My Beliefs revisited

@Finn dAbuzz,

It seems like you don't see any difference between "Tea Party" and "conservative".

I have friends who are conservatives. I disagree with them. But they are reasonable, logical. And there are many times that I can find common ground with them.

This is very different to the people who are shutting down the government, claiming that Mexican college students are drug runners with cantaloupe thighs and hijacking veterans groups to attack the president. You would like to think that this is some fringe group... but these are people with the power to block legislation and threaten the world economy.

The people running the House of Representatives right now are batshit crazy. Listen carefully, I am not saying that all conservatives are batshit crazy...

But, the Tea Party antics and rhetoric go far beyond the norm. If an radical liberal group ever pulled this kind of crazy crap, I guarantee that I would not be defending them.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You, obviously, subscribe to there being a negative connotation to reactionary,
and in fact you are right, progressives have a very negative reaction to the word.

I challenge u on that point, Find Abuzz.
I am a progressive, in that I exhort progress toward progressively
curtailing n reducing the size and jurisdiction of government,
but I imbue a very nice connotation onto re-establishment of the status quo ante.

David

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

A tour de force in setting up and knocking down straw men--i expect no less from you. A return to the status quo ante would mean no unemployment insurance, no workers' compensation, no disability insurance, no social security, no floor on wages and no ceiling on hours. More than that, a return to the status quo ante would mean the criminalization of homosexuality, the criminalization of so-called interracial marriage, no franchise for women, no franchise for blacks or Indians, even a return to slavery.

If you think those are positive things, i wouldn't really be all that surprised.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I believe in:

6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

and him

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Silicon_sphere_for_Avogadro_project.jpg

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Or, for those of you who don't believe in chemistry (for the second item above)

Heres the exciting factoid

Quote:

Fabrication of a Silicon Sphere

By definition, an Avogadro number of Carbon-12 atoms weigh exactly 12 grams. As such, the kilogram could bedefined as the mass of 1000/12 * Avogadro's number of Carbon-12 atoms. The Avogadro constant itself is obtained from the ratio of the molar mass to the mass of an atom. For a crystalline structure such as silicon, the atomic volume is obtained from the lattice parameter and the number of atoms per unit cell. The atomic mass is then the product of the volume and density.

0 Replies

By the way, as a general observation to throw out here--not just for that snide, sneering, hateful son of a bitch Finn, but for Mystery Man more than anyone else in this thread, because i respect him, although i doubt that we agree on much.

Comments about entitlement programs, as well as comments about getting to keep what one works for both suffer from incomplete or slanted views of reality. Many corporations seem to think that they are entitled to make obscene amounts of money out of government contracts, often with larcenous provisions. Many investors seem to think that they are entitled to buy farm land and do nothing with it, simply so that they can get payments under the land bank programs. There are are many, many other corporate or investor entitlement programs which cost the taxpayers--it's not just so-called welfare queens and deadbeats who suck at the public teat.

Getting to keep what you earn does sound an awful lot like sloganeering rather than considered thought--Joe has a good point with that observation. If you are not taxed (i doubt that you're rich enough to get away with that, though), who pays for infrastructure, such as roads and bridges? Who pays for your children's or grandchildren's education? Who pays for the police, the emergency medical technicians and the firemen? Do you seriously think that you could go out and earn a decent living if there were no one maintaining roads and bridges? Do you think either your place of employment or your home would be safe without the police or the fire department? Most Americans live in cities--volunteer fire departments and town council constables are no reasonable alternatives to their public safety requirements.

In fact, the people least likely to pay a large amount of their income in taxes are the wealthy. If you go out and earn a wage, in almost all situations except for those poor souls trying to live on minimum wage, you will be paying a higher percentage of your income in taxes than those who derive their income from investments. The capital gains tax is just 15%--wouldn't it be nice if you could make hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars a year, and pay just 15%--never mind the deductions a savvy tax lawyer can dig up for you. Can you afford to have your taxes done by a specialist lawyer?

