Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 1 month ago
    I will never understand how a person convinces herself that the complete opposite of the truth is what is true.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Snezzy 4 years, 1 month ago
      For Hegel and others who advocate the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of existence, truth is found in contradictions. You have your truth, I have my truth which is the opposite of yours, and a new truth emerges from the two.

      You may disagree with that, but in the process yet another new truth will emerge. Neither the mystics of mind nor the mystics of muscle are interested in objective reality, except perhaps as a way for them (not you) to have automobiles.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 1 month ago
        Snezzy, next time you talk to him, remind Hegel that odds are that the 'new truth' may emerge, but not in either of the minds of the folks holding tightly to their contradictory positions.
        :)
        Maybe in some 'third or fourth mind'... but unlikely in their own. Need examples of that???
        :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 1 month ago
        Getting deeper into consciousness versus existence: There is much in the universe that is unaccounted for in Objectivism. While our senses allow us to deal with the reality that keeps us functioning, it is only a part of what the universe is comprised of. We need instruments which turn the stuff of the universe into things our senses can comprehend, and then we can use math to prove what our instruments have shown us. Consciousness meets quantum physics, meets existence will eventually, as we learn more, may change our concepts of existence and consciousness. However, to date, in order to cope with the universe within the limits of our abilities, there is no better guide in my opinion, than Objectivism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 1 month ago
      Not only that, but how can she say that she lost the election because of big money politics when in fact, she got her ass handed to her after outspending her opponent by more than a 2 to 1 margin? Further, how as a teacher can she grade students when THAT is the premise of the course??? (By her 'logic', an 'F' in her course means an 'A+' to normal people.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      In truth, since in her world there is no real truth, as taught for a long time by schools like, er, Harvard, she ever feels the need to convince herself of anything.

      i think it's only in a world like the Gulch, and other rare similar groups, where a person thinks: "Hey, this is important stuff, I'd better make sure, i.e., convince myself, that it's true, before i go spreading it around." I think that's called respect, or better, reverence, for the Truth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
      Happens every day and some of them believe in a different truth every day. The political gospel according to St. James of Carville is much like that. How? Gullible. Some can be fooled or made fools of all the time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Susanne 4 years, 1 month ago
    There is a good sign to this - no matter how much pull they try to get and how much money they shovel to get their corruption into office, sometimes the voter will still do the right thing and keep these "Buy my way in" parasites out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
    And you still think banning donations of funds, time, or material items from those entities not entitled to vote is a bad idea? Or limiting the collection and expenditure of same to the same geo-political area in which collected. One swift way to ban foreign countries, corporations, PAC's, unions, and any non voting entity from buying an election. If you can't vote you can't contribute. And it does nothing to stop the free and open discussion of anything. Right of Assembly is not the same as buying votes and fixing elections.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 1 month ago
      RE: "One swift way to ban foreign countries, corporations, PAC's, unions, and any non voting entity from buying an election. If you can't vote you can't contribute. And it does nothing to stop the free and open discussion of anything. Right of Assembly is not the same as buying votes and fixing elections. "

      >>>> I agree with that proposition, but as I try to remind everyone, the same guys who would Change those Rules are the same guys who Established The Current Rules you're proposing changing!

      Want to put any money down on the odds of THAT happening? I wouldn't. Some other kind of influence will have to come first.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 10 months ago
        Which backs up the equation to influence coming from the only possible place - the polls and losing other support and that means targeting areas that are possible. 110,000 precincts and one third of the 25% of eligible to vote who do vote split between Dinos, Rinos and the small partys and independents and then go after those who were opting not to vote or not to register and not vote. Same ones the Dinos and Rinos go after. If they put the usual act it would nine percent to beat both of them assuming they split in a fairly even manner. OR 13 percent if they through off the maskirova of being a multiparty system and went for one or the other candidate. they hand select. Or they make a fool of themselves publically in the process.

        First you need the actual numbers and they might be a closely guarded State Secret.

        Then you need to know and that's local knowledge where to target and how to target.
        I like hit and run and hit from another direction another way. Makes them chew up campaign funds fast. Soros and the money laundering congress don't know what to defend nor where nor when.

        Third you need a focus point in effect if not a real party a straw party with an acceptable campaign for the sole purpose of defeating the other two candidates of the single party system in as many areas, precincts etc. as possible.

        Then you become will of the wisp so the press doesn't know from one day to the next who or whom to attack.

        It's not even close to time to do more while presenting the ideas

        Any chance of infiltrating one or the other in the primary where enough people can cause a weak candidate to win and strong candidate to lose. That's called raiding in polysci terminolgy.

