Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

Alan,
I'll address your quote marks question for now. On the bar at the top of the "Quick Reply" box the extreme right symbol is what looks like a cartoon text baloon (it's a bit inboard on the Advanced Reply). With the text highlighted click that baloon and it will install the "Quotes" lingo. Another point - if you want to acknowledge who the originator was go inside the brackets, and where it says "[QUOTE]" make it "[QUOTE=(screen name)]" - for example, "[QUOTE=rspears]" for something I might have posted. Here's an example:

Originally Posted by rspears

BTW, glad to see you posting here - the banter gets more lively with opposing points of view, even if both sides believe the other to be "misinformed".

I don't think we can ,or will ever get back to the level playing field...That went out long ago..Trying to think when it was I'd have to guess it was WAY back when this country was first settled a Dr. took chickens for pay, one farmer helped the other raise a barn or put up a fence. In todays world the level field is you work , to earn ,to pay for ,what you can't do yourself. Or you become a politician

Alan, if you want to accuse me of being rude you're going to be at the end of a very long line. I prefer to identify it as impatience or sarcasm, depending on the situation BTW.

A level playing field is a myth and ultimately destructive as a guiding philosophy. I'll use a somewhat dated reference here, but it's one I think the audience can better relate to. I'll never be able to play basketball like Michael Jordan. To restrict his abilities down to my level in the name of leveling the playing field would cheat the world of the joy of witnessing, admiring, and learning from his abilities..........not to mention being an outrageous violation of Mr. Jordans rights. Why would it be any more "right" to deprive others of the use of their skills be they physical or intelletual? Those who end up wealthier as a result of their ability to produce greater value for their fellow man should not be denied the results of their efforts any more than the Jordan example above. The same for this nation that grew to prominance based on it's freedom to innovate and produce. You hinted at our consumption of resources, which is a popular guilt trip that comes from the left. We are told that we should feel bad that as only 5% of the worlds population we consume almost 25% of the energy resources. When I make reference to thinking I'm suggesting that there are many who take that statement at face value and without thinking assume that guilt that projected on them. It's not a problem of differing conclusions, it's about accepting and acting upon a false premise. However, with a modicum of thought one could juxtapose the reality that we mere 5% do in fact consume just under 25% of the energy, but we also provide just over 25% of the worlds productivity through the use of that energy (note; the productivity number has diminished the past few years as government spending has skyrocketed). Considering how much of that energy is consumed in leisure, recreation, etc. we're actually the most fuel conserving and thus highly productive population on the planet. But that thought is virtually NEVER offered by the political class or the so called media class.........much less any of the other nanny advocates. For an interesting tale of potential outcomes from buying into the religion of Level Playing field, you might want to read a short story by Kurt Vonnegut titled Harrison Bergeron.

As for your proposal or challenge of what would result from a complete takeover by conservatives it's not a reasonable premise either. I've never given it much thought because it's a wholly unlikely scenario. Additionally there is no singular conservative manifesto. There are some customs within the sphere, just as on the left, but maybe I can give an answer that will answer in part.

In very general terms (which is to say there will always be some overlap or grey areas), the left philosphy centers arount intentions. Feel good thoughts that mean well. Old sayings become old sayings for a reason. Like, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." On the other hand, the right philosophy conters around actual outcomes. An example to form context; Those on the left believe that if you throw enough money/resources at poverty you can end poverty. So they declare war on it in the mid '60s. At the beginnig of the war around 14% of the population is classified as in poverty. 50 years of enormous spending, several Trillion dollars (we've become so blase about that number that it no longer seem big does it?) later, and gess what? We still classify about 14% as in poverty. The conclusions? From the left we're told we didn't spend enough, if those mean evil conservatives would have let us spend more we could have defeated poverty. From the right the analysis is, hmmmm, let's see, 50 years of bloated government agencies, spending trillions of dollars with no change in the relative number of poor? Sounds like doing more of the same (spending money) expecting a different outcome is insane. There's more to that analysis but I'll stop here.

A short summary relevant to your challenge. This nation grew to prominance with far less government interference than we have today. If you chart out the government consumption of resource vs the private sector, the less contribution to world output we are able to generate as the government consumes more. We could compete with China, India, and the rest if the emerging nations if we let the part of our society that has a record of success (private sector), rather than the part that has a more frequent record of failure in productivity. Again, this concept needs much more expansion but my attention span is waneing, and probably everyone else's as well.

Makes an interesting read.. I am going to see if I can get a government job!!!! http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7...in-back-taxes/

[QUOTE=cffisher;451992]Makes an interesting read.. I am going to see if I can get a government job!!!!

QUOTE]

makes me miss Mr wizzard .. his posts were much shorter

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

Dave S.: not trying to provoke anger here, but thought I'd bring this one over from the other thread. Since you and I both decry voter apathy from time to time, though with somewhat differing perspective, I'd like you take on this (and anyone else for that matter). It relates to a theme that will beaten to death from now to election day.....the idea that the President could have "saved the country" if only..................






