(06-05-2016, 03:04 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 02:11 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]No I despise them for different reasons. I know the differences and both are unpleasant to me.
Here we have the sanest answer of them all. That is the thing about voting for a ruler. You lose no matter which one you choose.
Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Well said. Corruption through and through if anyone is capable of influencing the current powers to elect them in. Vote for it, you are feeding that corruption.
You are truly one of the few people who gets the idea of voting for the lesser of evils is still voting for evil. A pity so few do.
(06-05-2016, 03:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 03:03 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 02:59 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 02:11 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]No I despise them for different reasons. I know the differences and both are unpleasant to me.
Here we have the sanest answer of them all. That is the thing about voting for a ruler. You lose no matter which one you choose.
Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
But the job must be done, and government must happen.
No it doesn't. If people were as incapable as you think then humanity would have disappeared of the face of the earth long ago.
You think people are incapable of running a state. How then can you be confident they can run a market? There, I turned your hero on his head fer ya.
A market, indeed a market economy, is the sum of the voluntary interactions of the individuals involved. It is a self-organizing system that no individual or group of individuals could run. That is the lesson of Mises.
(06-05-2016, 03:10 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 03:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 03:03 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 02:59 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Here we have the sanest answer of them all. That is the thing about voting for a ruler. You lose no matter which one you choose.
Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
But the job must be done, and government must happen.
No it doesn't. If people were as incapable as you think then humanity would have disappeared of the face of the earth long ago.
You think people are incapable of running a state. How then can you be confident they can run a market? There, I turned your hero on his head fer ya.
A market, indeed a market economy, is the sum of the voluntary interactions of the individuals involved. It is a self-organizing system that no individual or group of individuals could run. That is the lesson of Mises.
"Free" markets could determine that slave families could be broken up strictly for rational decisions of masters.
(06-05-2016, 03:10 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 03:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 03:03 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 02:59 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Here we have the sanest answer of them all. That is the thing about voting for a ruler. You lose no matter which one you choose.
Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
But the job must be done, and government must happen.
No it doesn't. If people were as incapable as you think then humanity would have disappeared of the face of the earth long ago.
You think people are incapable of running a state. How then can you be confident they can run a market? There, I turned your hero on his head fer ya.
A market, indeed a market economy, is the sum of the voluntary interactions of the individuals involved. It is a self-organizing system that no individual or group of individuals could run. That is the lesson of Mises.
Same as the state. And the actions of the market are no more voluntary than those of the state. Tell your boss that your obedience to his orders is "voluntary" and that you might not obey them. There's a famous line from Donald Trump's TV show that applies to what he would say to you. Or, decide that it is "voluntary" whether you pay for what you take, and see what the store and the police say about that. No, there's no difference. If you severely limit or abolish the state, corporations become the defacto state. And you have no vote and little say in what they do at all.
There is nothing truly "voluntary" about having to choose between wage-slavery and being homeless and starving. Economic forces are just as coercive as any demand made by the state.
Yeah, let's make fun of St. George Trump for slaying the dragon of Social Darwinism.
I think I'll pass - thank you.
(06-06-2016, 02:54 PM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, let's make fun of St. George Trump for slaying the dragon of Social Darwinism.
I think I'll pass - thank you.
I have a nice spot under the bridge to sell you.
After Hillary wraps up the Democratic nomination tomorrow night, the 90-degree rotation of the two parties will be complete: The Democrats, a left-liberal party since 1972, will be confirmed as now a neoliberal party with Hillary's win over Comrade Sanders, with the Republicans having already gone from a conservative party to a national liberal/"hardhat" party with Donald Trump's victory.
I do admit that I got the "rotation" wrong, in that, as of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I expected the Democrats to go from left-liberalism to national liberalism, and the Republicans to go from conservatism to neoliberalism/libertarianism.
But overall I am very pleased with the results.
