"Is that pretty close to the mark?"

Nope.

#

"Can anyone in the US honestly say they benefit in no way from services provided by some form of government?"

Certainly: I never said such a thing.

#

"...pretending that there's something more profound..."

Your opinion: you're welcome to it.

There was only an American loss this time, because it was a stupid political maneuver. I'm not saying they were wrong in their goal, but the way they worked toward that goal, was unwise.

Infinite Monkey - did you see the layout of the dead (painted silhouettes), from D-Day, laid out on the beaches at Normandy earlier this year?

There were over 9,000 men - you could barely get two feet, between one dead "GI", and the next one.

Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to give the veterans of foreign wars respect, is VERY questionable!

Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to allow veterans of foreign wars, access to their OWN war memorial for political gamesmanship, is an utter ass-wipe!

If Obama was a REAL Commander-In-Chief, he would apologize to those vets, and personally lead them around the memorial, in a return visit.

But he won't of course.

I was just trying to be generous and help unpack that idea a bit, hoping to find some interesting philosophical nugget. I should probably just get back to work.

Refreshing to hear your point of view, in any case. I'd put you a to the right of the Libertarian, for sure.

What do you call your political orientation?

Just 'Henry Quirk': I got no politics.

Of course we benefit from having our federal gov't. Think of all the natural resources we have: coal, gas, oil, timber, prime farmland, big cities with expensive infrastructure. Then there are the human resources!

If we had no military, etc., we'd be conquered by some country in a heartbeat.

@Henry
Apolitical then. Well, that's rare, but your point of view is within the total political spectrum. The Anarchists are the only group I know of that falls outside it - just because of their affinity to violently destroy all gov'ts and order.

Henry Quirk is just a narcissist who obviously does not understand how a 21st century (or 20th for that matter) society and economy works. His worldview is only realistically applicable to pre-agricultural society.

*yawn*

Of course. That's the goal of a troll.

If you happen to be curious about how any given Senator or Representative
voted on the shut-down Bill (HR 2775) here is a link...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h550

Good idea, he could apologize for the Republicans. It'd be a nice sound bite for the next election cycle... Wait, maybe the baggies are Democratic operatives?

I was informed today by people who lived and worked here during the government shutdowns in the 1990s that ALL of the memorials - yes, the memorials for veterans of foreign wars - were closed during those shutdowns. Since the longer one took place during January, nobody, including the veterans of foreign wars, cared whether the memorials were shut down! No veterans jetted in to demonstrate and climb over barriers! The weather was lousy so the memorials didn't mean as much, I guess.

Or maybe there was a specific effort to fly vets in this time so that people like you, Adak, could whine on and on about the memorials being closed. Or maybe it wasn't a real issue then and isn't one now.

I vote for the latter.

But again the facts get ignored. Wacko extremists caused those closures because they 'knew' closed memorials do not matter. They also knew (and openly say) that a default would not hurt the country. They feel; therefore it must be true. They even reasoned they were winning. Sounds much like Charlie Sheen and his victory.

What did they accomplish? Nothing. Why do they associate Obamacare with closed memorials? Adults acting like children. Such emotional reasoning is common among extremists. Another example of why only moderates are informed, educated, adult, and therefore patriotic.

To keep their disciples misinformed, they blamed Obama for closed memorials. Not the 30 wacko extremists who did nothing useful - to hype their political agenda. Eventually enough moderate Republicans had the balls to vote down their wacko peers. Then the memorials opened.

"troll"

Eye of the beholder.

*shrug*

##

"a narcissist"

Possibly.

#

"who obviously does not understand how a 21st century (or 20th for that matter) society and economy works. His worldview is only realistically applicable to pre-agricultural society."

Your evidences to support the assertion(s), please.

##

"your point of view is within the total political spectrum"

Mebbe so...haven't had an interest in finding sympathetic souls.

#

"Of course we benefit from having our federal gov't."

Sure. I think, however, there might be better ways to get the same benefits.

As I wrote about elsewhere in this forum: proxyhood is preferable to governance.

