Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fateweaver wrote:You told me to present counters as to why I don't like the President/Lefties like Frazz does.

Actually that wasn't what Polonius said. In essence he enunciated that you have become TFG in regards to this field and a broken record. You elucidate your repeating arguments in such a poor manner that people that might agree with you don't want to be associated with it.

Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps I should apologize for acting on my 1st Amendment Rights and apologize for making comments about our new Savior.....err President.

Here is an example. This sad bit of comparisons is way past its due date. If you want to try and be insulting to your President, at least come up with something original.

Also, if you want to go around swinging the First Amendment club you might want to learn more about what it does and does not do.

Polonius wrote:Oh, come off it.

My point was, you sound like a bitter, angry loon. You're not attracting anybody to your cause with your constant diatribes and comments, only making yourself look more obsessed.

Oh, and the passive aggressive victimization? Just makes you look like a loser.

Does anybody else at the adult table feel like trying to explain to Fateweaver that I'm actually trying to help him?

Polonius wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:My panic button is broken. I been pushing it daily since the day Obama took office.

I have serious, albeit OT question: what purpose do you think there is posting stuff like this? Because I think by now we all know your feelings on politics. My point is, don't you at some point risk being the guy in the room shouting stuff that nobody feels comfortable agreeing with because he's so unlikeable? This is where Polonius is telling you that no one cares about your statement. You say the same thing over and over and don't contribute. You could make a better point if you actually had one...

You can at least learn from Frazz. Whenever anybody says anything good about the left, or bad about the right, he has a specific counter example of something the left screwed up to post.

Some useful advice. He means this for example:
Frazzled wrote:Is this before or after the government committed UTTER FAIL in getting the vaccine out?
dogma wrote: You mean the vaccine that didn't exist because the private companies which were paid to manufacture it overestimated their ability to do so?

Honestly though I think I have to agree. For me its the religious right that is killing the republican party... not all religious people... but the extreme ones...

I hate to see the ones that walk down the street like this..


Mind you both sides have these loons... but the conservative side is a bit more obvious

Took a while... found a crazy liberal : )

Fine, I'll shut up about Hussein since everyone knows what I think of him.

Obama is epic fail. Don't agree with me, fine. Doesn't change my opinion on the guy or my opinion on those who think he is the new Savior.

Goodbye.

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
Go refill your dixie cup with THE kool-aid Polonius.

Why is it that anyone who considers your posts to be irrational must be drinking the kool-aid?

More importantly, why does everyone diss Kool-aid. 4 parts Kool Aid powder to 1 part water, mixed in mouth equals visions of the Universe baby! (cue Inagadadavida music)

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
Go refill your dixie cup with THE kool-aid Polonius.

Why is it that anyone who considers your posts to be irrational must be drinking the kool-aid?

More importantly, why does everyone diss Kool-aid. 4 parts Kool Aid powder to 1 part water, mixed in mouth equals visions of the Universe baby! (cue Inagadadavida music)

Add Vodka and 40k for a good evening

I don't really think the religious right is killing the Republican Party. If anything they're on the outs in terms of voting power. After the Bush Administration basically gave them the finger through a lot of directed rhetoric, but little in the way of actual action, many people (especially young people) within that demographic have started to move away from politics as their preferred agent of change.

Sure most of them will still probably vote Republican, but that party as a whole is no longer going to be required to tow an overtly Christian line. No, I think what's killing the Republican party is the misguided dedication to an idea of 'free enterprise' which has nothing to do with what free enterprise actually is. I'm not sure if that's the result of poor educational standards (across the board, liberals and conservatives, as both sides are ignorant in this regard), anti-government culture, or trust through branding. Probably a little bit of all three, and a couple more I haven't thought of yet.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
Go refill your dixie cup with THE kool-aid Polonius.

Why is it that anyone who considers your posts to be irrational must be drinking the kool-aid?