The wealthy of this country own the government, lock, stock and barrel. Maybe that's OK with you, but it basically means that wage earners pay most of the cost of the government doing its business--the wealthy are just along for the ride. Think about that the next time you feel inclined to vote for someone promising big tax cuts.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Since Christians were here before other faiths, and in greater numbers, Christians might have first choice as to their manner of celebrating a holiday, with or without a public display of Christmas symbols.

So clueless, it's funny.

(I have European ancestors who lived in what is now Massachusetts in the 1600s. Ironically, although they were Christians, they considered that celebrating Christmas was a sin against God.)

But, am I correct that they are not complaining about the Christmas symbols, as atheists do. I suspect that the majority of those early Protestant/Calvinist colonials collectively decided to accept that "Popish" holiday called Christmas, so the industrial revolution could have (Catholic) immigrants on the assemby lines, or doing manual labor in the urban centers. It was a win-win decision, in my opinion. Plus, the Protestants could raise themselves to a "managerial class."

Today, since Christmas has become a national holiday that seems to be more involved with shopping and feasting, I think Christmas is more like a fever that has a crescendo on December 25, and then slowly the fever subsides, with a short recurrence on December 31. The collective patient is left tired, and worn out on January 1. As an observer, it seems like mass self-torture, since there is so much stress, based on having to deal with family that one might not like, or trying to make any children's enjoyment, at least as good as one remembers their own Christmas as children. All this tumult over the birth of a Jewish baby. Who knew?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The wealthy of this country own the government, lock, stock and barrel. Maybe that's OK with you, but it basically means that wage earners pay most of the cost of the government doing its business--the wealthy are just along for the ride. Think about that the next time you feel inclined to vote for someone promising big tax cuts.

Taxing the wage earner might then be the cost of a ticket to have a seat on the train called Latecomer Regional? It all comes down to the false belief, in my opinion, that anyone that came here is supposed to have what the early birds got. All the land in Europe is often owned by families that owned it since the Renaissance. Try buying a house in Rome, for example. Why should the U.S. be any different, or rather why should the latecomers (post 1850 arrivals) be afforded the same opportunity of the early birds? Sounds to me like all the heavy lifting, so to speak, of the early birds would then be for naught? I do understand that many families today, whose ancestors were latecomers, or early birds that were profligate with their two century lead, might begrudge those who have now. I think in the old street vernacular it is called "sour grapes."

In effect, it can also be seen that the marginal haves, that are taxed, are just going along for the ride of the wealthy (not that the wealthy are going along for the ride of the marginal haves - marginal haves, by definition, cannot take anyone along for any ride, they being just descended from poor folk), since the wealthy did not have to allow their ancestors into the country, except for the express purpose of doing a day's work, and being taxed. No one ever promised them any rose gardens?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

You apparently missed the fact that there were people living here, with their own religion, for thousands of years before the Christians came.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Your an arrogant jerk. Your aristocratic views fly in the face of 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'. I assume to you 'people' only includes wealthy landowners.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I believe capitalism is a positive force on the planet, not a repressive, ugly one.

I believe capitalism is neither absolutely good nor absolutely bad.

Conservative reasoning tends to be pretty black and white, doesn't it?

I believe that as far as conservatives at a2k are concerned, hawkeye10 is the only one who really, truly believes in shades of grey.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I need to remember not to bounce off any of your posts as your paranoia is quite fierce. The only thing I suggested was your view was that "reactionary" has a negative connotation. Do you dispute this?

The rest of what I wrote wasn't directed towards you so your incessant straw-man charge is, once again, hollow.

As for returning to the status quo ante, that was featured in a definition which I consider to be the most neutral and not necessarily accurate.

If you had bothered to read what I wrote rather than burning through it with "that snide son-of-a-bitch finn" stoking your anger, you would have foud the following:

If someone can find me a person who believes that not only is all change bad or that society in all of its ways and means should be returned to a state sometime in the 1800s, I would be interested.

I would be equally interested in finding someone who actually believes that every change is positive and that no tradition has any value at all.

It is foolish therefore to consider anyone (other than possibly the insane) residing on either end of the spectrum, let alone large groups of them.

I know you're not incapable of understanding this means that I do not believe there are many, if any, who adhere to the absolute extreme's of the spectrum, and a belief that there is belongs to a fool.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It seems like you don't see any difference between "Tea Party" and "conservative".

