SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsActual left/right wing discussion


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: TimF who wrote (8633)11/23/2010 11:03:31 PM
From: koan
1 Recommendation   of 10074
 
Well Mr Fowler, what really makes a guy like you tick is what I want to know? That was quite a mishmash and too much to respond to. And you either misunderstood what I said, or?

So let's just take one thought and examine it. I will start with how you are misrepresenting what I said about the 64 civil rights act. I specifically said "conservative's filibustered". I did not say Republican's. That is the whole difference. You didn't know that?

It would be forgivable, but I am sure you know the truth and are using debating tricks rather than seeking the truth.

I would remind you socrates, Plato or Aristotle would never approve.

You make this statement, which would be correct if I said Democrats, but I didn't say that. I specifically said "conservatives" filibustered (dixiecrats were as hard core conservatives as the southern republicans!). The entire conservative south. Did you not notice I said conservatives?

FOWLER: "Democrats filibustered the act, Republicans voted for it with larger percentage of yes votes than from the Democratic Party, and they did so 99 years after they lead the effort that created the conditions to abolish slavery."

KOAN: The voting record below shows how you completely twisted what I said. That is the type of trick you right wingers always resort to because you cannot stand on the truth:

By party and region - the actual vote:

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
[edit] Women's rights

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: TimF who wrote (8632)11/24/2010 2:41:41 AM
From: dybdahl
   of 10074
 
Ok - let's compare conscription to having the government hire young people to care for old people. There is no doubt, that the latter creates economic activity - so, why doesn't conscription? The military spends most of its money on purchases and wages (obviously), and wages are spent everywhere, and purchases create companies.

I think you are exploring the old concept of rich = having what people want. What if they want security? Many pay money to have guards, what if they buy security together, maybe on a government level? Or do you consider security guards to be economic non-activity? ;-)

What about hairdressers or games? How much value persists from WW2 from game playing, or haircuts? Absolutely none. By your definition, the entire computer game industry must be an economic non-activity ;-) (pun intended)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: koan who wrote (8634)11/24/2010 7:22:31 AM
From: Bill
3 Recommendations   of 10074
 
why anyone would be a conservative. What is their philosophy?
The Constitution.

What is any black doing in the Republican party?
After the civil rights vote, couldn't the same be asked about the Democrat party?

Where are the conservative intellectuals?
George Will, Charles Krauthammer and a dozen other scholars are leading the conservative intellectual battle.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: koan who wrote (8634)11/24/2010 10:21:00 AM
From: TimF
2 Recommendations   of 10074
 
I specifically said "conservative's filibustered". I did not say Republican's. That is the whole difference.

Not in context there isn't. You specifically said "What is any black doing in the Republican party? The conservatives filabustered." If you didn't mention Republicans I would not have mentioned Republicans.

KOAN: The voting record below shows how you completely twisted what I said.

No that voting record is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I twisted what you said. And in fact I did no such thing. Whether you where being unintentionally sloppy or you where not debating in good faith, I don't know, but you made a statement about how black people shouldn't support Republicans based on votes that where largely Democratic. I called you on it.

and too much to respond to

I responded to the points you made, I see you can't defend most of them.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: dybdahl who wrote (8635)11/24/2010 10:35:43 AM
From: TimF
   of 10074
 
Ok - let's compare conscription to having the government hire young people to care for old people. There is no doubt, that the latter creates economic activity - so, why doesn't conscription?

If you pay people to dig holes and pay other people to fill them in, it "creates economic activity". That doesn't mean its a good idea, even narrowly in economic terms. Turning briefly to points outside of economics, conscription is forced labor and so an injustice, a best a necessary evil. Returning to the point of the discussion, conscription in economic terms is using force to get resources for below the market cost, thus distorting the allocation of those resources. It also pulls people from productive work elsewhere, for work that is largely not productive. To the extent it deters a war, or wins a war that you had no good way to avoid, it helps avoid a greater loss, so it is useful, but that's because of the military or diplomatic results of having a sufficiently sized military force, not because of any direct effect of conscription. If there was no actual threat, not just no currently visible threat, but no hidden or long term threat, than having a military would be a net negative. It would produce gross benefits. Specific people would benefit from military related jobs or contracts. The military, as a disciplined, trained, large, organized, and equipped group of people could be used for disaster relief, or other useful purposes. But the cost would be higher than the benefit, esp. if your filling the slots in the military by using conscription (and so imposing a cost on the unwilling soldiers, expanding the intrusiveness of government to support the conscription process, and possibly pulling people in to the military regardless of their non-military opportunities).

