Socialist, liberal, conservative - who cares?

Craven,

Perhaps that is what Frank meant? That it goes both ways. When a new person comes on and immediately calls all Liberals and Democrats idiots...with a long harranging screed, it does seem like Abuzz. Mamajuana said he/she was welcome...we do welcome new people, but I thought we were going to ATTEMPT civility on Able. ?

Whatever, CC. I grant you that we all overstate our case quite often. But, the post I just commented on was pure gold for the lampooning industry.

Not only possible and likely -- but quite likely. I post lots of contentious stuff and I sometimes get overbearing. And for certain, I am not a favorite of some posters here.

If anyone wants to call that to my attention, so be it. I would listen to what they have to say and then go on as I have been. On average, I consider myself an asset rather than a liability to a forum.

In any case, in one of the other threads -- something about Israel -- 5PoF posted some comments that were so disjointed and rambling -- it seemed they came from a different person than the person who carefully set out remarks in his/her posting here. And with the absence of personal info and being a new person, I thought I'd mention what I did.

If it was inappropriate I apologize.

I never said it was or wasn't appropriate, my point was just that many times civility is defined by political affiliation.

Both sides say the other side is "the one that started it" and that they otehr guys aren't as nice etc etc.

I wonder how long before Conservative Craven makes enemies that normal craven didn't.

I tried a similar experiment. Sofia was loaded with friends for the couple of days she didn't post a political opinion.

Political affiliation, nor opinion should change the way people view one another personally. To me, this phenomena is immature.

But it's very pervasive. I need to fight that tendency more. some of my opinions ahve been clouded by politics to some degree I'm sure.

its really very difficult for me to understand this or to put it in some sort of context but i admit that it conjures an image in my mind of the still waging of the civil war and the racial hatred of the old south. hope i am wrong.

dys--
There are skinheads and racists in every region of this country and this world. They don't seem to define the Midwest (where I think they operate more openly and have more 'installations'); why should they define the South?

I hated that hideous blue flag, and was pissed that it was strung up by Barnes. I also thought the other flag was put up for the wrong reason and needed to come down. The new flag looks alot better.

We do still have some weird stuff going on, but racial problems aren't limited to the South.

Its appearance prompted shouts of 'Sellout' and 'Stalin' from a small group of white protesters who favored a return to a 1956 flag that contained a giant rebel cross honoring the pro-slavery Confederacy.

The small group will get over it. :wink:

VNN - my fellow Eleanor Roosevelt fan - I have to agree with you. And Frank. It does seem that someone fairly new should at least look around a little before leaping into a harrangue. It would be the more civil approach.

And craven - this may be your new conservative play, but you don't sound like one yet. You still don't sound convinced of your rightness.

My opinions are not clouded by politics. Politics are a good part of my opinions. Politics enters most things. Most people define politics as being liberal, conservative, apolitical, whatever, but by that narrow definition you're just saying you're coming to the party. Political thinking embraces the study of history, of art, of philosophy, of economics.....it's all around you. That's one reason political threads are so interesting. They invariably take you down unsuspected paths.

hey mama!

interesting to see such an ill-informed, bile spitting post here by an avatar of abuzz's sailfree or masseggetto, read "5pof daddy."

and frankie the pisa is correct, the modus operendi of the poster is the same as was seen on the Buzz.

craven, thanks for the forum to discuss things, but you are young and not too experienced if you use the tripe you did in an attempt at serious discussion on the topic of taxation.

perhaps you are merely attempting to be open-minded, but least it be forgotten, those who declare that they are open-minded oft times have garbage dumped into it.

i want to be clear here with you about a graduated tax: taxes are, to paraphrase oliver wendell holmes, "the price we pay for civilization." that those with more have more to lose were civil order to vanish is obvious, as is the human tendency to want to get the most with the least amount of effort. this is what drives the wealthy to demand equality in taxation.

however, since the wealthy in a society have advantages far above those of mere wealth the methods of determining these advantages are difficult to measure and quantify, and a part of obfusticating from cogent debate these advantages the wealthy enjoy is to use rhetorical devices that blur such advantages and remove them from debate on the issue of the obligations members of a society have towards the general welfare of the society. when this is done successfully, the wealthy can point to mere sums of money that are transferred to government as their obligations met. thus they call upon fairness as the measure for equal taxation.

nice rhetoric, but specious, because it ignores the non-monetary advantages which material wealth provides. the graduated taxation of individuals recognizes these advantages, albeit, ones that are difficult to quantize. it is little wonder then that the wealthy attempt, through their media helpers to negate truthful discussion of these advantages and shape, or let us say, manufacture reality and consent in a democratic society.

focusing merely upon money misses the point because taxation is used to order and protect society from chaos, and the wealthy have more than just their money to lose in chaos. they lose also their privileges. thus they pay in taxes not just protection for their money but as well for protection of the societal privileges they enjoy which the rest do not enjoy.

if you think such privileges non-existent, consider this: no wealthy american has ever been executed by the state for a capital crime. this can not be said for those without wealth. even with non-capital crimes, the wealthy enjoy privileges the rest do not. michael milken stole nearly $2Billion dollars in his junk bond schemes back in the 1980's, surrendered to the government less than $1billion of what he stole, and served 4 years in a "white collar" federal prison with a tennis court. so, he got to keep $1billion, never had to worry in prison about being gang raped by the general population. one does not have to have read victor hugo's "les miserables" to see that such is unfair. yet i hear nary a peek from the wealthy about the issue of "fairness" in such situations.

as to the original question:

anyone's political philosophy is inextricably bound with one's world-view and that is based upon experience or at the worst that which is taugh to and learned by a person. which leads me back to Pof daddy's post.

the exposition of such ignorant non-sequiters is a typical example of opinions masked as facts which do not conform to objective reality all for the purpose of a personal agenda. while it is not new, afterall, sophism is older than christianity. but at base the manipulation of facts to present an argument is intellectually dishonest and nothing arises from using such distortion except more distortion.

crooked saplings grow into crooked trees. crooked arguments turn into crooked policies, which benefit only those who use such arguments and gain by the implimentation of subsequent policies based upon their lies and it is precisely why such arguments are used.

as to the difference between conservative and liberal: the former arises from a philosophy devoid of empathy, the latter from a philosphy derived directly from its presence.

and it has been pointed out, especially at the Nuremburg trials after WWII that evil arises when empathy is absent.

