Each group sees the divisions within it's own ranks more clearly than the division within the oppositions. Human nature.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours....
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
Each group sees the divisions within it's own ranks more clearly than the division within the oppositions. Human nature.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Not the policy proposals of the Republicans.
He wasn't mocking any candidate running for office, so how would we know?
I think his mockery combined with other comedians on the left are part of what created the conventional wisdom that Palin and Bush are dummies. People on the left make similar blunders but they don't get gangbanged over it.
It seemed as though during the campaign the comedians treated Obama with kid gloves, maybe the shine has worn off and their audience is more open to Obama mockery.
Neither does Limbaugh.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
That's actually a good point.
Did you not see that Katie Couric interview? A little intellectual honesty goes along way. A long ****ing way. Palin's inability to construct intelligible sentences along with her lack of substance is what makes her look like a dummy. I don't understand how you cannot accept this. Oh, yes I do, you're intellectually dishonest.
Had Al Franken done any of the same stuff, people would have lambasted him...and with good reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg
I mean, come the **** on!
I'm a moderate fiscal conservative (in general I think the free market should decide things, but there are obvious exceptions to that rule) and mostly a social liberal.
I would say that I'm more of a libertarian than anything, but they have some extreme positions I just can't get behind.
I would say that I'm more of a libertarian than anything, but they have some extreme positions I just can't get behind.
I know I would define it as anything that grows naturally.
I wouldn't care if pot, psylocibin mushrooms, peyote, and even opium were legal to grow. That doesn't necessarily mean that you should be able to get any of them at your local 7-11, but in general I think it's absurd that plants can be made illegal.
Okay
Let me guess, you are one of those people who label all pro choice people "pro abortion"....
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Well, they ain't making the choice between cake batter and phish food are they?
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
Prochoice is made to look like Proabortion by the religious leaders that are trying to push their religious conservative aganda. I just watched a documentary called Bible Camp on Netflix it was scary it shows how just like radical Muslims, Christians are trying to raise their children up as religious fanatics.
Don't forget about the Bodacious Jews and the Gnarley J-Dubs.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I watched the entire hack Couric interview, and Palin had plenty of substance and finely constructed sentences.
If flubs or stammering mean someone is dummy then we have plenty of examples from the Obamer himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9hZpJp7U3Y
There is a reason Obama is so dependent on a teleprompter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw&feature=fvwrel
Well, now, you're just a liar.
He, along with his duplicate accounts, seem to have a problem with this.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Oh, "Shelley", that is some super lol right there.
TroutBumJazzer? Really? Not a chance...
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I'm late to the party here, but this was an interesting thread to read while I ate breakfast and I think I'll chime in. I'll just give a quick sketch where I stand, since I think it's different from most of you.
I completely acknowledge the genius of Keynes as a student of the capitalism of his time. His vision rationalized a fluidity of capital while acknowledging the instantiated (read: not natural) nature of markets. The guy was perhaps the single most important person in the 20th century, whether you love him or hate him. That said, I think his policies are now almost entirely unfit for the current sociopolitical milieu, free trade regime, as well as current morphologies and movement of capital (a long discussion). Moreover, the globe wouldn't support (environmentally or culturally) the wave of neo-colonialism and global economic domination that was parallel to and propped up Keynesian economic success (while I only read the first 4 pages of this thread, I didn't see anyone acknowledge this brute historical fact). In short, Keynes's insights were embedded in a teleology of progress via capital growth... something I think we must critically challenge. Most people in the USA think this is a naturally given fact.
These beliefs leave me in a pretty tough bind if we are considering political representation in the United States. The Dems are pretty much Keynesians thru and thru, and the Republicans are ideologues trying to prophetize about the inevitability of capital's liquidity -- a reductionist vision of history based on the struggle of capital to gain fluidity from the regulations of gold, then national reserves, etc. In other words, ********. I'm more and more staunchly anti-classical-liberal, and I do not endorse capitalism and market mechanisms being the bass chord of our affiliations with one another and the world. If you don't think this is the case, then please provide a contrary argument.
The implications of what I'm saying strike right at the heart of the national State an apparatus of power and order. I'm searching for alternatives; that is the work that I do on a daily basis.
