Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[freedombecki]

Magical thinking. The movement may have begun with disenfranchised young people who shared many of the same ideals as the "99 percent" or even the Tea Party. But it is being hijacked by the far left (Marxists, Anarchists, ACORN, Anonymous, etc) and can end only one of three ways. And two of them will be very ugly (Socialism, violence, or recovery)

It is most certainly not being hijacked by the "far left," which completely lacks the resources to do so, but there is definitely an attempt on by the Democratic Party and establishment liberal groups to hijack it. So far the movement is resisting that effort. We'll see if it succeeds down the road.

There is a possibility of violence emerging from this at some point, beyond the violence already exhibited by overzealous NYC police. Expect it to get much, much bigger over the coming years.

I doubt that full-fledged socialism is a likely outcome, but a move to the left on economic issues in national policy is definitely to be expected.

The Democrats do not want this since the protesters started shooting up drugs, sucking up each other, and pooping up squad cars.

 

[Si modo]

But, guess what; when I say 'smaller and more efficient government', I MEAN 'smaller and more efficient government'.

When I say 'more personal accountability', I actually MEAN 'more personal responsibility'.

And when I say 'individual liberties and freedoms', I really do MEAN "individual liberties and freedoms'.

That's not only untrue but impossible, as there is more than one meaning to all of those rather vague phrases, and someone else could use the same phrase while meaning something completely different from what you mean. In fact, other people do, because every one of those could just as well be a left-wing talking point as a right-wing one, and at times actually are.

All of the phrases I used to explain the meaning of these things in right-wing code speak are possible legitimate interpretations of them, and I submit that all of them are what you mean. To object that no, you mean the original words you used, is in effect to say, "No, I don't mean cherries, I mean fruit."

And, somehow you think none of that is covered in the Constitution. Amazing.

Tell you what. Here's a link to the Constitution on line. (See how helpful I can be?)

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Show us where any of these phrases is found in that document anywhere:

"smaller and more efficient government"
"more personal accountability"
"individual liberties and freedoms"

I'll check back with you later and see how that goes.

Those phrases are concise.

And, I suggest you cease trying to speak for me. You can't.

I know you believe you can, but I do not and will never accept your authoritarian ideals, nor will I accept your unsolicited edits of MY words.

I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

I've told you as politely as I can not to try to speak for me. I won't keep that up. You do not speak for me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Good point.

However, the existence of direct democracy operating somewhere in the country does not threaten the Constitution. Unless OWS is actually calling for eliminating the House and Senate and replacing them with direct voting, it's not doing what Si modo was accusing it of.

You asked if California doing away with the assembly and senate threatened the constitution. Given that such an action would violate the constitution - well, as I said.

Further more, the California initiative has mostly been a failure. Every significant proposition that runs contrary to the desires of the state is simply crushed by the dictatorship of the judiciary. Prop 186. prop 209, prop 8, ad nasium; the last proposition that ran contrary to the state that was actually honored was prop. 13 - which the state is currently using every trick at their disposal to end.

Incorrect on both counts.

False - deliberate distortion; either by you or by those who supplied your thoughts to you.

The requirement of white property owners was enacted at the state level,

Perhaps in some antebellum states, but I can show actual cases of blacks in New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania casting votes in pre-civil war America.

but it prevailed in all states in the beginning.

Utter bullshit, a complete fabrication on your part.

Women could not vote in any state or in any election at the time the Constitution was ratified.

Again, completely false.

You simply don't grasp the concept. The idea of land holders voting was that of stake holders, those who have a stake in government got to vote, those who didn't - didn't. Oddly enough, I am NOT entitled to vote in elections at the local Methodist church. Because I am not a Methodist, nor even a Christian, they don't view me as a stake holder.

The requirement to vote at the time of the revolution was;

Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.

The fact was that few women owned property under their own name, if married, the man voted. Should the husband die, the widow could and did vote the estate.

they could not vote in federal elections, although they could in some state elections, until the 19th Amendment was ratified.

In fact, it was the enfranchising of non-property owners which stripped women of the right to vote, where the requirement was altered from owning land to being a man.

That we have become more democratic over time is obvious. Not only have these voting barriers been removed, but we have gone to direct election of Senators, dropped the voting age to 18, and given DC a vote in presidential elections, all through Constitutional amendment. Also, although we still have the electoral college, we have moved to a system where it is determined in each state by the popular vote; only rarely do the electors exercise their own initiative as was originally intended.