More importantly, why does everyone diss Kool-aid. 4 parts Kool Aid powder to 1 part water, mixed in mouth equals visions of the Universe baby! (cue Inagadadavida music)

Add Vodka and 40k for a good evening

Forget the 40K just add Vodka baby.

Frazzled wrote:
More importantly, why does everyone diss Kool-aid. 4 parts Kool Aid powder to 1 part water, mixed in mouth equals visions of the Universe baby! (cue Inagadadavida music)

Dogma knows. Dogma understands.

Fateweaver wrote:Fine, I'll shut up about Hussein since everyone knows what I think of him.

Obama is epic fail. Don't agree with me, fine. Doesn't change my opinion on the guy or my opinion on those who think he is the new Savior.

Goodbye.

Speaking of epic fails, you still are letting the point fly right on past you. It isn't your opinion that is the problem, but your lack of ability to articulate it in a meaningful way that is the problem.

Fine, I'll shut up about Hussein since everyone knows what I think of him.

Ah. So THAT's why you don't like him.

dogma wrote:No, I think what's killing the Republican party is the misguided dedication to an idea of 'free enterprise' which has nothing to do with what free enterprise actually is. I'm not sure if that's the result of poor educational standards (across the board, liberals and conservatives, as both sides are ignorant in this regard), anti-government culture, or trust through branding. Probably a little bit of all three, and a couple more I haven't thought of yet.

Could extrapolate on your opinions about actual free enterprise and what people mistake for free enterprise?

I'm all curious now.

Albatross wrote:

Fine, I'll shut up about Hussein since everyone knows what I think of him.

Ah. So THAT's why you don't like him.

Fastest gun in the west...




Mighty fine day isn't it? Mighty fine day to die... mighty fine.

I know Polonius already gave this a try but hope springs eternal...

Fateweaver wrote:Fine, I'll shut up about Hussein since everyone knows what I think of him.

Obama is epic fail. Don't agree with me, fine. Doesn't change my opinion on the guy or my opinion on those who think he is the new Savior.

Goodbye.

Politics is a complex thing, with many individual views and values being merged to try and form systems and initiatives that have general support. Where people must balance political realities against personal values, where issues must be prioritised and even dropped, and where people might find themselves supporting a cause they don't believe in just to ensure support for the things that really matter to them. Where ideology must be constantly measured against the real world to ensure things are actually working. It's a game with hundreds of years of history, with new players entering every day.

While all that's going on you're standing off in the distance yelling 'Obama is a poopyhead'. You've taken a horrendously simplistic position and taken it to the point of parody, and as a result no-one takes you seriously. Nor should they, you've put yourself in a mindset where useful observation is impossible, where you filter news events for 'can be contrived as an attack against Obama therefore repeat regardless of the actual topic' and 'cannot be contrived as an attack against Obama therefore ignore'.

You've joined the ranks of the politics warriors. They exist for Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Larouchites and every other identifiable faction, and none of them contribute anything useful to the debate.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Could extrapolate on your opinions about actual free enterprise and what people mistake for free enterprise?

I'm all curious now.

In my experience 'free enterprise' has become a byword for the absence of government intervention in the economy. Its something of a semantic substitute for 'true', or unregulated, capitalism; terms which draw respective criticism from 'No True Scotsman' and nationalism.

The reality is that free enterprise is something which results from a well regulated capitalist market, which features time at labor as a fundamental commodity. The latter condition being the vehicle by which the underprivileged are able to develop the necessary capital/credit to take on a larger role in the overall economic system. Its a system which can't be balanced by market forces alone, as its necessarily dependent on the presence of supportive nation-state which is willing to maintain the conditions necessary for extended periods of growth.

I'm not sure that historically there has ever been a completely unregulated market in a developed country.

Examples of government regulation range from the tithing systems of ancient Sumeria and Incan Empire, to the 14th century market laws, the 15th century Rheinheitsgebot, the 19th century regulation of the UK railway industry, to modern consumer law.

Of course you can look on all that as unwarranted government interference in private business.

