and megalomania are demonstrably deleterious elements of any society.

Keith Wilson
09-22-2013, 09:24 AM
Dude! Welcome back, Mr Bean! |;)

Durnik
09-22-2013, 09:35 AM
...in an Ideal World, of course. Greed and megalomania are demonstrably deleterious elements of any society.


Holly Bleeping Shlt, Batman!

Welcome Back!

enjoy
bobby

Tom Montgomery
09-22-2013, 09:50 AM
Welcome back, oznabrag!

Now... does anyone know what happened to Kaa? He suddenly stopped posting 3 months ago after averaging 6 posts a day for several years.

David G
09-22-2013, 01:01 PM
Dude! Welcome back, Mr Bean! |;)

Crap!!! And after I pleaded my little fingers to the bone with Scot <G>

Glad to see you back, Tex... but you're too danged late to corral those dad-blamed Hellheats that've been rampaging around the beautiful Pacific NW all summer - and herd them back to the dried out wastelands of Texas and suchlike!

The good new is - you're just in time for a special brunch menu over in the Pub. I think there may be a welcome back party going on, too!

oznabrag
09-22-2013, 11:34 PM
Dude! Welcome back, Mr Bean! |;)

Thank you, Your Eminence. |;)

My return to this pit during the reign of such a BROTM as yourself can only be viewed as auspicious.

Auguring exactly what remains to be seen!

johnw
09-22-2013, 11:56 PM
Welcome back, Oz!

TomF
09-23-2013, 05:43 AM
Oz! The dude behind the curtain!

Welcome back, man. You've been missed.

skuthorp
09-23-2013, 06:02 AM
Welcome back, you've been missed.

"Failing that, the fate of Nicolae Ceaușescu seems appropriate... in an Ideal World, of course. Greed and megalomania are demonstrably deleterious elements of any society."
I'm just watching a documentary on government corruption in Papua New Guinea. Reading parts of this thread at the same time is rather surreal.

Paul Pless
09-23-2013, 06:44 AM
This really must have been eating at you garbonzo. Very first post back from a two year banning and you bump a year old thread. . . .

welcome back

oznabrag
09-23-2013, 06:57 AM
This really must have been eating at you garbanzo. Very first post back from a two year banning and you bump a year old thread. . . .

welcome back

Fixed that for ya.

Now, for my next trick...

Peerie Maa
09-23-2013, 08:34 AM
Fixed that for ya.

Now, for my next trick...

Which will be to sit down and catch your breath. You have been buzzing from old thread to old thread like a blue bottle in a field full of fresh cow pats. :D

P.S. Welcome back.