You seem to have some difficulty in grasping the meaning and concept of "democracy."

Democracy is an American political value. As a system, we do not have a direct democracy at the federal level, that's true.

We don't have democracy at any level, such is unworkable and abhorrent.

But to draw, on this basis, a distinction between a republic and a democracy, assert that we cannot have both, and argue that there is something un-American about democracy, is sheer sophistry and had no connection with the truth.

Our founding fathers deemed democracy to be grossly un-American.

It not only can be but has been in the past.

LOL so now you're arguing that democracy is Commie? That has to be the most far-fetched argument I've seen yet.

I'm providing you with the results of direct democracy.

Lenin was a big advocate of democracy,

Every time you say something like this you prove you know nothing about the movement and are merely jerking your knees.

Yawn, the Shitter Revolution is nothing and everything. There is no meaning to the movement.

[Text in brackets above mine, inserted for accuracy.] In some respects yes, in others no. Because there are points in common, some Tea Party members are supporting OWS and involved in the protests, even though they don't agree with everything the movement is about.

I wouldn't expect you to know what you're talking about w/r/t the size of the Leftist Insurgency, but normally when one doesn't know beans one does not embarrass oneself by speaking as if one did.

The leftists are a fraction of the OWS - the Unions dominate the protests. You have been hijacked by the Unions.

 

[Dragon]

Those phrases are concise.

No, they're not concise at all. For example, you could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that people should take complete responsibility for their own lives without blaming anyone else under any circumstances for things that go wrong, while I could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that the bankers who were individually responsible for the breakdown of the economy should face criminal charges. Both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words "personal responsibility" and fit definitions found in the dictionary.

Similarly, someone could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the freedom of a big business to operate any way it wants without regulation by the government. Someone else could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the right of a worker (who is an individual) not to be fired by his employer for engaging in attempts to form a union. Again, both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words. It is not clear just by using the words, without context, which version of them one means.

And, I suggest you cease trying to speak for me. You can't.

Very well. Let me rephrase what I said earlier. The interpretations I gave are common ways that right-wingers use those phrases. It is reasonable to give those interpretations as translation of right-wing code speak.

You may or may not have meant the phrases in those ways. You most certainly, however, meant them in SOME way. And the phrases themselves, as I said, have more than one meaning.

If I was incorrect in assuming that you meant the phrases in the common right-wing interpretations, then I apologize for the mistake, and ask that you explain what precisely you DO mean by them. Merely repeating the phrases themselves will not suffice for that.

 

[Dr Grump]

At the end of the day, when you take away all the smoke and mirrors from the righties, the vast majority of these OWS folks DON'T want a free ride, DON'T shit on cars, and ARE NOT hippies.

What they are saying - and even the most disingenuous of righties know this, but would never admit it - is that, unfettered capitalism (ie, we must make the most money possible by screwing over everybody else, and we don't care how we do it), doesn't work.

The days of a Wall Streeter's bottom line of only making as much money as possible and the fallout be damned are over. The days where a CEO gets paid a multi-million dollar bonus even if the share price of his compnay crashes, or the company issues a profit warning, are over. The days where I can jump through loop holes while ******* over everybody else while I buy my new $500,000 porsche are over.

That is what they are talking about. Most of those folk just want the Wall St guys to behave. Don't think it is that much to ask.

You somehow think if you regulate Wall St, the whole system will come tumbling down. Well, I can tell you this for a fact, it almost came tumbling down when they had NO regulation.

 

[Dragon]

You asked if California doing away with the assembly and senate threatened the constitution. Given that such an action would violate the constitution - well, as I said.

Yes, I acknowledged that was a good point. However, the original assertion by Si modo was that the mere phrase "direct democracy" was all by itself an attempt to overthrow the Constitution. It is not.

Perhaps in some antebellum states, but I can show actual cases of blacks in New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania casting votes in pre-civil war America.

Sure, it happened occasionally, by the time the Civil War was fought. Property requirements were generally gone by then, too. However, at the time the Constitution was ratified, the vote was restricted to white male property owners in every state. The fact that things became more democratic over time is exactly what I was saying.

You simply don't grasp the concept. The idea of land holders voting was that of stake holders, those who have a stake in government got to vote, those who didn't - didn't.