#

"Think of all the natural resources we have: coal, gas, oil, timber, prime farmland, big cities with expensive infrastructure."

All had by way of private concerns and private concerns in conjunction with local government. Pretty much all those things could be had by way of proxies.

#

"If we had no military, etc., we'd be conquered by some country in a heartbeat."

Certainly you need peace keepers and defenders. Question is: can you get the same or better service by way of proxies? That is: must defense and peace keeping come from an overarching 'governor', or, can the same be had by way of local proxies coordinating with other proxies?

#

"fuck you, I got mine"

Not what I'm saying at all, but it does raise a question.

What exactly is wrong with 'fuck you, I got mine'?

Example: Joe and Henry are in the wilderness. There is exactly enough water to get one of the men into town. Joe has possession of that water. Henry, understandably, wants some. Joe says 'no, sir...if I share, we both die...that's senseless'.

Joe is sayin' 'fuck you, I got mine'.

Within the context of my example: why is Joe wrong?

##

"A government funded research experiment"

What you mean to say: a taxpayer funded research experiment. Government is merely the collector, conduit, and director of monies, it ponies up not a dime of its own ('cause it has nuthin' of its own to call its own).

And: who did the research?

Who currently maintains the net infrastructure (both tangible and intangible)?

Henry it's really hard to follow your posts. I can't easily tell what you're quoting and what's new. It's all jumbled together.

If there were powerful proxies for all that shit it would be the FIRST THING you'd be railing against.

By human nature, they would be taking advantage of that power harder than any government ever would, and you would rightfully be screaming bloody murder and *demanding* that such things be put to direct democracy or some sort of representative voting, where at least there can be two blocs of political power instead of one.

If you want to see a system where the extremely powerful military is not controlled by the government, look at all the shitty countries of the world that can't govern themselves via the vote. Taking over the military is the first step of all dictators and power brokers everywhere. If you have the military you automatically win and can install any set of rules you like.

But it sure is nice to dream, huh?

glatt,

I'm sorry...just read it through again...quotes are 'them'...without quotes is me.

#

Toad,

What prevents the American military (any branch you care to name) from staging a coup?

Any branch you care to name has ALL the big guns and you and Mr. Obama got squat.

So: why don't the soldiers just take over?

"two blocs of political power instead of one"

With proxies: you'd have HUNDREDS of powers not one or two or three.

Hell, toad, without governance (with proxies) even 'you' might end up a 'something' or 'someone'... ;)

Why don't the soldiers just take over? Because they can't; more power in the US and in modern democratic republics, lies Constitutionally in the hands of the people who vote and they wouldn't stand for it. Voting is how they retain and demonstrate that power. A system of checks and balances ensures that the power is never too concentrated in one place. A violation of that system is obvious, and intolerable. As long as the government is representative there is no interest in challenging it. Although it is hard to see, society routinely beats government in actual power, and government changes to meet society's demands.

I submit as proof, the last 224 years. Quod erat fuckin demonstrandum.

So, what would prevent that from happening in your system?

One of biggest changes in mindset I've had over the past 6 years is my switch of preference from a highly idealistic socio-economic setup to a more pragmatic robust society. This is due to the simple fact that social and economic interactions are HIGHLY complex and there is no socio-economic theory that can take all the uncertainties and unknowns into account.

This is reason why the highly idealistic communist system failed and will always fail. It makes an assumption that everyone will readily embrace the values of the system. However, this has always turned out to be untrue and some bastardized form of "communism" was always the result. Leftists keep on saying that the theory needed to be refined but I'm convinced that it just too fragile of an idea to realistically be implemented. The same goes for libertarianism in my opinion.

Your "proxy" idea is entirely dependent on the notion that these proxies are willing to cooperate and work within a decentralized "state" model. However, history almost always shows - except for nomadic societies - that the decentralized city-state model tends to centralize through war due to human ambition. Beyond that, our current technology would force these "proxies" to cooperate at levels unheard of throughout human history. The best guide to how your "proxy society" would work is to observe how our current decentralized state model works on a global level, aka the UN.