On the other side, the past year or so have seen a high degree of government support for the banking, insurance and car industries. You can also look on that as unwarranted government interference. None of the leaders of those industries complained about the handouts and loans they got.

dogma wrote:In my experience 'free enterprise' has become a byword for the absence of government intervention in the economy.

I wasn't aware of another meaning.

Its something of a semantic substitute for 'true', or unregulated, capitalism; terms which draw respective criticism from 'No True Scotsman' and nationalism.

I sort of follow you on the first one, not so much on the second.

The reality is that free enterprise is something which results from a well regulated capitalist market, which features time at labor as a fundamental commodity. The latter condition being the vehicle by which the underprivileged are able to develop the necessary capital/credit to take on a larger role in the overall economic system. Its a system which can't be balanced by market forces alone, as its necessarily dependent on the presence of supportive nation-state which is willing to maintain the conditions necessary for extended periods of growth.

And once again, I've never heard it used this way.

Are you just considering "free enterprise" to be whatever you think the best level of economic control is?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Are you just considering "free enterprise" to be whatever you think the best level of economic control is?

Economists don't talk about unregulated markets. They're not possible and they don't want them anyway. Economists talk about perfect markets, with perfect information, equal ability to produce, perfect competition, and no barriers to entry or exit.

To achieve this, or something like this, strong regulation is needed (or information will be hoarded and used to exploit markets, one party will quickly become dominant and manipulate prices to their advantage and so on). The closest markets we have share markets and they're full of government regulation.

This isn't to say government regulation is good per se, but that to get the most efficient markets possible we will need some level of regulation, and that this regulation will have to be better and more substantial than the regulation currently in place.

Orkeosaurus wrote:...not so much on the second.

If capitalism is to exist in a world of nation-states it will always be subservient to national integrity; meaning that given the choice between the two, the state will act in its own self-interest rather than the interest of the system.

I'd also add that capitalism can only exist in a world of nation-states (or a world with some form of regulatory body), but that isn't necessary for clarification.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
And once again, I've never heard it used this way.

Are you just considering "free enterprise" to be whatever you think the best level of economic control is?

Sort of. Free enterprise is what you get as a result of a having a well regulated, capitalist economy. Simply pulling the government out of the matter altogether accomplishes nothing, so the association of free enterprise and a lack of regulation is a poor one.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not sure that historically there has ever been a completely unregulated market in a developed country.

Examples of government regulation range from the tithing systems of ancient Sumeria and Incan Empire, to the 14th century market laws, the 15th century Rheinheitsgebot, the 19th century regulation of the UK railway industry, to modern consumer law.

Of course you can look on all that as unwarranted government interference in private business.

On the other side, the past year or so have seen a high degree of government support for the banking, insurance and car industries. You can also look on that as unwarranted government interference. None of the leaders of those industries complained about the handouts and loans they got.

I'd agree there. But there's a spectrum isn't there.

Hong Kong was pretty unrelegated. Nice juicy low tax rates and accelerated depreciation for domestic investment. Now I see ads for investment in Macedonia. Very cool.

You as a conservative define un-regulation partly as low tax rates.

However, the success of Hong Kong was also based on the rule of law maintained by the British colonial administration, which provided property rights, contract law, reduction of bribery and corruption, standard weights and measures, and so on.

I've no idea what Macedonia is like. Russia was touted as a great place to invest and look what's happened to Shell.

Kilkrazy wrote:You as a conservative define un-regulation partly as low tax rates.

However, the success of Hong Kong was also based on the rule of law maintained by the British colonial administration, which provided property rights, contract law, reduction of bribery and corruption, standard weights and measures, and so on.

I've no idea what Macedonia is like. Russia was touted as a great place to invest and look what's happened to Shell.

Pragmatic libertarian actually. I was just pointing out the low tax rates in addition. I did a study on corporate tax rates and depreciation methods, as incentives for growth in developing countries back in the day. in addition to like, no corporate regulations in comparison to other ocountries, many of these dragons had, and still have, brilliantly low tax rates in comparison to USA.