What about hairdressers or games? How much value persists from WW2 from game playing, or haircuts? Absolutely none. By your definition, the entire computer game industry must be an economic non-activity ;-)

Not my definition.

Haircuts and games meet real demand. People want them and are willing to pay for them without being forced to do so. That's value.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (8638)11/24/2010 11:04:28 AM
From: dybdahl
   of 10074
 
If you only allocate resources based on what buyers are willing to pay, resources will be incorrectly assigned to defence, environmental protection etc.

Your statement, that conscription leads to incorrect assignment of resources is something that is very hard, or almost impossible to prove. If a citizen wants resources allocated that way, he cannot buy it, thus there is no price... and since there is no price, any model that includes pricing will not be able to assign resources as desired by that citizen. This also applies if all citizens of a country agree on that. So, we have a real demand, and a market model cannot deliver the desired product.

You are assuming that everything can be bought, which is obviously wrong, and that people buy what they need, which is also definitely wrong. You cannot build a society solely based on market economy, you also need morale, altruism, standards and culture. If we did not help our children and others altruistically, society would quickly turn ugly.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Bill who wrote (8636)11/24/2010 11:56:30 AM
From: koan
   of 10074
 
<<why anyone would be a conservative. What is their philosophy?
The Constitution.>>

The constitution is open to many interpretations. That is why the supreme court votes 5/4 so often. It was also written at the very beginning of mankinds experimentation with democracy. A republic if you prefer. Same thing.

The constitution was established as an organic document. Something liberals understand well, but conservatives seem to have no sense of?

Now the conservatives don't like to look at that part. The constituion originally allowed slavery and denied women the right to vote.

Should we go back to slavery and denying women the right to vote ? And does that not show the constitution is a work in progress.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: koan who wrote (8640)11/24/2010 12:01:15 PM
From: Bill
5 Recommendations   of 10074
 
There is an Amendment process inherent in the Constitution. The Republican 'philosophy' is to support constitutional amendments over court invented interpretations.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (8637)11/24/2010 12:19:14 PM
From: koan
   of 10074
 
KOAN: This is what I said: "What is any black doing in the Republican party? The conservatives filabustered the 64 civil rights act for 54 days to prevent its passage..>>

Fowler:"Not in context there isn't. You specifically said "What is any black doing in the Republican party? The conservatives filabustered." If you didn't mention Republicans I would not have mentioned Republicans.>>

The 64 civil rights act was essentially the north voting for it and the south (overwhelmingly conservatives of both parties) doing everything in their power to stop integration and filibustering it for 54 days.

This vote did not go unnoticed by the African American. Blacks vote for dems because they know the liberals have always been their friends and allies.

You know that, but are twisting things again. Everyone, except you I guess, knows the Republican party is the conservative party today and the democratic party is the party of liberals.

And the simple fact is that African Americans vote over 90% dem in every election because they know the conservatives are their enemies and the liberals (dems) are their friends.

When a culture has been beaten down for 400 years they sure as hell know who their friends and enemies are.

YOu IMPLIED THE TRUTH WAS SOMETHING EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE by saying Republicans voted for the 64 civil rights act. Yeah liberal northern republicans. And dems tried to stop it. Yeah Dixiecrats.

Now I will watch how you twist this one. Why don't you just concentrate on the truth? Isn't that a better way to live your life?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Bill who wrote (8641)11/24/2010 12:30:48 PM
From: koan
1 Recommendation   of 10074
 
<<There is an Amendment process inherent in the Constitution. The Republican 'philosophy' is to support constitutional amendments over court invented interpretations>>

That is a myth. You use whatever you have to get waht you want. States rights to stop integration, but a federal mandate to stop abortion. What happened to states rights?

Your sociopathic right wing supreme court just overturned 100 years of settled law in the citizens United decision by giving corporations the rights of individuals.

This decision has dealt a huge blow to our democracy and freedom

You right wingers talk about the danger of big government, but never talk about the danger of large corporations.

That is ass backwards. We can vote a large government out anytime we want. But we have no power to challenge large corporations who have been pissing on our heads e.g. goldman Sachs. You cannot touch goldman Sachs. They can do whatever they want to us. And they do!

The very rich and large corporations are using the right wing to gain power and turn this coutnry into a plutocracy.

And the rich have no respect for you all. They are just using you.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10