Not sure if it was your intention or not, but the way that you've worded that the definition of compromise is doing what the President wants, right or wrong. I realize that's the way a majority of the media frames it, but is that what citizens want/believe? Are we to ignore that a President elected in 2008 with a super majority in the Senate, and an immense majority in the house, who got everything his own party would approve through in his first two years, and who was then repudiated by the voters in 2010 who took away that huge house majority, and almost took away his Senate majority? If that's what you meant I'd love to hear why the Pres deserves to be given a pile of blank checks.

You know I'm not that great putting thoughts into words.... I don't think Obama can take all the blame or all the credit for anything that's happened since he was elected! The 2010 vote was both good and bad, brought in a lot of the tea party candidates with some good ideas, but also some way out in left field radical ideas that will never make it into law.---Though many of their issues did make good campaign trail fodder and sound bites.

I don't see anybody in government right now I trust with a check book, certainly not the President or the Congress!!!! Don't really see where I implied that compromise meant doing everything Obama's way, certainly not the way I see compromise, anyway. The President has some good ideas, the Congress has some good ideas, and all of them have some really lame ideas for straightening things out. The art of compromise would be to take the good points from both sides, iron out some of the differences and get some legislation working that is good for all of the country, not just this segment or that. But, I'm enough of a realist to know that seeing as how this is an election year, neither side will give an inch on their position... I guess if you don't pass any laws you can't be accused of passing bad laws!!!!!

It's up to the voters this year, time to make a big statement to Congress about what is expected of them and that ineptness will no longer be tolerated! I just hope that the campaigns aren't just all about super rich "giving" their money to the super poor. I think that whole argument is nothing more then a smoke screen to hide behind so that no politicians aren't subject to accountability for their poor performance! Politicians are shrewd in their rhetoric, they know full well if they can get the populous ranting, raving, and pointing fingers about the emotional issues that everything else will be forgotten! People have got to make the candidates stick to the real issues and present their plans for a real solution. If they can't do that, they don't deserve your vote!!!! Seems the people in Congress now can really talk the talk--we need to send them home and get some new blood in their that can walk the walk!!!!!

Originally Posted by HOSS429

Makes me miss Mr wizzard .. his posts were much shorter

I had not thought about Mr Wizzard for a long, long time. Talk about long winded!! Uncle Bob doesn't hold a candle to Mr. Wizard for being wordy, and that's a compliment.

His last post was over 2 years ago...lives not to far from me???

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

You know I'm not that great putting thoughts into words.... I don't think Obama can take all the blame or all the credit for anything that's happened since he was elected! The 2010 vote was both good and bad, brought in a lot of the tea party candidates with some good ideas, but also some way out in left field radical ideas that will never make it into law.---Though many of their issues did make good campaign trail fodder and sound bites.

I don't see anybody in government right now I trust with a check book, certainly not the President or the Congress!!!! Don't really see where I implied that compromise meant doing everything Obama's way, certainly not the way I see compromise, anyway. The President has some good ideas, the Congress has some good ideas, and all of them have some really lame ideas for straightening things out. The art of compromise would be to take the good points from both sides, iron out some of the differences and get some legislation working that is good for all of the country, not just this segment or that. But, I'm enough of a realist to know that seeing as how this is an election year, neither side will give an inch on their position... I guess if you don't pass any laws you can't be accused of passing bad laws!!!!!

It's up to the voters this year, time to make a big statement to Congress about what is expected of them and that ineptness will no longer be tolerated! I just hope that the campaigns aren't just all about super rich "giving" their money to the super poor. I think that whole argument is nothing more then a smoke screen to hide behind so that no politicians aren't subject to accountability for their poor performance! Politicians are shrewd in their rhetoric, they know full well if they can get the populous ranting, raving, and pointing fingers about the emotional issues that everything else will be forgotten! People have got to make the candidates stick to the real issues and present their plans for a real solution. If they can't do that, they don't deserve your vote!!!! Seems the people in Congress now can really talk the talk--we need to send them home and get some new blood in their that can walk the walk!!!!!

I think you understate your communication skills, that's why I asked for clarification. Although I thought it a curious twist when you referred to Tea Party ideas from radical LEFT feild. And you violated one of the rules of modern commentary........NEVER use the word "radical" in the same sentence with the word "left".

We're going to be beaten to death with a "do nothing Congress" message from our President for the next several months. I would think we'd have a better informed electorate if in any discussion of that by our vaunted communication media if the facts about some 15 so called jobs bills have been advanced from the House, only to die in a pigeon hole on the Seanate leaders desk. If compromise and action are the appropriate goals, wouldn't advancing those bills to committe or floor in the Senate be action, and debate be an effort to compromise? How does refusing to even consider a legitimate bill advance the case for compromise/action? Where's the 60 Minutes, hard hitting investigative journalism? And where is the investigation by a "fair" media into why the Senate leader hasn't done anything about fulfilling the Constitutional obligation to submit an annual budget for over 1000 days. Not a fig leaf amendment attached to another bill, an actual budget. A corporation can't get away with abusing it's share holders with any such malfeasance, but the guys who write laws about that?

There may be other examples of less significant "obstruction" on both sides, but these two, especially in our current economic state, are, or should be, a couple biggies. I'm not hearing any bitching about it. I guess I'm too radical................

I think words like "fair media" belong right up there with "military justice"...... Seems we just no longer have a media source that will just present the facts and allows us to form our own opinion. If corporations or any business for that matter operated with the same efficiency as our government they wouldn't be in business for too long!!!

You're right, from now until November it appears the Obstructionist Party indeed has a stranglehold on Congress! Not that it will do a bit of good, but I did send an email to both of our South Dakota Senators and our one House Representative asking them it they were going to do anything between now and November or should the voters start looking for someone who would?

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

.......... but I did send an email to both of our South Dakota Senators and our one House Representative asking them it they were going to do anything between now and November or should the voters start looking for someone who would?

You lobbyist lowlife!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

I think words like "fair media" belong right up there with "military justice"...... Seems we just no longer have a media source that will just present the facts and allows us to form our own opinion. If corporations or any business for that matter operated with the same efficiency as our government they wouldn't be in business for too long!!!

You're right, from now until November it appears the Obstructionist Party indeed has a stranglehold on Congress! Not that it will do a bit of good, but I did send an email to both of our South Dakota Senators and our one House Representative asking them it they were going to do anything between now and November or should the voters start looking for someone who would?

the congress does best when the don't pass any more laws what is it you want them to do hand obama another 5 trillion dollars of our money so he can give to the labor unions and they can syphon it into his campaign coffers the have already sent him over 1 billion dollars some people think the govmt. has to do something for them or they can't be successful but I got news for you and allen this is not a zero sum game you have to get out there and make it your self you people think the only way you can have anything is if the government takes it away from somebody else.....ted

Originally Posted by ted dehaan

the congress does best when the don't pass any more laws what is it you want them to do hand obama another 5 trillion dollars of our money so he can give to the labor unions and they can syphon it into his campaign coffers the have already sent him over 1 billion dollars some people think the govmt. has to do something for them or they can't be successful but I got news for you and allen this is not a zero sum game you have to get out there and make it your self you people think the only way you can have anything is if the government takes it away from somebody else.....ted

Ted,
Both Alan and Dave can of course speak for themselves, but I think you misunderstood Dave's post. He's not asking for more laws and regulations. We talked earlier about the Administration blocking the Keystone Project which would have brought thousands of construction jobs to the US, and the fact that the action was a pure & simple campaign ploy to keep the extremist environmentalists happy until they've contributed their funds into the campaign coffers. Proponents of the project have said that they don't believe it is dead, but that it will be delayed until after the 2012 election, and I believe that is what Dave was referring to in his message to his representatives. You may have to look back to the roots of this thread, Craigslist notice??. for the history.

You make a very good point about the slimy trail of bailout money somehow finding it's way back to the campaing coffers. To me campaign reform, limiting the amount that can be spent would be one of the best things that could be done. I also agree 100% with your statement that the government cannot give anything that was not first taken from someone else. I think this dovetails with another famous quote, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Roger if you are correct, I certainly owe dave an apology, but the statement about the obstructionist party has a stranglehold on congress won't fly, the conservatives want the pipe line and the jobs, obama wants it killed for extremist environmentalist money feed into his campaign, follow the money, he is blocking it, NOT the republicans this president just keeps spitting out obamawoppers and the lap dog left wing media helps him spin it.....ted

Ummmm. Yeah Ted, that's what I said way back on the other thread. 40 months the State Department has been sitting on the license and permits for it.....

If the congress is to pass no more laws, then what are we paying them for???? We need laws to make it ok to send illelegals home, we need laws to give the DEA and FBI more authority to close down some of the drug dealers. We are a country of laws, without them we would be a country of anarchy. Laws in and of themselves are not always bad, we've got to make sure that Congress, the people who write the laws, is looking out for the best interest of the entire country and not just little groups of it....

The statement about the obstructionist was not just about the pipeline, it was a general statement about the fact that Congress will be a do-nothing Congress from now till after the elections so as not to alienate any voters---the "obstructionists" are the one's who take any bill that might create controversy and lose it in Committee, or just generally fail to take any action on it.

The extreme Left wing and Right wing are so dead set on the idea that there plan is right, they won't consider anything else--So they pretty much just cancel each other out and nothing gets done... Obama doesn't want the Keystone project killed, he just wants to ignore it so as not to alienated a bunch of tree huggers. History will show that a second term President doesn't care about who he alienates and actually does some work!! No, that is not an endorsement of Obama, didn't vote for him the first time, won't vote for him (or anyone else currently holding office) this November....