See above. The decentralized model has historically only worked for nomadic or pre-agricultural societies. Our current technology requires a high level of planning and cooperation and experience shows us that only a centralized state is really capable of doing this (and they are not even that good at it). When you get multiple actors, each with their own interests, all cooperation goes to shit.

"Why don't the soldiers just take over? Because they can't..."

Of course they can...they choose not to.

The 'will of the people' ("the hands of the people who vote and they wouldn't stand for it") is irrelevant in the face of deliverable atomics and BIG guns.

The real question is why do they 'choose' to 'not' stage coups?

The answer to that question is the answer to "what would prevent that from happening in (my) *system?"









*and: I don't have a system...the word you're looking for is 'transaction'...A and Z transact, each gettin' what each needs from the other...there's gonna be an exchange one way or another, by way of violence or by way of trade...civillization is about 'trade'...it gets ruined when folks unable or unwilling to transact get all huffy and begin goin' on and on about inequities and whatnot...it's friggin' envy, pure and simple (you have more than me...I can't get what you have on my own, so me and my tribe are gonna take what you have)

"Your "proxy" idea is entirely dependent on the notion that these proxies are willing to cooperate and work within a decentralized "state" model."

The current system is based on a similar assumption: that folks will willingly live and work within a centrally planned economy and nation. For those that won't (will not readily embrace the values of the system) there is jail and/or death.

Make no mistake: I got no illusions that americans will ever take the route of self-sufficiency...the population is far too domesticated for that...but, as toad says up thread, "it sure is nice to dream".

No I expect things to tick along in the U.S. (and globally) as they have for a long time now.

#

So, PH, I do get how it all works...your mistake, then, is thinkin' of my posts as advocacy instead of just musings.

Really, where (in this thread or in this forum) have you seen me advocate any changes? Sure, I play the gadfly now and again, but mostly, you'll find, I just say no, I ain't doin' 'that' when some bleedin' heart gets all righteous and says I really need to give a flip about starving old folks or freezing kids or beached whales or corporate greed or whatever the issue du jour happens to be.

#

"there is no socio-economic theory that can take all the uncertainties and unknowns into account"

Sure there is: the unrestrained market (not capitalism).

It isn't just too 'domesticated' it's too big. And too dense. For a transactional society of the kind you describe to work it would need to be smaller, and less complex.

"It isn't just too 'domesticated' it's too big"

Yeah, a big coral full to overflowing with animals ready for butcherin'.

#

"For a transactional society of the kind you describe to work it would need to be smaller, and less complex."

Mostly, I think, folks would have to self-suffice, reorganize priorities, re-assert the difference between 'need' and 'want', and mebbe get back to mindin' their own gardens instead of lusting after what the neighbor has in his or hers.

As I say: it’ll never happen.

If people did attempt that, they'd spend a hell of a lot of time having to defend those self-sufficient gardens from people who don't have a garden to mind.

"they'd spend a hell of a lot of time having to defend those self-sufficient gardens from people who don't have a garden to mind"

Why is it bad that one should spend time in self-defense?

Yeah, self-defense might take one away from the smart phone apps, 'Dancing with the Stars', and vat o' Haagen Daz, but some things are worth workin' for... ;)

As I say: folks would have to reorganize priorities, re-assert the difference between 'need' and 'want'.

As I say: it'll never happen.

You also sacrifice art and science and other forms of specialization. Want the return of a short, brutal existence? Move to Afghanistan or the Congo or something.

"You also sacrifice art and science and other forms of specialization."

Only if you assume yourself under attack 24/7.

That's never been the case, even in the worst of times.

Certainly: romance novels wouldn't get written, but War and Peace would.

#

"Want the return of a short, brutal existence?"

Hmmm, let's see short, brutal (and probably immensely satisfying) versus long, boring, and FAT (slow death for the mind and body).

*shrug*

#

"Afghanistan...the Congo"

Pretty sure, even in those places, there's a dollop of joy to be had.

Your mistake: thinkin' you are 'dependent' (on another for the stability and structure of your living).

Hell, maybe you 'are'.

My condolences, if that's the case.

It's a continuum. The more security you have the more you can raise the bar of human expression and achievement. Sure a lot of dross gets created, but that's the case with anything.

Leo Tolstoy was born into nobility. He had the stability of an accidental heritage that secured him the means (time, safety, food, shelter, education) to write. You don't see tribal societies generating sophisticated art. That's not to say it can't be technically impressive, meaningful or intricate.

I'm genuinely curious. Do you masturbate when you watch apocalyptic movies? It really seems like you have a brutality fetish. Why do you get off on the idea of masses of people dying in stark raving terror and of preventable diseases? It seems like you somehow think that you won't be such a victim.

I don't think that would work like you think it would. Maybe instead of will of the people, it's consent of the governed. In any case, 224 years, QED, mate.

No need for the scare quotes, under rule of law that General would be considered a traitor, and due to consent of the governed, the military would not go along with the plan.

*rule of law = the one with the big stick
 

"Do you masturbate when you watch apocalyptic movies?"

I've never asked any one in this forum such a crude, ugly, question, but I’m the jackass?

You: get bent.

##

"I don't think that would work like you think it would..."

I disagree. You've given no reason to change my mind.

#

"In any case, 224 years"

Which only means: for a great length of time military folks have 'chosen' not to over throw the government.

*shrug*









*in America, who, today, has the biggest stick?

Easy: the one with the soldiers' wages.

That "wacko" was Obama, and no one else. Before he leaves office, he will have increased our national debt TWICE the amount of ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

Think about that.

In a recent study (by somebody at Yale, I was driving when I heard it) 45 out of 50 states will have HIGHER medical insurance costs, under Obamacare. 166% for women, and 194% for men, on average.

Does that sound like the cheaper health care insurance we were told we'd have with Obamacare, or does that sound like his BLATANT LIES, again?


We tried to blame it on the Republicans like everything else, but it just wasn't believable! :rolleyes:

I remember the Washington Monument and other closed memorials being closed. I believe Lincoln's was barricaded by Clinton. But the WWII memorial - no, I never heard that one was closed. That's the only one that has the "honor flights" of old vets, coming in to pay respects, for the last time.

I get it - if Obama took a blowtorch to your dog, you'd find a way to blame the Conservatives for it - I get it.

The truth is, the whole shut down strategy was poorly thought out, by some Conservatives, who had promised their constituents they'd do everything they could to stop Obamacare. It was a brash thing to promise, but they felt that once it was promised, they HAD to do what they said they would.

There is a strong movement among the Conservatives, to put up strong Conservative challengers into the primaries, to challenge every neo, every RINO, every John McCain type Republican, currently in office - and get rid of them.

They have split the party with a lot of their votes, and in some cases, just plainly were bought out like street hoe's - Nebraska, Florida, Kentucky, etc. You can say that their votes weren't bought and paid for -- except that they were.

The days of the "Go along to get along", Republicans, are coming to an end, in response to the wholesale socialist agenda of the current Democratic party.

Since Obama can't manage to spend within the national income of the federal gov't, you have to wonder "where's the Treasury Dept getting the money to pay our bills?

Simple, from the large Trust Funds. And what Trust fund has been raided the most, because it has the most?

Social Security.

Oh, we got a big fat IOU in there, for whatever it's worth.

Have you heard anything about that in the major media?

Nope. When it's Obama, it's all good. ANY other President would have been BBQ'd long ago, to a cinder, for that kind of irresponsibility with our finances, and our future.

So Rush Limbaugh once visited Yale. That proves it must be true. A perfect example of motivated reasoning.

My problem with listening to Limbaugh, is that he continually attacks the Democrats - not just their policies, but them, unnecessarily.

I admit some Democrats seem to be so far removed from reality that they become icons for inanity: Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

Or they're terrible hypocrites like Dianne Feinstein, who keeps pushing gun control bill after gun control bill - all the while having a concealed gun permit, and a handgun she keeps with her. Dianne has been around several violent crimes (Milk assassination, Jones' cult in Guyanna when she went to investigate it, her home was burglarized, etc.). But she acts like she's the ONLY person who was ever the victim of a violent crime! When she was in S.F. politics, you couldn't get a CCW permit in S.F., because of her.