Hi, kuvasz - well, so many of are here from abuzz. One of the differences is that so many of the nuts and awful ones don't have the same audience here. They are met with too many accurate references, too many who refuse to put up with their nonsense.

I occasionally go back to abuzz to see what's happening. Sailfree has the most wonderful threads - - on of them he talks about James Zogby, head of the Arab-American Institute, hooking him up with the Zogby poll (John Zogby), and then off and running. Somethings never change - the man has remained an egocentric idiot. And poor massagatto is still searching for an applauding audience. But here I notice the more learned ones are quick to step in with correct information while remaining civil. So the spofdaddy's, whoever they are, are welcome, but certainly not any better regarded than they should be.

Hmm interesting, somehow I'm "Uninformed"...you wouldn't know Federalism if it bit you in the ass.

Everything I stated about taxation is 100% correct.

And my opinions on Federalism and how Democrats want to reduce it, Republicans want to increase it...is very well informed.

Or do you think that the government spends 2/3rds of it's money on Unconstitutional crap is because of the Republicans? Lol all those 2/3rds of the budget, were Democrat inventions...such as regulation comittees, when the government has only the power to provide for common defense and a post office and that post office's infrastructure.

Freeways pass for this, they were built with the purpose of servicing the military, but many other things do not.

Actually as my Grandma can vouch for, when they Centralized the schools is when their quality began to decline, back in the late 20s.

Centralize the Schools....I mean that the Government began to exert rights over what the schools did by giving grants and tax money to the schools.

Today it's a very large burden, as I remember, teachers would often lure us to class with treats or extra-credit points, when the federal inspectors came to see how many kids were in class to "award" money to the schools.

But then I guess you don't know that it wasn't always like that.

I suggest you try taking a test from the 1800s, you'll find it exceptionally difficult to get a 50% on it, you will fail without a doubt, the english section.

All thanks to the Democrats (hats off.)


*EDIT* If you've ever read 1984, "the destruction of words is a beautiful thing."

Two things above all else, give man "freedom"...Morality, and the language he speaks.

English is a beautiful language, capable of conveying more thought than any other, and thus, more freedom, it is no surprise the most free parts of the world are english speaking ones.

However, the Democrats in this country have done a great job at destroying both our language and morals.

What is this Ebonics crap? The epitomy of stupidity not a single person who speaks Ebonics could save Freedom if their soul depends on it which it does.

Liberal California has almost no freedom, their state government tells them what to do and they obey, the people there are sued unjustly, justice herself has fled from California as if it were the plague.

All thanks to the lack of the ability to speak, and the lack of morality.

kuvasz,

I never said a flat tax would be fair, just that the people who pay the most taxes almost always benefit from a tax cut the most, and that the tax cut (which I think is excessive and unwise) is not intended to right societal wrong but rather to spur the economy. Furthermore if the ameliorattion of the economy is the goal, the rich's taxes are just as important, if not more so, to cut as is the rest.

I don't support the tax cut, I think it is unwise to do so without a reduction in spending and serious action to address deficit.

But I don't give much play to the notion that that the tax cut will benefit the rich makes it unwise. It is a great sound byte but IMO it distracts from the fact that the cut is not meant to correct any imbalanc in the taxation of the rich vs the poor.

I think the cut is folly, but for other reasons.

Well 5P - the disjointed, unconnected, ill-informed - all of that gives you away. Plus the personal, of course. Should be fun watching you here.

Just a bit - schools come under states' rights. When they were deciding what should be federal, what not -schools went to the States.Ebonics? California? Taxation? All good subjects. Too bad the connection is so disjointed in your post.

And frankly, I'd take a refresher course in vocabulary and punctuation. Keep up the good work.

Mamajuana

You gotta cut 5P a bit of a break. Keep in mind what he said:



If he had to be lured to class, how much sense can you expect him to make?

Frank - as much as was expected and gotten on abuzz. I wonder...what kinds of treats do you suppose he's talking about? Whereve he went to school, it doesn't sound like any I attended.

"Centralize the Schools....I mean that the Government began to exert rights over what the schools did by giving grants and tax money to the schools"

When was that? Since public schools are a right of the people, they are supported indeed by taxes. Almost every community has some sort of school tax; funds for building a school or other stuff is voted upon by floating a bond; boards of education are local, voted upon by the people of the community. Private schools are funded privately, by grants; legacies, gifts, cake sales, etc. Federal grants are available at certain levels, primarily college, and involve repayment of some kind, usually in service in the field. And then, of course, you have the original land-grant colleges.

So what can 5P mean by that sentence?

I think 5P is just shooting off his/her mouth. I've been through this stuff before. If you ever get invited to a Libertarian Party meeting, I guarantee there will be at least one person there who makes the same arguments as 5P.

If invited, I will not attend.

I was being facetious, Frank. This guy can hardly ever be pinned down to meanings.