I have friends who are conservatives. I disagree with them. But they are reasonable, logical. And there are many times that I can find common ground with them.

This is very different to the people who are shutting down the government, claiming that Mexican college students are drug runners with cantaloupe thighs and hijacking veterans groups to attack the president. You would like to think that this is some fringe group... but these are people with the power to block legislation and threaten the world economy.

The people running the House of Representatives right now are batshit crazy. Listen carefully, I am not saying that all conservatives are batshit crazy...

But, the Tea Party antics and rhetoric go far beyond the norm. If an radical liberal group ever pulled this kind of crazy crap, I guarantee that I would not be defending them.

You're right, I don't.

First of all there is no "Tea Party." There are political opportunists who have tried to adopt the image of the leader of the Tea Party movement, but the only people I know who believe this nonsense are progressives.

I have no idea who your "conservative" friends are, and so I have no idea whether or not I would consider them conservative. They may be, and then they may be what I would consider moderates leaning to the right.

I have many "Tea Party" friends, and none of them shut down the government. As for the rest of your fevered charges, who is doing what you allege?

You see isolated pictures of signs that miscreants have carried at Tea Party rallies and you extrapolate that everyone in the Tea Party movement is a racist. I am quite sure that I have been to far more of these gathering than have you and I know that not only are they far, far more the exception than the rule, but that they are always subjected to criticism by the majority. But then you know more about the Tea Party than me, and I'm a lying tea-bagger.

The leadership of the House Republicans, to my knowledge, haven't even claimed to be, simultaneously, leaders of the Tea Party (whatever that means), and even if we accept the grossly hyperbolic claim that Republicans who used the Government shut-down as a bargaining chip are "bat-**** crazy," the leadership did not.

In anticipation of an argument that the Republican Leadership is not running the House...bullshit. How did the showdown end? The way you think the crazy tea-baggers wanted?

The very brief "government shut-down," despite the caterwauling of the Left was, except in a political sense, a non-event. My bet is that not only did most American not feel it even ripple through their lives, they didn't know it happened.

As for default, that was never going to happen, and, obviously, it didn't.

This was a political game of chicken with some Republicans betting that the President and the Democrats would blink first. They didn't and the debt ceiling was raised. Funny, but I don't think I've seen any progressives charging Democrats with playing politics with the full faith and credit of the US. No, folks like you think they were courageous defenders of democracy.

Guess what, a lot of people thought the other side was too, but then they are bat-**** crazy while you are a logical patriot who just can't fathom the insanity of the other side.

The Democrats did pull this "crazy crap." They refused to allow Republicans to create exceptions to the shut-down that would ease its pain for a great many people. Progressives throughout the nation were cheering the Democrats on. "Don't give in to their blackmail!" I doubt that too many of them were actually experiencing shut-down pain.

I think the entire political play was ill conceived and counter-productive, but I never, for a second, believed that the country would default, and lo and behold, it didn't. Those bat-**** crazy nuts blinked. How could that be? Bat-**** crazies don't back off of their bat-**** crazy plans, they drive them into flames and destruction.

How magnificent is Obama and the Democrats, they caused bat-**** crazy fanatics to blink.

You are a dupe (perhaps willingly; perhaps not) to the Democratic game plan.

The minute the term Tea Party was coined, the MSM (propaganda arm of the Democrat Party) was ridiculing and demonizing those who were participating in the movement: Anderson Cooper with his snide "tea-bagger" comment. (Takes one to know one Coop), and Susan Roesgen not reporting on a Tea Party rally, but confronting its participants.

I'm wagering that you can't identify an example of this sort of egregious journalistic malfeasance at Fox News.

This is how the Democrats play these days: Scream about a Republican sleaze machine and then search and destroy any possibly popular conservative personality, even if it is a plumber in Ohio.

It's working though and you are a perfect example of how it is.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Those bat-**** crazy nuts blinked. How could that be? Bat-**** crazies don't back off of their bat-**** crazy plans, they drive them into flames and destruction.

How magnificent is Obama and the Democrats, they caused bat-**** crazy fanatics to blink.