Of course I grasp the concept, but apparently you don't understand what's under discussion. We are not discussing whether it was a good idea to restrict the vote to property owners. The point is that it was done at one time, and now it's not. This is an example of America becoming more democratic over time. Whether you think this was a good thing or a bad one is completely irrelevant; the fact remains that it happened.

You seem to have some difficulty in grasping the meaning and concept of "democracy." We don't have democracy at any level, such is unworkable and abhorrent.

LOL I can certainly believe you would think that. It's quite revealing about your attitudes.

The word "democracy" can mean more than one thing. In common usage today, we speak of a democratic republic or representative democracy such as the U.S. as a "democracy," even though it is not a "direct democracy." Moreover, it is a true statement that democracy is an American value, highly appreciated by most Americans, encompassing as it does public accountability and government (in Lincoln's phrase) of, by, and for the people.

To say "we have a republic, not a democracy," as if these two things were somehow mutually exclusive, is simply wrong.

Again, I wouldn't expect you to have a clue about either OWS or the Leftist Insurgency of which it is a part, and you are in speaking of such things merely talking out your ass.

 

[EriktheRed]

The days of a Wall Streeter's bottom line of only making as much money as possible and the fallout be damned are over. The days where a CEO gets paid a multi-million dollar bonus even if the share price of his compnay crashes, or the company issues a profit warning, are over. The days where I can jump through loop holes while ******* over everybody else while I buy my new $500,000 porsche are over.

That might be a bit optimistic.

Thing is, though, this bullshit has gone way too far for too long and another correction is needed. At this point, it sure doesn't look like we can depend on Washington or even most state governments to do anything about it without some more pressure from the bottom.

 

[Intense]

Those phrases are concise.

No, they're not concise at all. For example, you could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that people should take complete responsibility for their own lives without blaming anyone else under any circumstances for things that go wrong, while I could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that the bankers who were individually responsible for the breakdown of the economy should face criminal charges. Both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words "personal responsibility" and fit definitions found in the dictionary.

Similarly, someone could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the freedom of a big business to operate any way it wants without regulation by the government. Someone else could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the right of a worker (who is an individual) not to be fired by his employer for engaging in attempts to form a union. Again, both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words. It is not clear just by using the words, without context, which version of them one means.

And, I suggest you cease trying to speak for me. You can't.

Very well. Let me rephrase what I said earlier. The interpretations I gave are common ways that right-wingers use those phrases. It is reasonable to give those interpretations as translation of right-wing code speak.

You may or may not have meant the phrases in those ways. You most certainly, however, meant them in SOME way. And the phrases themselves, as I said, have more than one meaning.

If I was incorrect in assuming that you meant the phrases in the common right-wing interpretations, then I apologize for the mistake, and ask that you explain what precisely you DO mean by them. Merely repeating the phrases themselves will not suffice for that.

Could you possibly be more full of it? You are babbling on and on.

No, they're not concise at all. For example, you could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that people should take complete responsibility for their own lives without blaming anyone else under any circumstances for things that go wrong, while I could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that the bankers who were individually responsible for the breakdown of the economy should face criminal charges. Both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words "personal responsibility" and fit definitions found in the dictionary.

Personal Responsibility means taking Responsibility for both your Thoughts words, and actions, and the consequences of those thoughts, words, and actions. Grow up. You are comparing an Ideal to a specific act or circumstance or application.

Similarly, someone could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the freedom of a big business to operate any way it wants without regulation by the government. Someone else could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the right of a worker (who is an individual) not to be fired by his employer for engaging in attempts to form a union. Again, both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words. It is not clear just by using the words, without context, which version of them one means.

Individual Liberty protects Conscience, Property, Thought, word, action, provided it lies within the boundaries of accepted Law. You violate established law, there is consequence. Liberty does not give one the Right to Trespass on another or cause harm or damage. You confuse intentional misuse with an Ideal, again, a false argument. You call these code words, that's asinine.

Very well. Let me rephrase what I said earlier. The interpretations I gave are common ways that right-wingers use those phrases. It is reasonable to give those interpretations as translation of right-wing code speak.

You are projecting and profiling under a false or misguided premise at best.

You may or may not have meant the phrases in those ways. You most certainly, however, meant them in SOME way. And the phrases themselves, as I said, have more than one meaning.