But we need to try to stay focused on the issues and policies, not the human failings of our politicians (as people).

Why do you think there's been a backlash against Obamacare? HINT: It's not because the rates are too cheap!

No, I didn't catch the researchers name, but that kind of info is coming out more, as people try to sign up at the ACA exchanges in their state.

So far, less than 1% of those who go to the websites, actually enroll in Obamacare, at any level, according to the British papers.

Washington Post (Not a Conservative paper), had this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...45b_story.html

Read this balanced article, with analysis by Actuaries, and you'll know the good, and the bad news about rates under Obamacare. Some groups will do well - older, poorer, sicker, but healthier, younger, or those with a larger family, will do much worse.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/10/...why_are_s.html

ACA doesn't allow a family to be insured as a group anymore. They have to rate each individual, and then add them all up to get the family's premium rate.

Well Aaka, it's OK that you don't remember the WWII Memorial being closed during a government shut down...

Wikipedia:

The Post is a pretty conservative paper, but gets a liberal reputation because of Watergate, and because their competition is the Washington Times. But more importantly, the author of that opinion piece is definitely a conservative.

Not true in general, but partially true, and should be fixed as soon as we have a congress that can pass fixes.

Think about THAT! (snaps finger and does head wag and turns abruptly and walks away.)

Adak always comes off as a petulant bitch child. :lol:

(cue Adak screaming "think of the children or the veterans or the mangy dogs or the feral cats or the plight of the bumblebee" in his ongoing effort to try to shame those of us who know he's full of shit up to HERE!)

The backlash from Obamacare comes from the same reasoning and propaganda that called blacks 'niggers'. The same reasoning and propaganda that convinced so many that smoking cigarettes increases health. Ruch Limbaugh simply does what Hitler also advocated in his book. And that so successfully gets so many to smoke cigarettes.

Meanwhile, Obamacare was defined by conservatives think tanks, advocated first by Nixon, implemented successfully by Romney, and not attacked only for reasons based in emotion.

In the first Tea Party convention, straw polls asked who was most popular. The top three did not include any Republican politicians. The top three most popular were those who invent facts and inspire emotion to manipulate: Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. That is where so many lies about Affordable Health Care come from. Tea Party types not only believe what they are told. They even tried to elect a witch to the Senate.

I grant that's a pretty crude question on the surface. The reality of the question is that it's a metaphorical way of expressing disbelief of the way you get off contemplating widespread suffering. The lack of empathy you display is astounding. The delusion that you think brutality is an improvement and that you'd fare well is disgusting.

I keep telling myself to stop reading the rhetorical nonsense you post. But it's hard to look away from your peacock-like displays of incoherent babble.

You want me bent? Well, come bend me. That's what your world view is all about right?

Now that is a very good observation, now ask yourself "WHO is causing the inflation? What is causing the inflation?

Overspending, and printing more and more money, when we don't have the actual increase in our economy's wealth, to cover it.:(

And WHO is spending more money, and using the treasury dept to print out more money, so we can afford to buy back our own debt with devalued money?

Just because he uses the treasury dept to help him steal from your bank account and wallet, doesn't mean that Obama is a nice guy. He is in fact, a huge thief. Perhaps the worlds largest thief, because of his policies.

I'm not defending Limbaugh, nor espousing his positions. Leave Limbaugh (and the Nazi's and Hitler, and racist comments, etc.) out of it. They have no place in this narrative.

Of course the media types are the most popular in any new party's poll. They're the only one's who are on the air, hours at a time, all across the country.

Most voters (or either party), could not name ten federal politicians, from their party.

They are a major if not #1 reason why so many in extremist districts hate Obamacare while knowing nothing about it and reciting myths such as 'death boards'. Obamacare has not even started. And already these Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity followers are saying how Obamacare has harmed the economy. When it comes to knowledge from emotions and myths, then listeners to Limbaugh, et al are easy to identify. They recite fables and parables that only exist in talk show fiction. Including 'death boards'.