        The whole thing is a death of a thousand cuts but the mosquitoes get blamed. Funny thing there are always more mosquitoes.

        That one group of people which now seems to equal or more than equal either of the two halves of the government party is a mighty enticing group to go after.

        Even the threat of doing so. What I'm writing right now will cause a realignment of campaign funds.

        Drop by drop the same way the bleed us.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 10 months ago
          I also have been watching what seems to be a cultural shift in the Millennials and the new Generation Z folks... a tendency towards social liberalism combined with fiscal conservatism.
          Articles in Reason and Fortune seem to keep mentioning this. For that, I have hope. Maybe in my lifetime, too... if anyone comes along who doesn't screw up the marketing of such a 'party.'
          :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 10 months ago
            I will need a better explanation of that one. It sounds and I say this in all serious candor much the same as a Marxist Anarchist The two seen mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed. If you define as I do liberalism meaning fast change by any means and conservatism as moderate or slow change. I tend toward original definitions and not the leftist meaning of the moment version but understand many did not have the luxury of living when original definitions were readily available.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
              Sorry for the delay... was on holiday in UK for past two weeks...

              Check/search the publications for the articles. Reason Mag articles were around October-December of last year.

              In 'my usage,' socially 'liberal' folks don't care what you do with YOUR body so long as it doesn't directly affect theirs. (abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc.); fiscally 'conservative' folks do NOT believe that the Government is the Be-All/End-All Best Provider of Solutions to Any and All problems we face, and that if a project or Agency fails to deliver on its raison d'etre, throwing more money at them to 'make it work' is as dumb as a bag of rocks (or most fiscal liberals...)

              Hope that helps. I've got my own definitions of Critical Thinking, too... :)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 4 years, 1 month ago
      I live in a part of California that is overwhelmingly Democrats, and all those who "represent" my area are from that party. If I weren't allowed to contribute, or volunteer, for the few decent conservative candidates that represent other districts in California, I would feel shut out of the political process entirely.

      Of course, proportional representation would remove this specific problem, but it's also not going to happen. Enacting it is a "who bells the cat" problem.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
        I would suggest a few word changes. You live in a portion of California that is overwhelmingly Government Party. Then define proportional representation. Is that something like so many Democrats so many Republicans totaling so many Government Party candidates elected?

        In any case it sounds like bi-partisanship or cross-partisanship two other terms for a single party system of government so I have to find out what it might really be.

        The point of the suggestion which was offered as a way to cure soft money from where ever is to get rid of any donating or volunteering entity that has no business in any specific voting district - be it state, county, city, federal or other district, township or any other special district such as those dealing with water use. The key point is only people in that district as set down in the precinct voting system or booklet who are able to vote in that precinct have any business trying to sway the vote in that precinct one way or the other. The answer to your problem of not enough conservatives or any other stripe is not solved by working for them elsewhere but enabling them a fighting chance of establishing themselves in your precinct. That they aren't going to be able to accomplish with the likes of non-voting entities getting in the way. Such as all corporations or companies, political machines from other states, other countries, union and other PACs none of which can vote.

        The playing field is leveled to contain you and your neighbors. You aren't fighting George Soros or General Motors. As one moves through the voting handbook and the ballot the stage enlarges automatically until the final step that of President and Vice-President. Presently that is confined to two candidates for each from the Government Party. The guy or gal you really wanted is out in the cold. Same with measures and speaking of which if you don't have them add Recall, Initiative, Whatever amount of funding is allowed for each local registered voter for each candidate or measure. Those sorts of follow on or lead the way clean up the ballot tools. The list is incomplete but it's a start. If you or it can't vote it can't participate. As far as those other districts are concerned they aren't your business unless you move. Works in two directions. And don't forget students., If they register to vote locally make sure they are on the tax and jury selection rolls as well.

        Notice this does not encourage any particular party nor even only two party's but a way of getting away from a monolithic single party system and go to a new idea - more than one party or even as our Government Party has become a Political Coalition'

        Best of all you still have the right of free assembly and free speech. It's dollars, volunteer time and sign painters, tv and radio advertising time that are the targets.

        Now think about how to control that last group. I'm worn out from gun control which usually only recites a few old saws and ends up hammering away at not much. Anchor threads in the sailing community are much like that.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jdg 4 years, 1 month ago
          This is a senseless and shallow view. We all still wind up fighting Soros and GM, because Soros and GM have ways of spending money to change the minds of the public that aren't considered part of "politics." Soros does it by owning large chunks of the media industry. Any law that purports to fix that will certainly only make it worse, because of who would be writing, enacting, and interpreting that law.