Seriously? Lets play Association. You say something, and I respond with the first thing that comes to mind.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PZPpWTRTU]Mr. Ed - Intro (Opening Theme) - YouTube[/ame]
Mr. Ed - Intro (Opening Theme)

 

[Dr Grump]

The days of a Wall Streeter's bottom line of only making as much money as possible and the fallout be damned are over. The days where a CEO gets paid a multi-million dollar bonus even if the share price of his compnay crashes, or the company issues a profit warning, are over. The days where I can jump through loop holes while ******* over everybody else while I buy my new $500,000 porsche are over.

That might be a bit optimistic.

Thing is, though, this bullshit has gone way too far for too long and another correction is needed. At this point, it sure doesn't look like we can depend on Washington or even most state governments to do anything about it without some more pressure from the bottom.

Unfettered capitalism is what drove South and Central American banana republics...

 

[Si modo]

Those phrases are concise.

No, they're not concise at all. For example, you could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that people should take complete responsibility for their own lives without blaming anyone else under any circumstances for things that go wrong, while I could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that the bankers who were individually responsible for the breakdown of the economy should face criminal charges. Both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words "personal responsibility" and fit definitions found in the dictionary.

Similarly, someone could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the freedom of a big business to operate any way it wants without regulation by the government. Someone else could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the right of a worker (who is an individual) not to be fired by his employer for engaging in attempts to form a union. Again, both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words. It is not clear just by using the words, without context, which version of them one means.

And, I suggest you cease trying to speak for me. You can't.

Very well. Let me rephrase what I said earlier. The interpretations I gave are common ways that right-wingers use those phrases. It is reasonable to give those interpretations as translation of right-wing code speak.

You may or may not have meant the phrases in those ways. You most certainly, however, meant them in SOME way. And the phrases themselves, as I said, have more than one meaning.

If I was incorrect in assuming that you meant the phrases in the common right-wing interpretations, then I apologize for the mistake, and ask that you explain what precisely you DO mean by them. Merely repeating the phrases themselves will not suffice for that.

Thank you.

When I say 'smaller and more efficient government', I MEAN 'smaller and more efficient government'.

I will try to complicate a simple and concise phrase with unnecessary verbosity. When I say smaller, I mean smaller in size. When I say size, I mean number of agencies, employees, and budgets. There are entire agencies that should not even exist as they take on a role that the states have sole authority, per the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."). There are employees in the government who spend their days filing their nails, and their jobs should be eliminated or combined with others who do the same. The budget reductions will naturally follow.

And, that's just a start.

So, that takes care of 'smaller'.

That is efficiency in action. And, there needs to be more accountability of these agencies to improve on efficiency operations.

And, that takes care of 'more efficient'.

To add to it, cost savings can be applied to debt.



When I say 'more personal accountability', I actually MEAN 'more personal responsibility'.

I will try to complicate a simple and concise phrase with unnecessary verbosity. As I recognize the good to society as a whole with assistance to those who have come upon hard times, I fully endorse a welfare system, unemployment compensation, retirement safety net, some healthcare assistance, etc. I DO NOT endorse a welfare system which entraps a person to remain on it, that penalizes a person for trying to get out of it. They are programs that are run with so many loopholes that if one applies the first concise statement, they solve this one.

I support tort reform so that those who are so ******* stupid as to order hot coffee then to spill it on themselves then cash in because of their stupidity cannot do so so easily. They also cannot clog up our civil court systems with such bullcrap that those who have real torts to have heard in the courts, don't have to wait six months to be heard. I do not accept the fact that I must pay for stupid-ass safety labels in product prices on plastic bags telling me not to put it over my head because I won't be able to breathe if I do.

I do not support an authoritarian government passing laws and regulations disguised as doing what it thinks is best for me. I outgrew the need for a nanny sometime during puberty. If I want to eat potatoes fried in an artery-clogging fat, I want the right to do so, even though I know it is an artery-clogging fat. I accept that responsibility and authority over my own body. If I want to smoke, I will smoke, as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others. If I want to eat junk food, I do not accept any penalty for doing so. If I want salty processed food, I do not accept any limitation on that, especially if the market supports its availability to me.

If I choose to do a job that has a low demand and/or has a high supply of candidates, I accept the fact that is my choice and I accept the consequences of that low pay.


That's just the tip of the iceberg on nanny regs and laws.

That's personal accountability.





And when I say 'individual liberties and freedoms', I really do MEAN "individual liberties and freedoms'.

I will try to complicate a simple and concise phrase with unnecessary verbosity.

I have the right to choose what I do with myself and how I do it, as long as I don't stomp on the rights of others to do the same.

I have the right to succeed in doing so, as I also have the right to fail in doing so. So, this is also corollary to personal accountability.

I expect to do this with the least possible hindrance by my government in penalties (unfair taxation - meaning over-taxation to support a bloated and inefficient government) and nanny laws.

I have the right to speech, both casual and offensive, and especially offensive.

I have a right to practice whatever faith I choose to practice or choose not to practice, as long as I don't stomp on the rights of others (and there is no right not to be offended).

I have a right to seek medical help, or not to seek it, and I recognize the right of a health care worker to self-realization of their chosen metier.

I have a right to self-realization as I choose, as long as I don't stomp on the rights of others AND I accept the consequences of my choice in how I self-realize.

These are all guaranteed to me in the Constitution, so far, but they are being eroded. And, that is just an amuse-bouche of the problems.

So, that covers that concise phrase with much verbosity, and obvious verbosity.






On a final note, if our Constitution is more diligently followed, most of these gripes would go away.

 

[Dragon]

Personal Responsibility means taking Responsibility for both your Thoughts words, and actions, and the consequences of those thoughts, words, and actions.

Yes, that's the broad meaning, but the specific acts that one chooses to apply it to (or not) are not a constant. When it is used to say, "the individual is responsible for everything that happens to him even when we have a collusion between government and business to rewrite the rules of the economic game for the past thirty years to screw over most everyone so the rich can get richer, and every unemployed person is to blame for being unemployed in spite of this collusion, and neither business nor the government has any responsibility for THEIR actions," then that is an example of right-wing code-speak.

Someone calling on business and government to be held accountable for their actions in torpedoing the economy so that the rich can suck it dry like vampires is also talking about personal responsibility -- in a different, but still valid, sense of the same phrase.

Individual Liberty protects Conscience, Property, Thought, word, action, provided it lies within the boundaries of accepted Law.

No, as used in right-wing code-speak it goes beyond that to assert something about what the law ought to be. In right-wing code-speak, any restriction on the ability of the very powerful to abuse their power, sometimes with the exception of overt violence and fraud (although not always), is considered an infringement of individual liberty. It's an underlying assumption of this code-speak language that liberty can only be infringed by the government, so if an employer fires an employee for trying to form a union, or if a manufacturer or an agribusiness pollutes an area and people come down with cancer as a result, that is not an infringement on anyone's liberty. Strangely enough, when the government denies a woman the right to control her own fertility, or imprisons people without due process as an anti-terrorist measure, or puts people in prison for nonviolent drug use or commerce, many on the right don't consider that an infringement of individual liberty, either.

Liberals also cherish individual liberty. Liberals recognize that the government is potentially a great danger to it. But in liberal code-speak (which also exists, of course), individual liberty is protected, not infringed, when the powerful are restrained from abusing their power to dominate others. Same phrase, different meaning, all because of the underlying assumptions.

 

[Dragon]

Si modo:

Would you include the military among government branches that is too big? Would you like to see us pare back some of our overseas commitments and shrink the size of the military?

Do you think that individual responsibility would be well served by making sure that the rules of the economic game give everyone a decent chance of making it in life?

Do you think that individual liberty can be infringed by anything other than the government, or do you believe that as long as the government doesn't directly infringe liberty it is well protected?

 

[percysunshine]

Let's don't pussyfoot around the issue.

How many people have 'working for the US Post Office' as their ultimate goal in life?

 

[Si modo]

Si modo:

Would you include the military among government branches that is too big? Would you like to see us pare back some of our overseas commitments and shrink the size of the military?

....

While I do think the DOD has ample room to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, if you recall, I have strong neocon leanings. So, the DOD would be covered in needing to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, I still do want our defense budget to be a priority in funding. We, the USA, cannot afford to lose defense supremacy, especially now that our politicians have lost our supremacy in most other areas.

.... Do you think that individual responsibility would be well served by making sure that the rules of the economic game give everyone a decent chance of making it in life?

....

Absolutely. That's what a free market does. I do not advocate for no regulations, but I do advocate for keeping it to just a few. The bloated regulations we have now have made the playing field LESS fair.

.... Do you think that individual liberty can be infringed by anything other than the government, or do you believe that as long as the government doesn't directly infringe liberty it is well protected?

Of course. For example, individuals can infringe on my rights and there are consequences when they do. Just as I must accept the consequences of my actions.

 

[Si modo]

Social Justice is an Oxymoron. There is no fairness in redistribution. It is theft, plain and simple. Without consent it is Theft. Calling Theft what it is, That is Justice.

Wait - that post doesn't contain enough spin.

Try this: Blue is really green because the economics of the world have changed the value of the frequency of the color reflected by substances that reflect light. So, although capitalism may lead to green being blue, in reality, it is the rich who have devalued so much in the world that now blue is green. And, anyone who bought a green or blue house or car, now will get to keep both with their payments forgiven because of the devaluation of everything, thus frequencies, by the capitalist machine.

It's only fair and completely constitutional.

Yes... I see... I would also like to buy a House and Keep it, and have the Bank pay me, instead of me paying it. Everyone that agrees with me..... Silently wave your hands and fingers in the air.... Yes We have consensus, the Banks will pay us to live in our new homes, the balance of the Universe is restored.

I just hope that if the OWS gets what they want that I get ample notice. I want to have time to default on my mortgage, to buy a car on paper and default on that, and to enroll in some expensive school studying something cute, interesting to me, but of no value in the job market with a high tuition paid for by a loan and default on that, and to run up some credit card with a few trips to Nordstroms and Tiffany's.

Just a wee bit of notice, and I'm good.

 

[Dragon]

While I do think the DOD has ample room to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, if you recall, I have strong neocon leanings. So, the DOD would be covered in needing to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, I still do want our defense budget to be a priority in funding. We, the USA, cannot afford to lose defense supremacy, especially now that our politicians have lost our supremacy in most other areas.

So is it fair to say that you believe in a smaller government only in certain areas of government functioning and not in others? (I leave aside "efficient" government because that's a mom-and-apple-pie phrase.) (I also note in passing that this is true for most people. Most everyone has parts of the government they think should be smaller or nonexistent, and other parts they think should be expanded. The difference usually lies in exactly which ones to do which to. The exception would be principled libertarians who want it all trimmed down.)

Absolutely. That's what a free market does. I do not advocate for no regulations, but I do advocate for keeping it to just a few. The bloated regulations we have now have made the playing field LESS fair.

All right. Do you believe that (leaving aside for the moment the question of exactly what policies will do this) a fair playing field will be manifested in any of the following:

High wages
Full employment
Easy opportunities to start small businesses and succeed at it
Access to higher education that is affordable for everyone
Access to medical care that is affordable for everyone

If only some of these would be included in your picture of a fair playing field, please indicate which ones are and which ones are not.

Of course. For example, individuals can infringe on my rights and there are consequences when they do. Just as I must accept the consequences of my actions.

Very well. Then would you say that the ability of any individual to infringe your rights is equal, or do some people have more ability to do this than others, and hence present a greater danger?

 

[Preius]

The point being missed here is that just like the American Revolution, change only comes when the wealthy want it. The 1% has two factions, the greedy Wall Street types, and the Patriotic Millionaires.

"Recently members of the group calling themselves “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength” sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that “you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000”—the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."

​

​

Here is a link to Patriotic Millionaires a quiet group that knows how to twist arms in hardball politics. “Patriotic Millionaires” | Dissident Voice The Republicans and the Tea Party are going to come out of this like Torries after the American Revolution - assimilate or leave. The Democratic Party in my opinion will get slapped into the middle of next week. The result will be an America that serves all legal CITIZENS.

 

[Si modo]

While I do think the DOD has ample room to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, if you recall, I have strong neocon leanings. So, the DOD would be covered in needing to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, I still do want our defense budget to be a priority in funding. We, the USA, cannot afford to lose defense supremacy, especially now that our politicians have lost our supremacy in most other areas.

So is it fair to say that you believe in a smaller government only in certain areas of government functioning and not in others? (I leave aside "efficient" government because that's a mom-and-apple-pie phrase.)

....

"Mom and apple pie"? Damn. You ask me to waste my ******* time explaining the obvious to you. I do, and you still claim 'efficiency' has no meaning.

Bullshit. And you are full of it.

You clearly had no intention nor any interest in reading what I ******* wasted my time typing for you at your insistence.

For me to do so again, would be inefficient. So, when I say that I mean exactly what I say, and if you cannot understand plain English, then I can assume a few things about you:

1. You are a moron. Unfortunately, I know that you are not. But, I have no doubt others do not know that.

2. That you are playing games. That's a possibility. To what end, I have no idea.

3. That you are dishonest. Also a possibility. Some are willing to sell out their personal integrity for what they believe is a higher cause - for you, that is socialism and an authoritarian utopia, which is a dangerous dream, if realized...to most.

With respect to my preference that the DOD has priority funding, that is true. With respect to my desire that all government is smaller and more efficient, with the latter comes the former. So, my priority assignment to the DOD is not inconsitent with my 'smaller and more efficient government' demand. Not at all.

Absolutely. That's what a free market does. I do not advocate for no regulations, but I do advocate for keeping it to just a few. The bloated regulations we have now have made the playing field LESS fair.

All right. Do you believe that (leaving aside for the moment the question of exactly what policies will do this) a fair playing field will be manifested in any of the following:

High wages
Full employment
Easy opportunities to start small businesses and succeed at it
Access to higher education that is affordable for everyone
Access to medical care that is affordable for everyone

....

Again, with an approach to a free market, the fair playing field is a given. So, you have your cart before the horse - manufacturing a fair playing field is unnecessary. Get to a freer market.

All of the above would be realized.

....

Of course. For example, individuals can infringe on my rights and there are consequences when they do. Just as I must accept the consequences of my actions.

Very well. Then would you say that the ability of any individual to infringe your rights is equal, or do some people have more ability to do this than others, and hence present a greater danger?

I would say the piece of shit ex-wife of my fiancee seems to get away with ******* murder in the ******* family courts and she doesn't even suffer a ******* contempt charge, so yes, in that instance a contemptible ******* moron (truly, a moron...she is more than dumb, and that is an objective evaluation) who hasn't contributed much to society at all, except nastiness, definitely does have the ability to do so more than her ex-husband, but I digress.

With our bloated regulations, some may. We need to pare those regulations down so that we can approach that fair playing field described above.

 

[Intense]

Personal Responsibility means taking Responsibility for both your Thoughts words, and actions, and the consequences of those thoughts, words, and actions.

Yes, that's the broad meaning, but the specific acts that one chooses to apply it to (or not) are not a constant. When it is used to say, "the individual is responsible for everything that happens to him even when we have a collusion between government and business to rewrite the rules of the economic game for the past thirty years to screw over most everyone so the rich can get richer, and every unemployed person is to blame for being unemployed in spite of this collusion, and neither business nor the government has any responsibility for THEIR actions," then that is an example of right-wing code-speak.

Someone calling on business and government to be held accountable for their actions in torpedoing the economy so that the rich can suck it dry like vampires is also talking about personal responsibility -- in a different, but still valid, sense of the same phrase.

Individual Liberty protects Conscience, Property, Thought, word, action, provided it lies within the boundaries of accepted Law.

No, as used in right-wing code-speak it goes beyond that to assert something about what the law ought to be. In right-wing code-speak, any restriction on the ability of the very powerful to abuse their power, sometimes with the exception of overt violence and fraud (although not always), is considered an infringement of individual liberty. It's an underlying assumption of this code-speak language that liberty can only be infringed by the government, so if an employer fires an employee for trying to form a union, or if a manufacturer or an agribusiness pollutes an area and people come down with cancer as a result, that is not an infringement on anyone's liberty. Strangely enough, when the government denies a woman the right to control her own fertility, or imprisons people without due process as an anti-terrorist measure, or puts people in prison for nonviolent drug use or commerce, many on the right don't consider that an infringement of individual liberty, either.

Liberals also cherish individual liberty. Liberals recognize that the government is potentially a great danger to it. But in liberal code-speak (which also exists, of course), individual liberty is protected, not infringed, when the powerful are restrained from abusing their power to dominate others. Same phrase, different meaning, all because of the underlying assumptions.

Yes, that's the broad meaning, but the specific acts that one chooses to apply it to (or not) are not a constant. When it is used to say, "the individual is responsible for everything that happens to him even when we have a collusion between government and business to rewrite the rules of the economic game for the past thirty years to screw over most everyone so the rich can get richer, and every unemployed person is to blame for being unemployed in spite of this collusion, and neither business nor the government has any responsibility for THEIR actions," then that is an example of right-wing code-speak.
Someone calling on business and government to be held accountable for their actions in torpedoing the economy so that the rich can suck it dry like vampires is also talking about personal responsibility -- in a different, but still valid, sense of the same phrase.

You are responsible for your choices, how you play your hand, not how it's dealt. Why do you have expectations of the World of change being constant. Each circumstance is unique. The collusion between Government and Business is reflective of Progressivism not Federalism. The Referee should have no part in the game other than to Referee. It is possible to accumulate wealth without screwing people over. It's more common than you think. Achievement should always be rewarded, not punished. Everyone is accountable for thought, word and action, there are no exceptions. There are laws higher than Man's laws.

You are Scapegoating and labeling.

No, as used in right-wing code-speak it goes beyond that to assert something about what the law ought to be. In right-wing code-speak, any restriction on the ability of the very powerful to abuse their power, sometimes with the exception of overt violence and fraud (although not always), is considered an infringement of individual liberty. It's an underlying assumption of this code-speak language that liberty can only be infringed by the government, so if an employer fires an employee for trying to form a union, or if a manufacturer or an agribusiness pollutes an area and people come down with cancer as a result, that is not an infringement on anyone's liberty. Strangely enough, when the government denies a woman the right to control her own fertility, or imprisons people without due process as an anti-terrorist measure, or puts people in prison for nonviolent drug use or commerce, many on the right don't consider that an infringement of individual liberty, either.

It is a Principle of the Rule of Law, to show cause, beyond a reasonable doubt, and convince the Court or Authority, before Conviction. You might want to reconsider that position. The Government is not entitled to your property or anyone's, without cause and due process. We abide by the Established Laws of the Land, like it or not. You do not get to choose what you are exempt from.

A Classic Liberal Values Individual Liberty very highly, by denying it, the Society serves Injustice, Tyranny, it is a corruption of Principle, Spirit. Progressivism Values the Interest of the Collective above all else, and when it feels the need arises, demands Individual Sacrifice of Individual Liberty, willingly or unwillingly. Progressives cherish conformity to the Will of the Controlling Authority, not Liberty.

Those terms are not Code Words to me in any way. They imply the Establishment and Service of Justice.

 

[Dragon]

"Mom and apple pie"? Damn. You ask me to waste my ******* time explaining the obvious to you. I do, and you still claim 'efficiency' has no meaning.

I didn't say it had no meaning. A "mom and apple pie" phrase is one nobody is going to disagree with. Ask anyone -- I don't care who -- if they approve of efficiency in government, and they're going to say yes. Who is going to say, "No, I think the government should waste the taxpayers' money?" That's not true however of "small government" or "big government."

You did not waste your time and I did read what you wrote. I pointed out that your preference for a small government doesn't extend to the military, after letting you confirm this yourself. Is that not a valid conclusion? Well, let's see, you do say a bit more.

With respect to my preference that the DOD has priority funding, that is true. With respect to my desire that all government is smaller and more efficient, with the latter comes the former. So, my priority assignment to the DOD is not inconsitent with my 'smaller and more efficient government' demand. Not at all.

Well, what I originally asked is if you would want to see our overseas commitments pared back and our military reduced in size. I took your answer for a "no," but come to think of it you didn't explicitly say that. So let me try again.

Given all of our military commitments at this time, not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also all of the U.S. military bases in foreign countries around the world and our enormous navy, air force, and army, do you think we should cut any of this back, i.e. end the wars, close military bases, or change/reduce our current military missions, or do you think they should be kept as they are, or increased?

Again, with an approach to a free market, the fair playing field is a given.

All of the above would be realized.

So what you're saying is that these things:

High wages
Full employment
Easy opportunities to start small businesses and succeed at it
Access to higher education that is affordable for everyone
Access to medical care that is affordable for everyone

will all arise as a result of a freer market? Can you explain how that works? Because historically, it doesn't look to me like it works that way at all. Generally speaking, a free market (if you mean one in which the government doesn't interfere with business) has led to slack employment, low wages, monopolies, and higher education that was affordable only for the wealthy. Not to mention our travesty of a health-care system.

With our bloated regulations, some may. We need to pare those regulations down so that we can approach that fair playing field described above.

So (setting aside your husband's ex -- I doubt she's any worse than MY ex, so I sympathize), it's your belief, again, that regulations give those who have more power to infringe people's rights their ability to do so.

Would you say that the railroad industry was more or less regulated by the government in the early 1900s than it is today?