How did Obamacare already destroy the economy? Even Congressional extremists were preaching that lie. With gerrymandering, then they were elected by margins such as 75%. Where must one usually go to find a 75% voting margin? Cuba? No consequences exist when your district will automatically believe what Limbaugh, Tea Party, et al tell them to believe. Lying has no consequences when a district is so one sided, easily misinformed, and will not vote for moderates.

Americans are looking forward to health insurance available to all - at reduced costs. As proven successful by Romney in MA. That reality is routinely forgotten by extremist talk show hosts and their listener.

These same extremists will not even apologize for their lie about Mission Accomplished - and a multi-trillion dollar debt that it created. We cannot even eliminate the penny and paper dollar bill - to save $billions. Same extremists who stifle progress also believe harming the American economy to attack Obamacare is good.

If true, then we would have stagflation all over again. You have defined what Nixon did to create great harm to the American economy. We do not have stagflation because we are not making that mistake.

We are, however, still trying to fix a larger mistake that previously created another massive recession in 1929. Back then we also foolishly enriched the rich. At that time, our forefathers did not understand this problem as it was being created. Today we know enriching the rich even destroys jobs. And again we made that mistake. Some still do not appreciate how much damage was created. And why we were so close to a 40% unemployment.

Perry,

"contemplating widespread suffering"

Contemplation is not advocacy.

##

Dana,

'in America, who, today, has the biggest stick?'

"Easy: the one with the soldiers' wages."

So: name the wage-holders, the wage controllers.

Guess what. Oh you'll never guess. Not only is this criticism not true if you adjust for inflation, it's not true if you DON'T!

Not adjusting for inflation is the second answer on this stackexchange discussion. The first answer is looking at the question without even adjusting for inflation.

See there's criticism, which I'm very open to, and then there's shit-flinging monkeys. Most criticism on both sides comes from shit-flinging monkeys. Don't be a shit-flinging monkey. We already have way too many of those.

Word

I had heard about the vets at the WWII Memorial, but had not followed the news.
So, when I came across this Washington Post pic, I thought of Adak.

Attachment 45761

But then, don't these "vets" look sort of young to be WWII vets ?

Adak, must be so proud... and their parents must be too !

So in your opinion, inflation is not caused by government and treasury dept. policies, including the Fed. Res. Bank?

You are a national treasure! :rolleyes:

Too bad every single economist, politician in either party, and the people who work in the above departments of gov't / institution, disagree with you.

I am proud of these guys! Do you REALLY believe 80 year old vets can man-handle steel barricades?

Many of them can barely walk, or use a cane or a wheel chairs, furrkristSakes!

This was the ass-wipe Obama, operating WAY outside his purview, and we have every right to dissent and protest that action.

What? Did you think dissent and protest should be limited to 80 year olds? Maybe we should sit around and wring our hands out and shake our heads?

You may not be intelligent or intellectually honest enough for us to have this discussion. It is not about inflation. It is about adjusting for inflation.

Do you know what adjusting for inflation is, and why it's important when comparing dollars from 1970 against dollars from today?

By the way, I favor the Milton Friedman school of thought which says that inflation is mostly caused by money supply.

You're too insulting to have an intelligent conversation with, it appears.

I'm a national treasure.

Please overlook the insult if you can, Adak. Can you, will you please, answer his question about adjusting for inflation and how it applies to your original point?

word.

Adak said so, #289

Undertoad - I agree, you are a "National Treasure". I know you are our benevolent overlord and would make the ultimate supreme leader of planet earth.

Adak - The government shut down sucked big time and there is a lot of blame to go around. I am not a fan of the current administration, but calling the President of the United States an ass wipe is wrong in so many ways. You may not like the man, but for God's sake you need to respect the office he holds and what he represents.

:)

NY Times
JONATHAN WEISMAN
December 10, 2013

Capitol Leaders Agree to a Deal on the Budget
<snip><snip><snip>
Sometimes I think this sort of GOP theatrics is just a ploy to make
the Democrats think they are getting a good deal. :rolleyes:

.