The view of American politics from outside

[johnw]

I do not think I have used my standard response to your posts so it follows that I do not consider your posts rude, etc. You developed a standard response to my standard response that I did use on other posters. So I then developed a standard response to your standard response as I expected to be using my standard response quite often and wanted a quick way to respond to your standard response to my standard response.

Reading it in full context I do not believe it says you in particular were using a "you disagree with me therefore I'm stupid approach." It was explaining what I was seeking, not what you were doing. In any case it was not intended as a criticism of you. And I have already said that if I have to use it again I will revise it to clarify. Hopefully I won't have to use it again as I sense a shift in the tenor of the debate here.

I try to forget the Swift Boat thread in which it seemed like me against the world. Unfortunately I lumped you in with everyone else and was quickly responding to many, many seemingly simultaneous posts. Anyway you clarified your position and I immediately thanked you for your correction and clarification (see posts 384, 416, 437 & 623). You lied about me by saying that I said I would dance on President Obama's grave, when in fact what I said was I would dance on OBL's grave. But that was so minor as to be completely forgettable compared to what others were saying. Reminds me doesn't Kevin owe us a truckload of beer?

This is the only forum I am on in which people are so condescending and nasty to each other, and it is not just to me. Unfortunately I fell right in. I am trying to dig out.

Yes, you did use the standard response on me. This thread: http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?146564-Poof!

I'm really happy for you that this is the only thread on which people are nasty to you. It's been my experience that on most forums, if you are as rude as you have sometimes been in the past, people respond in kind.

I don't recall saying you would dance on Obama's grave, but if you are not again mistaking me for someone else and I did make a mistake, I'm sorry for that.

I believe, with a little help from Spin and Keith, I now understand what you were trying to say. It's a little harder to understand how you could use your boilerplate on me by mistake, but if that's what it was, fine.

I certainly don't want to interfere if you want to hit the reset button, but you will have to overcome perceptions you've shaped by your past behavior, so don't expect immediate accolades, especially if you post boilerplate responses that give the impression that you are sneering at the people you are talking to and telling them that you don't think it's worth while to treat them as individuals with a specific history in their talks with you. That was a bad idea, and because it failed to acknowledge that your own behavior has fed the ill-will you've built up on this forum, it looked like you were blaming others for the problems you are having with people. As someone mentioned, it looked like you were plugging your ears and singing "naa-naa-naa" to avoid listening to others.

I appreciate that it can be difficult to dig your way out of a hole. The usual advice is to stop digging, and ask for some help, like a ladder.

And may I say, my goal in all of this discussion has been to elicit exactly the sort of thoughtful and personal response you gave me in the post I'm responding to. Thank you.

[Flying Orca]

I think there is a difference between ad hominems and shooting the messenger. The problem here is that there are so many who think anything with which they disagree is stupid.

To a limited degree, we're in agreement. I'm trying to find a delicate way of saying this, and I can't, so I'm going to be a bit bald about it: a lot of the stuff you post is stupid, and that's why people disagree with it. I'm afraid all you can really do about that is post fewer stupid things, or less stupid things, or both. I'm not trying to be contentious or even condescending here, though I'm certainly capable of it as you know; I'm just trying to explain.

[TANSTAF1]

I posted this to relate back to thread originator. It's about how the rest of the world sees the US political system .

I haven't seen the OP for pages. I think he gave up.

Do you think this view of the US political system is because the rest of the world is so used to the government having so much control of their lives that they think that is normal so the thing that sticks out is the amount of corporate power?

Liberals here were shocked with Justice Kennedy's question during the obamacare oral arguments:

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

[PeterSibley]

Thanks for accepting the apology. I meant it.

I do agree that large corporations have too much power, however I think our government now has much more power than corporations do. Americans have become too accepting of the extent these both control our lives thru PR or laws/rules, but many awoke in 2010 and I am hopeful even more will awake in 2012. I think many think it does not make any difference if the Dems or the GOP win; things will remain the same. To a certain extent I agree, but if the tea party had not won a substantial amount of seats in 2010 things would be very different.

We have both free education and free health care now. Our education system is widely thought to have failed us. As for health care there is a distinction between health care and health insurance. As for Paul's ideas, that is the topic for another thread. I just provided that as a quick and easy answer to your question as to what I was for, rather than what I was against.

The difference is that it is at least conceivable that government can be controlled, the ballot box can change it. If things changed extremely Pauline candidates could even be elected but corporations will always be there with the whip hand.

Health care? We have different definitions .My daughter had a stroke at 30, she received 12 months hospital care and 3 years of rehabilitation, then a heart operation that required 2 holes to be "plugged"......all paid for by our free hospital system. The alternative was bankruptcy and living in a shack somewhere now..... looking after my daughter and her 2 children .