The Macedonian thing is interesting. They sound like Singapore commercials 20 years ago.

Tidbit the original Royal Dutch Shell invented tankers to buy oil from Russia and what was then Turkey. Excellent.

Kilkrazy wrote:

However, the success of Hong Kong was also based on the rule of law maintained by the British colonial administration, which provided property rights, contract law, reduction of bribery and corruption, standard weights and measures, and so on..

strict gun control laws too....

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You as a conservative define un-regulation partly as low tax rates.

However, the success of Hong Kong was also based on the rule of law maintained by the British colonial administration, which provided property rights, contract law, reduction of bribery and corruption, standard weights and measures, and so on.

I've no idea what Macedonia is like. Russia was touted as a great place to invest and look what's happened to Shell.

Pragmatic libertarian actually. I was just pointing out the low tax rates in addition. I did a study on corporate tax rates and depreciation methods, as incentives for growth in developing countries back in the day. in addition to like, no corporate regulations in comparison to other ocountries, many of these dragons had, and still have, brilliantly low tax rates in comparison to USA.

...

Yes, that is quite true.

A lot of the tigers also have or had tariff or quota systems to protect growing, lots of government interference/assistance/funding in growing industries and in some cases foreign aid of some kind. When these factors wane, the tiger's performance tends to decline.

At the moment there is a big movement to grow the video games industry in Canada, and it is largely based on generous tax breaks by the Montreal government.

What's going to happen when the tax breaks are ended?

They'll go back to smoking galloise cigarettes and refusing to speak English?
EDIT: want to actually get an emotional response from a Canadian? Ask him about hockey, Tim Hortons, or Quebec.

dogma wrote:Sort of. Free enterprise is what you get as a result of a having a well regulated, capitalist economy. Simply pulling the government out of the matter altogether accomplishes nothing, so the association of free enterprise and a lack of regulation is a poor one.

To be honest, it sounds like you're defining a word to be what you want it to be and calling other people ignorant for not having changed their definition of it as well.

I don't see why 'free' = 'efficient', or 'successful', or 'ideal', or anything besides 'unconstrained by policy' in this case.

I despise the partisan environment thats existing in the US of A. Especially the conservatives/GOP: "YOU LIE", "the great white hope", death panels, Sarah Palin, discriminating openly against gays/minorities, birthers, Faux News, Glenn Beck, etc.

I despise 'em because they take complex issues like healthcare and dumb it down to an extent where you're not with 'em you're against America. The left/Dems really don't have an equivalent to how the conservatives act...mainly because such tactics probably are ineffective to people who aren't loud and uneducated. To mostly the GOP; everything boils down to red versus blue and if you're not rooting for your team then GTFO - not all that different from how sports fans behave which is fine for a sport but not an arena like politics.

Not only that but I also despise when religion plays a large role in a politician's decision making and that normally goes in hand in hand what with whom the OP is talking about.

And even more disgusting than all that and this deals with politicians in general is the amount of lobbying and overt corruption that goes on and literally nothing substantial can be done about it.

People complain about 40k rules and how it could be better, and do so with a lot of vigor and passion on forums anyway; but we don't get this kind of attitude towards the game of politics which needed a revamp decades ago.

Ranting rant over.

Cane wrote:I despise the partisan environment thats existing in the US of A. Especially the conservatives/GOP: "YOU LIE", "the great white hope", death panels, Sarah Palin, discriminating openly against gays/minorities, birthers, Faux News, Glenn Beck, etc.

I despise 'em because they take complex issues like healthcare and dumb it down to an extent where you're not with 'em you're against America. The left/Dems really don't have an equivalent to how the conservatives act...mainly because such tactics probably are ineffective to people who aren't loud and uneducated. To mostly the GOP; everything boils down to red versus blue and if you're not rooting for your team then GTFO - not all that different from how sports fans behave which is fine for a sport but not an arena like politics.

You mean other than sitting around sighing tht no one wacked Bush right? Right?
Bet you're not a happy camper today (tee hee)