          You've fallen into the lefty trap of assuming that a law you propose would be interpreted and enforced by your allies. Government doesn't work that way.

          And lumping the two major parties together as "the Government Party" is a conspiracy theory I don't buy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
            Well put, jdg. Trying to keep money out of politics is a clear violation of the right to free speech, anyone's free speech, George Soros included.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
              Money talks and the left walks away with the prize again. It's just another version of a poll tax with embellishments. And yes the Left does include establishment Republicans.

              Georgie can speak freely anywhere he wants and especially in his own precinct. So can we all, At least we used to have that right. All it took was showing up and speaking or writing a letter ot the editor or publishing your own door to door flyer and delivering it to 1100 residences.

              Now justify UAW, GMC, any foreign country, SPCA, or any other entity that cannot vote. I'll exclude SPCA if it's about a measure having to do with animal shelters in my local area. I use UAW and GMC a representative of the whole PAC system as they were quite recently government funded in the great payback bailout.

              In some cases such as under the Bacon Act not only are union and corporate PAC's taxpayer funded but a portion is laundered back into the campaign funds of those providing them with taxpayer funds to launder. Try getting a job call if you haven't donated which is easy to do as the Davis Bacon prevailing wage scales are easily double the actual prevailing wage scale . Soros your way out of that one.

              Can you parse any''one'' into any group such as unions, corporations, and foreign countries? Where did the Constitution provide that right? For that matter did it refer to the press specifically? Georgie is OK he's a voter - probably maybe - but not in my precinct. I'm assuming that. I don't know that's true. Maybe he's like that Australian dude and his media chain? Doesn't matter. Both are some one. I'll let it slide. But the entity's are not and never were voters. Sadly it's a moot point. None of those rights exist in a country that opted to ignore the document that provided them.

              Which Precinct? Mine is located in Bight, ME. I'm a group of one and I both approved and paid for this ad without using money. Free speech is exactly that - Free.

              "Georgie about that offer? Sorry 'my votes not for sale!"

              "Sorry to hear that but never mind. We didn't include it in the new version of the Constitution."

              Click.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
            But I do buy it. I invented the theory on my own and tested it over some years. Along the way found out others were thinking the same thoughts. On the other hand I didn't fall into the trap of assuming we can do nothing because George has more money. So we mights well give up and learn how to chant ''I serve the party Comrade." They have ways we have ways. They work at the higher levels we work at the lower levels and they don't have enough to conduct political raiding (the political science term) in all districts, all precincts even all states at all times. Attack the hollow and the weak avoid the strengths. Take not counsel of your fears. Nor take counsel of the fears and despair of others. After all you have nothing to lose and the old methods of go along get along obviously have failed.

            So what is this proportional representation? By definition.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
        It's not a case of being allowed or not allowed., It's a case of looking in the mirror and being proud of what you did or afraid to admit what you did to your children.. No one else to praise. No one else to blame.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 1 month ago
    Maybe she meant that if they both were restricted to zero spending, she, the incumbant, would have been victorious, the way all incumbants have the sole right to be.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      No, what she really meant is, regardless of incumbency, she wanted some supposedly "independent" agency (you know, like the Fed or the FCC) to decide through some contorted logic that contributions to her campaign were from "legitimate" groups, while the groups contributing to her opponent were "somehow" illegitimate and, BTW, illegal.

      And zero spending would be way too level of a "level playing field" for a Democrat. They prefer to be more level than the opposition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 1 month ago
        An incumbant with name recognition can almost always destroy a relatively unknown challenger, so that is nothing like a fair contest or level playing field. (Of course, the incumbant would want people to believe they want a fair contest, just like the CEO of Goldman Sachs wants con-gress to believe that he is doing God's work.) The incumbant's previous lies usually are hidden under layers of new lies so their record of failure to keep campaign promises in office is usually not enough to make it a fair contest. I agree that all politicians from the one DemRep party want to have no competition at all if possible. Looters deserving of scorn by every voter. In a fair world it's a problem easily solved, one term only, no re-elections, no career politicians.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
          Did the dude really say that? Let's look back. CEO of GS sends Ruben to be Sec Treas. GS is heavily invested in Mexican Tesorobonos (Treasury Bonds.) Mexico at that time in the nineties reneges but more directly and openly as does the US Government. Sec Treas Rubin devises a bail out using incoming receipts from Social Security, I think some Railroad Retirement Funds aswell perhaps some others. The Tesorobonos are bailed out with most of the money going to US based investment banks and similar firms. One happens to be Gold Sachs. All this time and behind a supposedly blind trust Sec Treas is a stock holder in GS. Meanwhile the left is talking appearance of impropriety.