How would I have gone in the USA?

[Peerie Maa]

I haven't seen the OP for pages. I think he gave up.

Do you think this view of the US political system is because the rest of the world is so used to the government having so much control of their lives that they think that is normal so the thing that sticks out is the amount of corporate power?

Liberals here were shocked with Justice Kennedy's question during the obamacare oral arguments:

I can't comment about your quote without some background. Is reads out of context without.

I will say this though, my take on US politics is that it is failing you because you have allowed big money to become powerful. Ours works because our limit on campaign spending does allow anyone to enter politics and then reach the top on merit. This also means that there is room in our political system for the full spectrum of political opinion, so that we can rub along without the political extremism that we now see in your campaigning.

[TANSTAF1]

Yes, you did use the standard response on me. This thread: http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?146564-Poof!

I'm really happy for you that this is the only thread on which people are nasty to you. It's been my experience that on most forums, if you are as rude as you have sometimes been in the past, people respond in kind.

I don't recall saying you would dance on Obama's grave, but if you are not again mistaking me for someone else and I did make a mistake, I'm sorry for that.

I believe, with a little help from Spin and Keith, I now understand what you were trying to say. It's a little harder to understand how you could use your boilerplate on me by mistake, but if that's what it was, fine.

I certainly don't want to interfere if you want to hit the reset button, but you will have to overcome perceptions you've shaped by your past behavior, so don't expect immediate accolades, especially if you post boilerplate responses that give the impression that you are sneering at the people you are talking to and telling them that you don't think it's worth while to treat them as individuals with a specific history in their talks with you. That was a bad idea, and because it failed to acknowledge that your own behavior has fed the ill-will you've built up on this forum, it looked like you were blaming others for the problems you are having with people. As someone mentioned, it looked like you were plugging your ears and singing "naa-naa-naa" to avoid listening to others.

I appreciate that it can be difficult to dig your way out of a hole. The usual advice is to stop digging, and ask for some help, like a ladder.

And may I say, my goal in all of this discussion has been to elicit exactly the sort of thoughtful and personal response you gave me in the post I'm responding to. Thank you.

I admit my use of my standard response to your post in the Poof! thread was marginal. Sorry.

Regarding the death dance, post #414 on page 9. (Unfortunately I had to go back and look. Ugh.) But as of now forgiven and forgotten.

I have already said I was nasty. Hopefully I have stopped digging. I am not seeking accolades. For the most part the posts getting the boilerplate did not even deserve a response and that was one option I considered. I think I have been individually responding on non-rude posts.

[TANSTAF1]

To a limited degree, we're in agreement. I'm trying to find a delicate way of saying this, and I can't, so I'm going to be a bit bald about it: a lot of the stuff you post is stupid, and that's why people disagree with it. I'm afraid all you can really do about that is post fewer stupid things, or less stupid things, or both. I'm not trying to be contentious or even condescending here, though I'm certainly capable of it as you know; I'm just trying to explain.

What I am seeking is that you respond by saying why you think it is stupid and not that I am stupid. I am avoiding your AGW posts as it would take too long and be too much work to do this for your posts.

[johnw]

I admit my use of my standard response to your post in the Poof! thread was marginal. Sorry.

Regarding the death dance, post #414 on page 9. (Unfortunately I had to go back and look. Ugh.) But as of now forgiven and forgotten.

I have already said I was nasty. Hopefully I have stopped digging. I am not seeking accolades. For the most part the posts getting the boilerplate did not even deserve a response and that was one option I considered. I think I have been individually responding on non-rude posts.

Well, that's a much better idea. I think the boilerplate responses came across all wrong.

[Flying Orca]

What I am seeking is that you respond by saying why you think it is stupid and not that I am stupid. I am avoiding your AGW posts as it would take too long and be too much work to do this for your posts.

Oh, you're welcome to try. You could try arguing with the American National Academy of Sciences, for example:

Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of green-house gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. Responding to these risks is a crucial challenge facing the United States and the world today and for many decades to come.

I realize you probably don't believe this, and you're entitled to believe whatever you want even if it's wrong, but the fact is that there is no serious scientific challenge to the overall consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

[PeterSibley]

The right wing response to AGW is a perfect example of corporate PR at it's best, for more see the tobacco or asbestos campaigns. They play all the buttons, play on distrust and "elitism". Absolute masters of manipulation and the masses buy it, just like Coke.

[TANSTAF1]

The difference is that it is at least conceivable that government can be controlled, the ballot box can change it. If things changed extremely Pauline candidates could even be elected but corporations will always be there with the whip hand.

Health care? We have different definitions .My daughter had a stroke at 30, she received 12 months hospital care and 3 years of rehabilitation, then a heart operation that required 2 holes to be "plugged"......all paid for by our free hospital system. The alternative was bankruptcy and living in a shack somewhere now..... looking after my daughter and her 2 children .

How would I have gone in the USA?

Something needs to be done about corporations, that's for sure.

As for your daughter, I am not that knowledgeable about the specifics of what would happen/how difficult it would be to get on going care after first being admitted to the hospital if she did not have health insurance. Federal law provides that she cannot be refused care even if she has no assets or no insurance. If she has assets those may be at risk. Yours would not. If she were a single Mom her kids would have been taken care of while she was in the hospital/rehab if a relative did not want to do it.

[PeterSibley]

The thing is , yes as she had few assets she may have been cared for . Had she any assets she would have been reduced to handicapped poverty (she is quite handicapped now). Here the same offer is open to all, rich and poor, assets or none . It's a national insurance scheme called Medicare and woe betide any government that wants to remove it . We are happy to pay, assured that we will not end our lives in squalid poverty after an unforeseen illness.

We have a parallel system for those who want private cover and private hospitals but they still pay the Medicare levy and still have access to the free government services .

It's called a society, a system where individuals band together, pool their strengths and assets for the general good.

[Flying Orca]

Sorry, for now we'll just have to disagree.

Your disagreement is with science and reality, not with me.

[TANSTAF1]

Your disagreement is with science and reality, not with me.

Whereas I know that you are in disagreement with science and reality, but this is not the thread to explain that to you.

[PeterSibley]

Whereas I know that you are in disagreement with science and reality, but this is not the thread to explain that to you.

I'd love you to start one explaining how the vast majority of the world's scientific bodies and associations are wrong .

[TANSTAF1]

I'd love you to start one explaining how the vast majority of the world's scientific bodies and associations are wrong .

I don't really want to get into how those orgs are funded, but I'll think about one on AGW, but I doubt that I will. If I do, I'll let you know.

[PeterSibley]

I don't really want to get into how those orgs are funded, but I'll think about one on AGW, but I doubt that I will. If I do, I'll let you know.

Funding? If you want to deal with funding deal with the funding flowing from the fossil fuel industry as well OK?

But quite frankly I'm more interested in the science.

[TANSTAF1]

Funding? If you want to deal with funding deal with the funding flowing from the fossil fuel industry as well OK?

But quite frankly I'm more interested in the science.

Me too. I see you started your own thread - although I haven't opened it yet. That's cheating. I had been avoiding Norman's. But I suppose I gotta step to the plate.

[Flying Orca]

Whereas I know that you are in disagreement with science and reality, but this is not the thread to explain that to you.

ROFLMAO! Yeah, I'll just bet it's not. What have you got for us next, man? Perpetual motion machine? Lizard people? UFOs? Maybe you can get together with your intellectual peer RonW and give us a chemtrail thread?

[TANSTAF1]

ROFLMAO! Yeah, I'll just bet it's not. What have you got for us next, man? Perpetual motion machine? Lizard people? UFOs? Maybe you can get together with your intellectual peer RonW and give us a chemtrail thread?

Your post is rude and offensive to me. While a decent respect to the opinion of mankind calls for a response to the comprehension failures and fallacies in your post, I will do so only if you edit it to present your remarks in a civilized, respectful and truthful manner. President Obama has said that it is "time to “pause for a moment, and to make sure that we are talking to each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds" and " the second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate."

[TANSTAF1]

Me too. I see you started your own thread - although I haven't opened it yet. That's cheating. I had been avoiding Norman's. But I suppose I gotta step to the plate.

I started a thread but just closed it. I knew I shouldn't have started one as people go ballistic when you question their cherished beliefs.

[Peerie Maa]

I started a thread but just closed it. I knew I shouldn't have started one as people go ballistic when you question their cherished beliefs.

Gollocks, you screwed up pure and simple.

You have proven 'ignorance" similar to mine by accepting the the views of a few scientists whose work and salaries are paid for by those who have a vested interest in there being manmade global warming. There is no consensus except in your mind and other like you. I just don't respond by being rude and offensive.

Not just ill informed but with a closed mind as well, now that is ignorant.

[Flying Orca]

No, no, it's everyone else, they're out to get him with that pesky reality stuff!

TinStiff, you have proven to my satisfaction that you're an ignorant troll. If you want to have an intelligent conversation with the big kids, you're going to have to do something about your ignorance, at least - the trolling may be tolerated if you can make it interesting. I'm afraid you're going to find that people aren't willing to engage you when you post blatant idiocy, though.