(06-06-2016, 03:14 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote: [ -> ]After Hillary wraps up the Democratic nomination tomorrow night, the 90-degree rotation of the two parties will be complete: The Democrats, a left-liberal party since 1972, will be confirmed as now a neoliberal party with Hillary's win over Comrade Sanders, with the Republicans having already gone from a conservative party to a national liberal/"hardhat" party with Donald Trump's victory.
I do admit that I got the "rotation" wrong, in that, as of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I expected the Democrats to go from left-liberalism to national liberalism, and the Republicans to go from conservatism to neoliberalism/libertarianism.
But overall I am very pleased with the results.
I still have no idea how to feel about this. I'd like to choose one, but now your description of both parties made me more conflicted over which one to choose.
(06-06-2016, 03:14 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote: [ -> ]After Hillary wraps up the Democratic nomination tomorrow night, the 90-degree rotation of the two parties will be complete: The Democrats, a left-liberal party since 1972, will be confirmed as now a neoliberal party with Hillary's win over Comrade Sanders, with the Republicans having already gone from a conservative party to a national liberal/"hardhat" party with Donald Trump's victory.
Hillary is not a neo-liberal, just because she's not a "comrade" like Bernie. They are just two shades of liberal.
Calling Trumpie a liberal is laughable. His policies will just boost the rich, and his ego. Fascism of any type or shade is never "liberal." Workers will not benefit from Trumpie's policies, because Mexicans aren't stealing our jobs. Both candidates are against trade deals that hurt workers, so it's a wash on that issue.
Quote:I do admit that I got the "rotation" wrong, in that, as of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I expected the Democrats to go from left-liberalism to national liberalism, and the Republicans to go from conservatism to neoliberalism/libertarianism.
Neo-liberal is just another word for conservative, which means boost the already powerful and wealthy.
Quote:But overall I am very pleased with the results.
The only results to be "pleased with" is when Trump loses.
(06-06-2016, 09:29 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2016, 03:14 PM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]After Hillary wraps up the Democratic nomination tomorrow night, the 90-degree rotation of the two parties will be complete: The Democrats, a left-liberal party since 1972, will be confirmed as now a neoliberal party with Hillary's win over Comrade Sanders, with the Republicans having already gone from a conservative party to a national liberal/"hardhat" party with Donald Trump's victory.
I do admit that I got the "rotation" wrong, in that, as of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I expected the Democrats to go from left-liberalism to national liberalism, and the Republicans to go from conservatism to neoliberalism/libertarianism.
But overall I am very pleased with the results.
I still have no idea how to feel about this. I'd like to choose one, but now your description of both parties made me more conflicted over which one to choose.
Well, let's see: you can choose a candidate with lots of successful experience as a stateswoman, with compassionate policies that help raise people economically and socially, or you can choose a lunatic who might start a war because someone says he's not as rich as he says he is, or reveals that the man behind the curtain is no wizard. And whose policies will leave our climate and our economy in ruins.
Rags, you didn't "figure" that Bieber sux because of my post. You already thought that.
(06-06-2016, 10:36 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2016, 10:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Rags, you didn't "figure" that Bieber sux because of my post. You already thought that.
No. It goes way back to the former forum. I came, I listened, I puked. 
Wow, one emoticon for each of your 3 unfortunate actions.
What else did we mean but the "former forum?" Of course you already thought that, before "Pray" even came out. I read your posts.
No, it's just prejudice. But, whatever. I am prejudiced against Trump. I don't want a crazy man as my president. I guess I don't believe in equal opportunity for the mentally impaired. Oh well. No, I wouldn't vote for Bieber either. No, I'd rather close my eyes and see a better day.
I haven't run Bieber through my new horoscope system yet though. Maybe his score improved. It couldn't have been much worse.
I suppose I would vote for Bieber if he were running against Trump. I wouldn't trust either of them to get a grip on foreign policy, that's for sure. I can see Trump throwing eggs at the Mexican embassy; yes, I can
(06-06-2016, 10:46 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2016, 10:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2016, 10:36 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2016, 10:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Rags, you didn't "figure" that Bieber sux because of my post. You already thought that.
No. It goes way back to the former forum. I came, I listened, I puked.
What else did we mean but the "former forum?" Of course you already thought that, before "Pray" even came out. I read your posts.
No, it's just prejudice. But, whatever. I am prejudiced against Trump. I don't want a crazy man as my president. I guess I don't believe in equal opportunity for the mentally impaired. Oh well. No, I wouldn't vote for Bieber either. No, I'd rather close my eyes and see a better day.
Maybe he is like me and just is not interested in his music? I did not puke as i was totally disinterested in it. To me it is boring. Maybe he too thinks it is boring?
No, he has also said he doesn't like anything but rock. So, he's prone to musical prejudice.
The more I hear "Pray," the more I am impressed with it. I never tire of it. Because of that, I am sure people who are bored or puke when hearing it, just aren't hearing it. That's my definite opinion
I close my eyes, and I can see a better day when more people can appreciate "Pray." Yeah! Still, lots do, and not just young girls; although virtually no-one around
here does. Most people whom I share it with actually like it. Just, the folks here don't. Must be the generational thing; people here judge everything according to the generation theory. Somehow, it gets in the way; I don't know why.
Well Well! Bieber's score is better now, but still a losing one; 8-10. I doubt he could ever run though; not having been born in the USA. Trump would have made mince meat of him on that score. Oh well; he'll have to be content with just being a visionary. But, he's very good at that. Different people have different talents.
(06-06-2016, 10:44 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2016, 10:36 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2016, 10:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Rags, you didn't "figure" that Bieber sux because of my post. You already thought that.
No. It goes way back to the former forum. I came, I listened, I puked.
The picture i got from this
Actually, the Prince of Cats was one of the few here who had some positive things to say about "Pray"
I'm sure he prefers Trump though (we must keep this thread on-topic!)
Can you move the Bieber post to a different thread? This isn't the place for it.
(06-06-2016, 10:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2016, 03:14 PM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]After Hillary wraps up the Democratic nomination tomorrow night, the 90-degree rotation of the two parties will be complete: The Democrats, a left-liberal party since 1972, will be confirmed as now a neoliberal party with Hillary's win over Comrade Sanders, with the Republicans having already gone from a conservative party to a national liberal/"hardhat" party with Donald Trump's victory.
Hillary is not a neo-liberal, just because she's not a "comrade" like Bernie. They are just two shades of liberal.
Calling Trumpie a liberal is laughable. His policies will just boost the rich, and his ego. Fascism of any type or shade is never "liberal." Workers will not benefit from Trumpie's policies, because Mexicans aren't stealing our jobs. Both candidates are against trade deals that hurt workers, so it's a wash on that issue.
Quote:I do admit that I got the "rotation" wrong, in that, as of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I expected the Democrats to go from left-liberalism to national liberalism, and the Republicans to go from conservatism to neoliberalism/libertarianism.
Neo-liberal is just another word for conservative, which means boost the already powerful and wealthy.
Quote:But overall I am very pleased with the results.
The only results to be "pleased with" is when Trump loses.
Thank you for your response. I was just confused because Anthony's description seemed like I'd have to choose between conservative and conservative.
(06-07-2016, 12:38 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016, 12:32 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ]Can you move the Bieber post to a different thread? This isn't the place for it.
Clearly you are new around here. Good luck trying to stop people mentioning the B all over the forum when Eric is here whether he mentions him first or otherwise. Better get used to it because Eric is here forever and ever and ever! I find it comical personally.
I've been here since the old forum; I just don't go on here much. I clearly know that Eric likes to talk about Bieber. Most of the time it's not even relevant to the discussion. There should be a thread just about Bieber so Eric can post his heart out about him whenever he wants.