I completely acknowledge the genius of Keynes as a student of the capitalism of his time. His vision rationalized a fluidity of capital while acknowledging the instantiated (read: not natural) nature of markets. The guy was perhaps the single most important person in the 20th century, whether you love him or hate him. That said, I think his policies are now almost entirely unfit for the current sociopolitical milieu, free trade regime, as well as current morphologies and movement of capital (a long discussion). Moreover, the globe wouldn't support (environmentally or culturally) the wave of neo-colonialism and global economic domination that was parallel to and propped up Keynesian economic success (while I only read the first 4 pages of this thread, I didn't see anyone acknowledge this brute historical fact). In short, Keynes's insights were embedded in a teleology of progress via capital growth... something I think we must critically challenge. Most people in the USA think this is a naturally given fact.
These beliefs leave me in a pretty tough bind if we are considering political representation in the United States. The Dems are pretty much Keynesians thru and thru, and the Republicans are ideologues trying to prophetize about the inevitability of capital's liquidity -- a reductionist vision of history based on the struggle of capital to gain fluidity from the regulations of gold, then national reserves, etc. In other words, ********. I'm more and more staunchly anti-classical-liberal, and I do not endorse capitalism and market mechanisms being the bass chord of our affiliations with one another and the world. If you don't think this is the case, then please provide a contrary argument.
The implications of what I'm saying strike right at the heart of the national State an apparatus of power and order. I'm searching for alternatives; that is the work that I do on a daily basis.
This is great. With a few exceptions, I'm stuck between a group who do not have a clue about monetary systems yet have all the solutions, regardless, and you, flashing blips of deep insight that bracket extended absences and almost always waving flags of outright refusals to get into any meaningful discussion. Do me a favor and just tell me what you'd like to see or STFU. Your teasers are too frustrating to read.
See you again in a month or two.
BTW, we got us some QE, bitches. Capital growth knows no bounds.
See you again in a month or two.
BTW, we got us some QE, bitches. Capital growth knows no bounds.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
This is great. With a few exceptions, I'm stuck between a group who do not have a clue about monetary systems yet have all the solutions, regardless, and you, flashing blips of deep insight that bracket extended absences and almost always waving flags of outright refusals to get into any meaningful discussion. Do me a favor and just tell me what you'd like to see or STFU. Your teasers are too frustrating to read.
See you again in a month or two.
BTW, we got us some QE, bitches. Capital growth knows no bounds.
LOL.
We can have an extended conversation about this sometime. I just don't have the time today.
It's hard for me to say what I'd like to see....
1. Decentralization on a grand scale: not just of government, but of corporate or other state-like enterprises, along with a focus on energy and food independence of smaller regions. That would go a long way. Now, that won't work everywhere all the time... and that's the point... decentralization on a grand scale means doing away with universal prescriptions. I'm calling for place-based politics here, a politics that is not constrained by nation-state politics. Historically speaking, decentralization efforts have a bloody past, so I say this with trepidation.
2. more esoterically: a re-imagination of the material. The mechanistic theory of matter that undergirds (a) the birth of all modern sciences and (b) theologies involving a transcendent, rational, and disinterested God HAS GOT TO GO. You could say that I'm calling for a new mysticism if you need a short hand. The "nothing new under the sun" perspective will eventually eat our hearts out.
Should I make jokes about third eyes or the coming Mayan Baktun enlightenment here? This paragraph is the reason I miss the Lorentzian Aintnuthin. He'd fit into the discussion much better than I ever will. Maybe One Brow can replace him, but on the other end of things.
My opinion of what makes people tick is continual improvement, which generally translates into acquiring material. I don't see how a society can transition from what we have now into an enough stuff is enough state of mind while staying happy. Wouldn't it take special individuals, highly intelligent, and with passions outside of material consumption to make what you have in mind work? I'm thinking guys like Warren Buffett. Enough is not in the vocabulary, but enough isn't restricted to matter.
I don't think the majority of us are lucky enough to fit that mold. This is how life seems to work for me anyway. When I hit what I saw as my consumption ceiling, I traded a drive to become more productive with drinking and posting on Jazzfanz. Maybe there is a replacement, but I haven't found it. Unfortunately, talking to old people in rest homes for hours isn't exactly satisfying.
Am I completely off base here?