[TANSTAF1]

Gollocks, you screwed up pure and simple.

Not just ill informed but with a closed mind as well, now that is ignorant.[/COLOR]

My view is that you all have the closed minds and no arguments to boot. Because you have no arguments, the thread was simply going to be one after another post of how ignorant I was rather than a discussion of the topic. The one and only argument, if you can call it that was a C & P from HuffPoop.

for anyone reading the thread it is clear who has the closed mind.

[TANSTAF1]

No, no, it's everyone else, they're out to get him with that pesky reality stuff!

TinStiff, you have proven to my satisfaction that you're an ignorant troll. If you want to have an intelligent conversation with the big kids, you're going to have to do something about your ignorance, at least - the trolling may be tolerated if you can make it interesting. I'm afraid you're going to find that people aren't willing to engage you when you post blatant idiocy, though.

Please list all the "pesky reality" stuff you posted. It will take you than than two seconds as you did not post any. All you did was repeat how ignorant I am over and over and over and over again as if repeating it makes it so.

[Peerie Maa]

My view is that you all have the closed minds and no arguments to boot. Because you have no arguments, the thread was simply going to be one after another post of how ignorant I was rather than a discussion of the topic. The one and only argument, if you can call it that was a C & P from HuffPoop.

for anyone reading the thread it is clear who has the closed mind.

Well, I twice posted quotes of the Doctors own words that stated quite clearly that your premise was wrong. The only argument that you tried was to cast aspersions on his honesty, not his science, or his understanding as set out in his conclusions, but his honesty.
And now you accuse everyone but you with having a closed mind? Sheesh!

[TANSTAF1]

No, no, it's everyone else, they're out to get him with that pesky reality stuff!

TinStiff, you have proven to my satisfaction that you're an ignorant troll. If you want to have an intelligent conversation with the big kids, you're going to have to do something about your ignorance, at least - the trolling may be tolerated if you can make it interesting. I'm afraid you're going to find that people aren't willing to engage you when you post blatant idiocy, though.

Please list all the "pesky reality" stuff you posted. It will take you than than two seconds as you did not post any. All you did was repeat how ignorant I am over and over and over and over again as if repeating it makes it so.

Flying orca: Still waiting for your repost of all the pesky reality stuff you posted in my thread. It's closed, but it's still there and fortunately at this point is not easily altered.

But, just in case you have friends in high places which I suspect you do, I did copy the thread.

[TANSTAF1]

Well, I twice posted quotes of the Doctors own words that stated quite clearly that your premise was wrong. The only argument that you tried was to cast aspersions on his honesty, not his science, or his understanding as set out in his conclusions, but his honesty.
And now you accuse everyone but you with having a closed mind? Sheesh!

Just as you think we should not believe anything in the Daily Mail, I do not believe anything in HuffPoop.

People whose job and future funding prospects is on line will say pretty much anything.

The scan of his original study speaks for itself.

He should publish his full study and data. Syracuse University is big, they can handle that.

I thought that was one of the purposes of a peer reviewed article.

Even President Obama believes in transparency for others.

[Peerie Maa]

Just as you think we should not believe anything in the Daily Mail, I do not believe anything in HuffPoop.

People whose job and future funding prospects is on line will say pretty much anything.

The scan of his original study speaks for itself.

He should publish his full study and data. Syracuse University is big, they can handle that.

I thought that was one of the purposes of a peer reviewed article.

Even President Obama believes in transparency for others.

What is with the reference to Huff Post? Read it here: http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_201...STATEMENT.html
I see that you are still doubting the Doctors honesty, instead of having the balls to admit that you screwed up.

[Flying Orca]

Flying orca: Still waiting for your repost of all the pesky reality stuff you posted in my thread. It's closed, but it's still there and fortunately at this point is not easily altered.

But, just in case you have friends in high places which I suspect you do, I did copy the thread.

LOL. Paranoid much? You really do give the impression of having psychological problems.

The pesky reality is that the author of the paper you think refutes global warming, says that it doesn't. You think you know better than the author? You're bloody delusional.

[TANSTAF1]

What is with the reference to Huff Post? Read it here: http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_201...STATEMENT.html
I see that you are still doubting the Doctors honesty, instead of having the balls to admit that you screwed up.

I get that he does not want others to draw what seem to be reasonable conclusions from the portions his study that have been released. The solution to an inaccurate conclusion is to fully and freely release them, but I assume he wants to tidy them up before doing so.

I agree that just because it happened in Europe and Antarctica does not mean it happened all over the world but it blow apart the prior theory that it was confined to Europe and it happened before man could reasonably have been the cause.

I do not wish him ill will. I hope he will be able to keep his job and get future funding.

[TANSTAF1]

LOL. Paranoid much? You really do give the impression of having psychological problems.

The pesky reality is that the author of the paper you think refutes global warming, says that it doesn't. You think you know better than the author? You're bloody delusional.

Come on no more obfuscation. Just copy and past all those pesky reality stuffs you posted in my thread. It literally will take two seconds as I don't think there are any.

Oh and BTW, I did see that you posted those universally accepted definitions of liberalism, communism and socialism yet. It should be an easy task for a man of your intellect. Enlighten us please.

[Flying Orca]

Come on no more obfuscation. Just copy and past all those pesky reality stuffs you posted in my thread. It literally will take two seconds as I don't think there are any.

Oh and BTW, I did see that you posted those universally accepted definitions of liberalism, communism and socialism yet. It should be an easy task for a man of your intellect. Enlighten us please.

Look 'em up, brother. You are not worth my time; I have a boat to build.

[TANSTAF1]

Look 'em up, brother. You are not worth my time; I have a boat to build.

Then why are you on your computer posting repeatedly posting rude posts that I am ignorant?

If you can't do, just admit it. Man up!

[Flying Orca]

Then why are you on your computer posting repeatedly posting rude posts that I am ignorant?

Letting some glue set and having a cuppa if that's alright with you. As for the ignorant part, well, you're the one posting your shoes and your feet, I'm just observing that they fit.

If you can't do, just admit it. Man up!

I may just do that, since you insist, but it strikes me as pointless. I never met a RWW troll that was interested in learning, no matter his protests to the contrary, and I'm not convinced you've demonstrated the capacity let alone the genuine desire. Here's a test: have you changed your mind about using idiosyncratic definitions yet?

[Peerie Maa]

Then why are you on your computer posting repeatedly posting rude posts that I am ignorant?

ig·no·rant(gnr-nt)adj.1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Here in Cumbria we have another definition for the term "ignorant", which because you insist on libelling an academic for no real reason, applies to you. That definition is applied to someone who behaves like a total arse. Good night.

[TANSTAF1]

Letting some glue set and having a cuppa if that's alright with you. As for the ignorant part, well, you're the one posting your shoes and your feet, I'm just observing that they fit.

I may just do that, since you insist, but it strikes me as pointless. I never met a RWW troll that was interested in learning, no matter his protests to the contrary, and I'm not convinced you've demonstrated the capacity let alone the genuine desire. Here's a test: have you changed your mind about using idiosyncratic definitions yet?

You have repeatedly asserted that I am ignorant but since you don't do anything else to support your assertion I can only conclude that you can't.

I am simply asking you to list all your pesky reality stuff in my thread. The simple fact is that there is none, or rather it's only in your mind. If you look, you will (or should) see.

Why don't you deign to provide your non-idiosyncratic, universally accepted and admired definitions and put us all our of our misery? The world will stand in awe.

[Peerie Maa]

Breaking news of relevance to the OP

Miliband urges £5,000 donors' cap

Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for a £5,000 cap on donations to political parties, including those from trade unions.
He told the BBC this would remove the influence of "big money" on politics.
But Mr Miliband also said he wanted to keep the system under which union members are asked whether they want to keep paying £3 a year to Labour - around three million currently do so.
The Conservatives called Mr Miliband's proposal "virtually meaningless".
The three main political parties began talks last week on the way parties are funded, in an effort to resolve an ongoing row over the subject.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17719404

Compared to the US system http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

Top 100 donate from $899K up to $15.9 million each

[Flying Orca]

You have repeatedly asserted that I am ignorant but since you don't do anything else to support your assertion I can only conclude that you can't.

I am simply asking you to list all your pesky reality stuff in my thread. The simple fact is that there is none, or rather it's only in your mind. If you look, you will (or should) see.

Why don't you deign to provide your non-idiosyncratic, universally accepted and admired definitions and put us all our of our misery? The world will stand in awe.

Simple - you appear to be trolling, and you don't appear to be interested in learning. I'd be wasting my time. FWIW, you can start with the Wikipedia articles on the relevant topics, then proceed on to their sources if you really want to dig into things.

[Osborne Russell]

Top 100 donate from $899K up to $15.9 million each

Given the context it seems odd to speak of "donations". Five dollars is donating. $50,000 is purchasing. $500,000 is meeting payroll.

[johnw]

Given the context it seems odd to speak of "donations". Five dollars is donating. $50,000 is purchasing. $500,000 is meeting payroll.

Good one.

[Osborne Russell]

Good one.

Thanks!