No Finn.

1. The bat-**** crazy fanatics didn't blink. Over half of the Republicans, 144 of them, voted to push the economy over the cliff. It took the the Democrats to pull us back from the brink, with tepid support from the less crazy of the Republicans.

You can bet that the Tea Party crazy will punish those Republicans who voted to stop the default.

Ted Cruz is still spouting off about it.

Quote:

You see isolated pictures of signs that miscreants have carried at Tea Party rallies and you extrapolate that everyone in the Tea Party movement is a racist.

2. The person who made the "cantaloupe thigh" comment about Mexican college students was Steve King. He is not a random guy, he is an elected congressman who represents Tea Party constituents. There are dozens of equally offensive quotes about Mexicans (and African-American and Muslims) being made by prominent Tea Party figures.

3. The people who hijacked a veteran's group protest to attack President Obama included Ted Cruz, and Loiue Gohmert... two elected officials.

This is extreme behavior, well beyond what most Americans would consider normal behavior, that is being committed by elected officials in the the name of the Tea Party.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Those bat-**** crazy nuts blinked. How could that be? Bat-**** crazies don't back off of their bat-**** crazy plans, they drive them into flames and destruction.

How magnificent is Obama and the Democrats, they caused bat-**** crazy fanatics to blink.

No Finn.

1. The bat-**** crazy fanatics didn't blink. Over half of the Republicans, 144 of them, voted to push the economy over the cliff. It took the the Democrats to pull us back from the brink, with tepid support from the less crazy of the Republicans.

Do I really have to explain to you how, and how often, professed zealots get to press on when they know they won't prevail and there will be no down side? You really are a political innocent.

You can bet that the Tea Party crazy will punish those Republicans who voted to stop the default.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll see. You seem to have an assessment of Tea Party influence than is much greater than mine.

Ted Cruz is still spouting off about it.

So what? Ted Cruz is not the leader of the Tea Party nor the Tea Party personified. If you want to castigate him, be my guest, but stop projecting him as the Tea Party.

Quote:
You see isolated pictures of signs that miscreants have carried at Tea Party rallies and you extrapolate that everyone in the Tea Party movement is a racist.

2. The person who made the "cantaloupe thigh" comment about Mexican college students was Steve King. He is not a random guy, he is an elected congressman who represents Tea Party constituents. There are dozens of equally offensive quotes about Mexicans (and African-American and Muslims) being made by prominent Tea Party figures.

One comment from one person and therefore anyone who voted for him and everyone identifying with the Tea Party is guilty. Really?

Dozens? Let's see them.

3. The people who hijacked a veteran's group protest to attack President Obama included Ted Cruz, and Loiue Gohmert... two elected officials.

This is extreme behavior, well beyond what most Americans would consider normal behavior, that is being committed by elected officials in the the name of the Tea Party.

Aside from the fact that you've offered no proof what-so-ever that Cruz and Gohmert are guilty as charged, it is a leap of prejudice to assume that anyone who voted for them, and anyone who identifies themselves in terms of the Tea Party is OK with it.

However you choose, at this moment, to identify yourself, are you comfortable with the notion that someone who acts in the name of your affiliated group damns you?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

BTW - It's clear that you dodged points that you found troublesome.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

In fact, the people least likely to pay a large amount of their income in taxes are the wealthy. If you go out and earn a wage, in almost all situations except for those poor souls trying to live on minimum wage, you will be paying a higher percentage of your income in taxes than those who derive their income from investments.

I don't get the "tax as a punishment" idea.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

There were a lot of points there... I answered the ones that interested me. Pick the two points you think were most "troublesome" and I will be happy to address them for you.

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

Your aristocratic views fly in the face of 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'.

Those aren't aristocratic views Foofie holds, Frank. They are pander to the rich and powerful and suck them as hard they wish so that they don't come down on Jews like me.

Quote:

'of the people, by the people, and for the people'

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

BTW - It's clear that you dodged points that you found troublesome.

That is so unlike you and your fellow Americans, Finn, that I have an extremely difficult time believing it's true. One has to wonder how you could even raise such a point.

1 Reply

My Beliefs revisited

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know