          As for the rest we're advised to leave things as they are or George Soros will simply buy the next candidate one way or another. Not good enough for me but at least we have a balanced viewpoint fro the other side. To sum it up. Give up. Resistance is futile. At any level.

          Back to reality.one other proposal along with one term only has been to change the Presidency to one term of six years. Ups and downs to that one but two years for the Representatives is spent mostly campaigning or raising funds not working. So another proposed change is Reps to three years and one term. Lots of combinations to discuss. I like the two year one because then with one term it would run Soros broke that much faster.

          The comment is always made it takes two years or more just to learn how to work the system. Huh? Is it that crooked? Well. Think of something said by Samuel Clements

          'US Congress is Americas's only true homegrown criminal class.'

          or his Treatise 'Cannibals In the Cars' about the Congress deciding which one of each other to eat next.

          or his final stanza to Battle Hymn Of The Republic -

          In a sordid slime harmonious, Greed was born in yonder ditch,

          With a longing in his bosom - and for others' goods an itch -

          As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich -

          Our God is marching on."

          Samuel Clemens AKA Mark Twain had Congress nailed and those who supported status quo. I wonder how he would characterize the charade presently in office.

          I don't believe in a price on freedom of speech nor freedom of assembly either. Nor that it should be bought and sold like a cheap carbon tax. Except of course the price already paid. Appears to me the tree needs watering.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 1 month ago
            I agree, and some interesting quotes;^)
            Completely agree that one term of no more than 4 years for all national offices, only one government elected national position per lifetime, and neither state nor federal bureaucrats and elected officials are allowed to run for elected national office. No career politicians should be tolerated at the national level. State's may follow that model or not. It's the people's choice.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 1 month ago
    To an Objectivist, words ought to be as precise as mathematical equations.To a Platonist or a Marxist words are as hazy as their view of reality. Ya kinda gotta git the drift of where she's comin' from. Ya know?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
      Lenin's comments on explaining Marxist-Leninist Economics went something like this. You can't teach it you must preach it. Convince the masses it's OK not to understand we have others in the party that do so just follow along and we'll lead the way to the promised land. He finished up with advice to preach belief in whatever the party says as an article of faith - understanding is not a requirement. The genesis of how the left wing of the country works and evidenced by quotes from the current left wing also from Lenin ' Anything said or done to advance the party is the Truth'' - at least until they put out a new truth this afternoon or tomorrow.

      You nailed it. Hazy is the word and now it's a race between Pelosyllini and whats her name.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
      Lenin's comment was in answer to a question by Mussolini then the leader of the Italian Socialist movement who turned it into a National Socialist movement. He also changed the traditional triumverate of Church, State, and the elitist class who had most of the military strength to State and Military, Big Business and Banking, and Union Leaders. Pointedly leaving out union members and small business or commercial concerns.

      Today we know it as the Government Party or Coalition, Major Commerce and Financial owner/leaders, and Union Leaders. The first two compromise the ruling class with interchangeable parts - the third is their kickstand.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 4 years, 1 month ago
      There have been attempts to invent a language with that property (Loglan, for one) but they never catch on. It would mean everybody has to learn the new tongue.

      On the other hand, lots of new countries create new languages, as a way to ensure their continued independence. So perhaps a large enough Gulch *should* consider adopting one of these "perfect" languages. If it really is superior it would make us more efficient, too. I'm not sure if it'll work very well, but wouldn't mind being part of the experiment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      Correct. If I asked on this forum whether a Socialist America was not contradictory to what the Founders intended...well, let's not go there.

      But if you asked this woman the same question, I'm sure she could in good faith state that no, it's not a contradiction. Welcome to the world of polylogism...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 1 month ago
        And that's the really scary part. She and a lot of her ilk deeply believe that there is nothing wrong with contradictory utterances. In her mind the money contributed to Tillis' campaign was bad, while the money to hers was good.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 4 years, 1 month ago
    It is your typical liberal mindset, one set of rules for them and another for everyone else beneath them.
    They think they are the only ones smart enough to get away with buying elections. Who pays the big bucks to have someone so idiotic indoctrinate their college kid? Liberalism is a disease of the mind, wherein they are unable to see reality, only their utopian view of what they think should be, They just seem unable to reason.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 years, 1 month ago
    I'm reminded of a guy who ran for county commissioner of some district and lost when I was a weekly newspaper reporter during the 70s.
    Every time he would call and come in with some complaint, I would hear him start off griping about how many thousands of dollars he spent to be a loser.
    It got to the point I wanted to call him a loser to his face but I knew he'd go whining to my boss.
    Glad that 7 years of PR handling whiners with kid gloves is way in my past.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo