TrueBlueGED Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 The point was that it's not utterly out of the question like many people love to suggest. Raising a family means you have to become civically disengaged? Raising a family doesn't mean you HAVE to become disengaged, but it tends to mean people are less likely to actively participate in politics (by this I mean action other than simply voting). It's possible that those with families actually care more about certain issues (education funding, for example), but they have less of the most important resource necessary to political action: free time. As an individual's free time decreases, participating in politics becomes even more "costly" on a relative basis--when one has less free time, that free time becomes more valuable, thus using free time becomes more expensive. Then you also have to consider that participating in politics is a particularly low-reward activity, and it's perfectly plausible that going from not having a family to having a family leads to a reduction in political participation.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Pominville took Lucic?! EDIT: I do agree that Keyes is freaking brilliant. I don't necessarily agree with all of his politics, but I do know that he is a brilliant man. And that has nothing to do with debate skills, IMO. Ooooh!!! You got off the hook! I ran to Youtube. I can understand where people don't agree with his policies. I am upset how he reacted to his own child being gay. I have a tough time understanding that. Even Brian Burke took that news ok. This clip is the best though.
Eleven Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Ooooh!!! You got off the hook! I ran to Youtube. I can understand where people don't agree with his policies. I am upset how he reacted to his own child being gay. I have a tough time understanding that. Even Brian Burke took that news ok. I question whether his supposed adherence to evangelical principles is genuine as opposed to an appeal to a certain segment of the electorate. We agree that he's a brilliant man; surely he must realize the age of the Earth is significantly in excess of 6000 years.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I question whether his supposed adherence to evangelical principles is genuine as opposed to an appeal to a certain segment of the electorate. We agree that he's a brilliant man; surely he must realize the age of the Earth is significantly in excess of 6000 years. He is hard core. He is smart enough to temper his views if he was worried about getting elected. That's why I love him. The earth may have been here over 6000 years, but it's statistical gain in population, technology, etc. was meaningless. You can chart back as far as you want for almost any variable, and it is clear we have recently gone parabolic and only registered a blip in the recent past. Anything before is pretty much a flatline. If you followed anything I talked about in the old PPP it was that theory I used to say we could very well be entering the end times given my knowledge of the precarious financial situation of the world. Something needs to blow up if we want to keep moving forward. Sad but true. Financial collapse and war may be the only way we survive as a species. As a Christian, I can see where the 2nd coming matches up in many ways to what we are living through right now. Now I'll really throw this puppy off course. :w00t:
Eleven Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 He is hard core. He is smart enough to temper his views if he was worried about getting elected. That's why I love him. The earth may have been here over 6000 years, but it's statistical gain in population, technology, etc. was meaningless. You can chart back as far as you want for almost any variable, and it is clear we have recently gone parabolic and only registered a blip in the recent past. Anything before is pretty much a flatline. If you followed anything I talked about in the old PPP it was that theory I used to say we could very well be entering the end times given my knowledge of the precarious financial situation of the world. Something needs to blow up if we want to keep moving forward. Sad but true. Financial collapse and war may be the only way we survive as a species. As a Christian, I can see where the 2nd coming matches up in many ways to what we are living through right now. Now I'll really throw this puppy off course. :w00t: Peter thought it was right around the corner, too.
FogBat Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 No doubt this is a thinly veiled shot at the current administration. It seems as if some people love to regurgitate what their talking pundits tell them. Those were his words, not mine. You're better than this to sink to this assumption.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Peter thought it was right around the corner, too. Sure....but like I said.....look at the technology we have today. If the world is really millions of years old, then it WAS right around the corner for Peter. 2000 of 10,000,000 is almost nothing. Moore's law, or whatever else you want to chart.....we are on a runaway train. In the financial sector, credit default swaps and other derivatives number into a quadrillion dollars. That's not a misprint. Look at defense tactics, biotech, natural resources.....one tiny mistake and we are toast. If you just chart back from the start of the country......a one shot musket that took 30 seconds to fire.....80 years later a cannon that could fire 3 miles was prime......another 80 years later an A-bomb.....another 80 years later a pimple-faced geek can end the world as we know it from his laptop with a laser from orbit. Do you care to project what we have in another 80 years? I say it is impossible to make it that far without destruction. When you look at the economic and geopolitical situation and use history as a guide, you can guess where we are headed. I think much of the public is now aware at the dire situation of the financial world now as opposed to 2007-'08 when I started talking about what was going on. There really is no moral or fair way out. People need to suffer. The way the sides are lining up though really are close to a direct match in some of the things we see in the bible. Playing around with Syria now is scary as all get out. For people that would make fun of me suggesting we may be mirroring what is expected in the bible.....the ruin of Damascus is key in the start of it all. I am no biblical scholar, but understand enough about things to be very aware of what the temperature is.
FogBat Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I question whether his supposed adherence to evangelical principles is genuine as opposed to an appeal to a certain segment of the electorate. We agree that he's a brilliant man; surely he knows that must realize the age of the Earth is significantly in excess of around 6000 years. Fixed for accuracy. Sure....but like I said.....look at the technology we have today. If the world is really millions of years old, then it WAS right around the corner for Peter. 2000 of 10,000,000 is almost nothing. Moore's law, or whatever else you want to chart.....we are on a runaway train. In the financial sector, credit default swaps and other derivatives number into a quadrillion dollars. That's not a misprint. Look at defense tactics, biotech, natural resources.....one tiny mistake and we are toast. If you just chart back from the start of the country......a one shot musket that took 30 seconds to fire.....80 years later a cannon that could fire 3 miles was prime......another 80 years later an A-bomb.....another 80 years later a pimple-faced geek can end the world as we know it from his laptop with a laser from orbit. Do you care to project what we have in another 80 years? I say it is impossible to make it that far without destruction. When you look at the economic and geopolitical situation and use history as a guide, you can guess where we are headed. I think much of the public is now aware at the dire situation of the financial world now as opposed to 2007-'08 when I started talking about what was going on. There really is no moral or fair way out. People need to suffer. The way the sides are lining up though really are close to a direct match in some of the things we see in the bible. Playing around with Syria now is scary as all get out. For people that would make fun of me suggesting we may be mirroring what is expected in the bible.....the ruin of Damascus is key in the start of it all. I am no biblical scholar, but understand enough about things to be very aware of what the temperature is. I'd like to see them get rid of Keynesian economics and get us back to both real money and Austrian economics and away from the Monopoly money that has the blessing of that criminal network that Mr. Bernanke runs.
Eleven Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Damn. And for a page or two there, it was a decent thread.
FogBat Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Peter thought it was right around the corner, too. We're not supposed to know the exact date. IIRC, a certain radio station host out in Oakland, CA found out the hard way last year when his predictions failed to materialize not once but twice. I have to start going to Sabres' games again on Wedn. Unfortunately, this thread is much more interesting and thought provoking! How true. The political theatre, no matter how much it gets under everyone's skin, happens to be more entertaining than the snake-bitten shallow product that some of us are observing on the ice right now at the FNC. There are days when (believe it or not) I wish it was the other way around.
deluca67 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I question whether his supposed adherence to evangelical principles is genuine as opposed to an appeal to a certain segment of the electorate. We agree that he's a brilliant man; surely he must realize the age of the Earth is significantly in excess of 6000 years. The Earth is 6000 years old in "God Years." They're like dog years, instead of multiplying by 7 you multiply by 700,000.
Weave Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 No, people weren't informed before the internet, just as they're not informed now (although you do undersell the difficulties people have in accessing information). This would have been my reply. Thank you.
fan2456 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Not to mention, the pharmaceutical industry has waaaaaaaaaaaay higher profit margins than the insurance companies, yet still got off the hook with drug importation still being illegal (granted they cut about $120 billion in prices over a period of time, but that was surely cheaper than drug importation being legalized in the long haul). Coincidentally, they were the single largest campaign contributor to Obama. I don't think it was a simple quid pro quo agreement, but it certainly mattered. Excellent point. As an aside, I'd love to see pharma have to stop marketing prescription drugs to the general public and use that huge amount of advertising money to lower costs to the public. I have to believe most of us know a lot less about pharmicokinetics than about politics.
LastPommerFan Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 This was a brilliant and informative thread before we got into end of days stuff. I don't really have "a candidate". I gave up my blue/red status a long time ago. My vote goes to the individual I most trust to represent me. And I realize no one candidate is going to be a perfect representative of my wishes so it is a compromise. What organizations have purchased influence is a consideration for me. It is not the only one. I doubt I'd ever find a candidate whose campaign doners I agree with totally. Unfortunately, the way our system is set up, Giving up your Red/Blue tag is effectively giving up your voice. Policy determinations begin at the party leadership level and then are adjusted by the parties' moderate members. This is how Harry Reid and Olympia Snow can be considered equally powerful. To effect policy in a state like NY with Closed Primaries, you need to get involved at the party level. Which, can be as much about charisma as you claim it is about money. It's obviously too early to tell what the Citizens United case will do to campaigns, but it may actually have a benefit. ... SNIP... I think it's possible that Citizens United may not be as bad as it has been made out to be. I hope you are correct, but the secret nature of the SuperPAC donors is, from my viewpoint, incompatible with democracy. It is impossible to make an informed decision about a candidate without knowing what interests will have the all important "access" advantage after the election is over. No, people weren't informed before the internet, just as they're not informed now (although you do undersell the difficulties people have in accessing information). And as I've seemingly said over and over, people don't have to be informed to make political decisions in accordance with their preferences. And frankly, almost nobody has any idea what they're voting for if you are talking about specific policies--not even the most politically informed know this....actually, because of the way policymaking works, not even candidates know exactly what their policies will look like. Candidates run on ideals/values/principles/ideology, not specifics, so you could make the argument that not only don't people know what they're voting for, but candidates don't know what they're running for :o This is a large part of the problem. The way legislation is written (by the office staffers who will inevitably be the campaign staff, and therefore are always concerned about fundraising) The details are not driven by the office holders, and there are often times when the details derail from that leaders ideology, but rather benefit the bottom line of the interest at hand (whether they be union rules, corporate subsidies, etc.) Alan Keyes is the brightest guy out there. I have given to him in the past even though there is no way he gets elected. If you want a laugh, watch him debate Obama in their run for Senator. It's like Lucic versus Pominville in a fight. You have to have a certain religious view to think that clip made Keyes look good. To me it makes him look like a struggling pandering to the one-issue abortion voters. I know he is brilliant, but that particular, "we own Christianity because we promise to make abortion illegal" line is very tiring.
Weave Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 This was a brilliant and informative thread before we got into end of days stuff. Unfortunately, the way our system is set up, Giving up your Red/Blue tag is effectively giving up your voice. Policy determinations begin at the party leadership level and then are adjusted by the parties' moderate members. This is how Harry Reid and Olympia Snow can be considered equally powerful. To effect policy in a state like NY with Closed Primaries, you need to get involved at the party level. Which, can be as much about charisma as you claim it is about money. And my response to this is, you can't give up what you don't have. Rank and file citizens don't have a voice. Big money determines which red/blue candidate you vote for. The game is fixed before a voter even shows up at their polling place. My contention is that the only voice we have is with non red/blue candidates right now.
LastPommerFan Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 And my response to this is, you can't give up what you don't have. Rank and file citizens don't have a voice. Big money determines which red/blue candidate you vote for. The game is fixed before a voter even shows up at their polling place. My contention is that the only voice we have is with non red/blue candidates right now. Valid. My view is based on my experience, which I understand is different than many. I come from a politically active family, went to a politically active university, and am active myself. But my family is working class, I'm middle class and I am raising a family, so we understand where our limitations are. That said, my involvement in politics at a party level has helped directly impact policy. I don't agree with every plank in the Democrat Platform, but my voice is a little louder in the smaller room, so I take the package as a whole.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 This was a brilliant and informative thread before we got into end of days stuff. Sorry to bring up another viewpoint. Please return to your drumbeating for Pension-stuffing Unions that will see only a 15% payout of expected benefits by the time you are ready to collect.
inkman Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Posted January 31, 2012 Those were his words, not mine. You're better than this to sink to this assumption. ...but you chose to repeat them.
LastPommerFan Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Sorry to bring up another viewpoint. Please return to your drumbeating for Pension-stuffing Unions that will see only a 15% payout of expected benefits by the time you are ready to collect. No problem with other viewpoints, I don't see that one as holding merit, that's my viewpoint. And I'll go on the record as saying I'm anti-organized labor, especially in it's current form. This is one area where my personal views (as a person who has worked nearly a decade as an exempt employee in various union shops) differ from those of the traditional Democrat Platform.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 No problem with other viewpoints, I don't see that one as holding merit, that's my viewpoint. And I'll go on the record as saying I'm anti-organized labor, especially in it's current form. This is one area where my personal views (as a person who has worked nearly a decade as an exempt employee in various union shops) differ from those of the traditional Democrat Platform. "God" Bless you! :P I knew you had too much common sense.
LastPommerFan Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 "God" Bless you! :P I knew you had too much common sense. That doesn't mean I'm pro-corporate oligarchy either. I'll be honest though, I do find evangelical condescension more than a little off-putting. It's the same as atheist condescension. As soon as one of those two things get put into a political debate, it is impossible that the conversation will arrive at a compromise or any sort of resolve. They are the most likely causes of discussions going "off the rails" and the reason people in the United States can't talk about politics in polite company. As a firm and faithful believer, I don't love to be lectured on what I should be supporting if I "really" believed. It calls my faith into question the same as being lectured by and Atheist on why I waste my time in prayer.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 That doesn't mean I'm pro-corporate oligarchy either. I'll be honest though, I do find evangelical condescension more than a little off-putting. It's the same as atheist condescension. As soon as one of those two things get put into a political debate, it is impossible that the conversation will arrive at a compromise or any sort of resolve. They are the most likely causes of discussions going "off the rails" and the reason people in the United States can't talk about politics in polite company. As a firm and faithful believer, I don't love to be lectured on what I should be supporting if I "really" believed. It calls my faith into question the same as being lectured by and Atheist on why I waste my time in prayer. I agree. Eleven mentioned Keyes and I think he's the smartest guy out there. Not because of his religious views on their own. I am pretty much a Libertarian. All-around though there isn't a more honest, sharper mind out there in my opinion. I get into trouble when I bring up "end-times". Nobody knows if/when. I am just saying that on a statistical basis, we can't keep up our rate of explosion. It is impossible unless you believe in some human/computer melding like the Singularity. I tend to think that humans are too greedy to cooperate at the level needed to avoid certain catastrophe. The financial system is done. They decided to save it in 2008, but it only lead to bigger and more dishonest kicking of the can that can only go on for so long. There is no way out now other than devalue and default, which would be painful but honest, or to hyperinflate through liquidity and eventual currency crisis. I figured people wouldn't stand for it, and you saw the creation of the Tea Party and Occupy on different sides of the same basic idea, but we've managed to keep some sense of normalcy for a bit longer than I expected. The consequences though when things have to fail will be far reaching, and brutal. When we reach the point of no return on that end, you worry about geopolitical issues that will go along with it. It is a very scary situation in my opinion that very few have wanted to project in their own heads. I used to be straightline Republican, but after what I saw happen in 2007 and 2008 with Bush and Paulson, it was obvious all these guys are in on it together and the whole scene is much like the WWE. Keep the show on for the public and collect their cash. I now look at political debate more in the terms of history than present or future. How we got here.
LastPommerFan Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I agree. Eleven mentioned Keyes and I think he's the smartest guy out there. Not because of his religious views on their own. I am pretty much a Libertarian. All-around though there isn't a more honest, sharper mind out there in my opinion. I get into trouble when I bring up "end-times". Nobody knows if/when. I am just saying that on a statistical basis, we can't keep up our rate of explosion. It is impossible unless you believe in some human/computer melding like the Singularity. I tend to think that humans are too greedy to cooperate at the level needed to avoid certain catastrophe. The financial system is done. They decided to save it in 2008, but it only lead to bigger and more dishonest kicking of the can that can only go on for so long. There is no way out now other than devalue and default, which would be painful but honest, or to hyperinflate through liquidity and eventual currency crisis. I figured people wouldn't stand for it, and you saw the creation of the Tea Party and Occupy on different sides of the same basic idea, but we've managed to keep some sense of normalcy for a bit longer than I expected. The consequences though when things have to fail will be far reaching, and brutal. When we reach the point of no return on that end, you worry about geopolitical issues that will go along with it. It is a very scary situation in my opinion that very few have wanted to project in their own heads. I used to be straightline Republican, but after what I saw happen in 2007 and 2008 with Bush and Paulson, it was obvious all these guys are in on it together and the whole scene is much like the WWE. Keep the show on for the public and collect their cash. I now look at political debate more in the terms of history than present or future. How we got here. I fully agree that the rate of technological expansion is cause for alarm, especially when combined with our underdeveloped international society and the geopolitical issues you reference. But there is cause for hope when you look at WWI/WWII (In a historical context please accept that they were two outbreaks of the same war, with a 10 year ceasefire). There was concern at that time that all-out war was inevitable and that that war would bring total destruction, especially to Europe. It happened, and Europe ended up recovering in less than 3 decades, a blip in the timeline. The other cause for hope is the single most unique trait of our species. Humans are the only known creature that has been able to adapt to every known habitat/climate/environment, name your variable. Yes, there is a significant potential for a painful adjustment, just as there was in the first half of the 20th century, but we are ridiculously good at survival. IF something on a global scale happens, even if that event is nuclear, there is no reason to believe that it would be the end of days for the species. Millions would survive, likely billions. Only god can destroy this creation, and I see no indication and hold no value in the viewpoint that he is intending to do that soon. All that said, your point about Damascus is down right spooky. :(
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 That's probably the most level-headed response anyone has ever given me. Thanks. If you want to look at things on a domestic political level, I think Obama gets re-elected because of things. They have been holding off on Iran for years and if the US doesn't go at it soon, Israel would have to do it. That would mean certain big-time war. At least if the US leads, things may remain a relative calm. Russia and China are chirping though and because Syria is a proxy, this is a whole bowl of wrong setting up. Everyone has carriers there now in numbers. With Egypt and Lybia, and now Syria hanging on by a thread, if there is interference from the west....Iran has it's excuse to go on the offense. They know they are going to get knocked in the teeth sooner or later and might as well use a good excuse. Both sides are playing chicken right now. What scares me is that you have the backdrop of the financial system in peril. Russia has been quiet and China has been buying up hard goods for 3 years now and backdoor diversifying out of US funds. They almost made a move in July 2008 until the US sent them a little bonus. At a certain point though, too many entities are going to go under. There is pressure from every direction. If you don't pay out on default insurance, then one group goes under. you saw that with MF Global which in turn lost $1 billion of client deposits. The average guy on the street hasn't paid much attention to that because it wasn't Bank of America. It was mainly private wealth funds and business hedging. But when a custodian goes under....where are funds safe? The regulatory boards can't call a default a default, because then the only option is another giant bailout like AIG, or you let the dominoes start to fall as banks go down. It looks like they are setting up Europe to take the fall and protect the big US banks in the short term.....but someone else big is going down. How much can certain factions take before things overheat at a political level? If this all comes to a head as a move is made on Iran and Syria, it would be the perfect time to rectify the situation through a large scale war. Everyone can take attention from their own domestic failures and point the finger at the other guy. Instead of near anarchy, you get nationalism. It's an oldie but a goodie. I've stayed out of these discussions for a while. You see how defensive people can get about telling them their hockey team can't win. Imagine trying to tell them their financial future is in trouble. I learned the hard way, but I said what needed to be said at the time. Now everyone is well aware of many of the issues. When the Fed comes out and says they are keeping 0% interest rates until the end of 2014, I think that the cat's pretty much out of the bag.
fan2456 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 http://news.yahoo.com/obama-scoops-big-money-donors-005029340.html Whether they're millionaires in their own right, take corporate or big donor money, they all sell their influence.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.