Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Walker wrote:Warning: tonal quality may induce headaches.
I listened to the first half and can't quite focus my eyes.

Hillary Clinton On Why Should Black People Support Her After 1994 Crime Bill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HApWwKBWYJk

I served my country for 16 years, laying my life on the line, what the hell have you done except bitch and moan, when you repubs are seen as the self serving demons that you are?

There you go again. All insults and apologies, veering wildly from one side of the goat path to the other.

May I remind you, it’s not about me.

Military tends to vote Republican,
It is true that the majority seems to vote repub, but obviously I'm one of those other kind, you know, actually smart.

which is why Democrats like POTUS have been known to disenfranchise the military vote with red-tape when possible. Watch for Clinton to try that crafty little piece of politicking.

As a proud veteran of the armed forces, you may want to consider if fraternizing with a disenfranchising organization of Democrats is in the best interest of the principles which shape your pride. You may be doublethinking unawares against your own interest.

You know it's extremely funny that you can both, so adamantly speak of these things as if you can in fact be certain, and be so utterly incorrect at the same time. My conclusion: you must either be a rich man, or have stock in companies that stand to loose if the democrats win this election, which seemingly at this point, is probably the way it's going to end up. So how does it feel pissing into the wind? Wet? Change directions, it's nice and dry from my vantage point!

Walker wrote: Nothing dangerous about PC except it will rot your brain. So, perhaps Roosevelt was popular at the turning point because hungry, Depression Era folks with lots of free time were all read-up on political/economic theory and had hashed out the hair-splitting fine points of government’s relationship to the autonomy of mans’ free spirit.

Actually, Roosevelt provided quite a few government funded jobs. He was a big thinker. Big experimenter. *

Sometime after Roosevelt, working for the government money became a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The other day I saw a street sweeper. What that means is, I saw a man driving a big machine that cost a lot of money. The machine swept the street. Naturally I thought, give thirty hungry men brooms and pay them to do the work.

Except hungry men don’t have that option any more. Unions, legal liability, insurance, technology.

Cheaper to skip all that, skip the work, and just hand out the surplus cheese.
Less complicated for all concerned for folks to have just enough to not be hungry, because hungry can never be complacent.
(Humm. With N. Korea in mind, that requires a closer look.)

Face it. Folks don't flock to the US of A, legally and illegally, for the bad life.
They break laws to get to the USA, for the good life.
For the cheese.


* check out this Democratic insanity.
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farmin ... ps_17.html

I'm sorry. I thought we were trying to answer a question about when black people started to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
You seem to have wandered off track into some vague and random rant regarding shit I don't care about.
Does this mean you have given up on the right wing revisionism?

I am not trying to tell you that Democrats are wonderful. I am not under any circumstances saying that interfering with markets to control prices works. Whether that refers to slaughtering livestock in the 30s, fixing rents today, or imposing tariffs against Chinese or Mexican imports tomorrow, the result is counter-productive in every case, and I know that far better than any Trump supporter ever will.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Walker wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I served my country for 16 years, laying my life on the line, what the hell have you done except bitch and moan, when you repubs are seen as the self serving demons that you are?

There you go again. All insults and apologies, veering wildly from one side of the goat path to the other.

May I remind you, it’s not about me.

Military tends to vote Republican,
It is true that the majority seems to vote repub, but obviously I'm one of those other kind, you know, actually smart.

which is why Democrats like POTUS have been known to disenfranchise the military vote with red-tape when possible. Watch for Clinton to try that crafty little piece of politicking.

As a proud veteran of the armed forces, you may want to consider if fraternizing with a disenfranchising organization of Democrats is in the best interest of the principles which shape your pride. You may be doublethinking unawares against your own interest.

You know it's extremely funny that you can both, so adamantly speak of these things as if you can in fact be certain, and be so utterly incorrect at the same time. My conclusion: you must either be a rich man, or have stock in companies that stand to loose if the democrats win this election, which seemingly at this point, is probably the way it's going to end up. So how does it feel pissing into the wind? Wet? Change directions, it's nice and dry from my vantage point!

Amazing how a paragraph can say absolutely nothing.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

Walker wrote: Nothing dangerous about PC except it will rot your brain. So, perhaps Roosevelt was popular at the turning point because hungry, Depression Era folks with lots of free time were all read-up on political/economic theory and had hashed out the hair-splitting fine points of government’s relationship to the autonomy of mans’ free spirit.

Actually, Roosevelt provided quite a few government funded jobs. He was a big thinker. Big experimenter. *

Sometime after Roosevelt, working for the government money became a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The other day I saw a street sweeper. What that means is, I saw a man driving a big machine that cost a lot of money. The machine swept the street. Naturally I thought, give thirty hungry men brooms and pay them to do the work.

Except hungry men don’t have that option any more. Unions, legal liability, insurance, technology.

Cheaper to skip all that, skip the work, and just hand out the surplus cheese.
Less complicated for all concerned for folks to have just enough to not be hungry, because hungry can never be complacent.
(Humm. With N. Korea in mind, that requires a closer look.)

Face it. Folks don't flock to the US of A, legally and illegally, for the bad life.
They break laws to get to the USA, for the good life.
For the cheese.


* check out this Democratic insanity.
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farmin ... ps_17.html

I'm sorry. I thought we were trying to answer a question about when black people started to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
You seem to have wandered off track into some vague and random rant regarding shit I don't care about.
Does this mean you have given up on the right wing revisionism?

I am not trying to tell you that Democrats are wonderful. I am not under any circumstances saying that interfering with markets to control prices works. Whether that refers to slaughtering livestock in the 30s, fixing rents today, or imposing tariffs against Chinese or Mexican imports tomorrow, the result is counter-productive in every case, and I know that far better than any Trump supporter ever will.

Why, I do think you’re on the right track in displaying a patronizing attitude because that likely played a psychological factor in the crossing over. Hard times, Democrats (specifically Roosevelt) moronically destroying food in answer to real hunger, the Constitution and Jim Crow. Someone to watch over me and all that. Load up enough paradoxes into the psyche and oppressed folks don't know if they're coming or going.

Next thing you know, you've got the oppressed voting for the political party of racism, segregation, Jim Crow and slavery. In other words, you've got a monolithic mentality that finds identity in the group, in the block, facts be damned. In other words, you've got folks acting against their own self-interest.

From the link, this philosophy from the patricians reveals:
“Yet the basic governmental approach of supporting farm prices by reducing supplies continues to this day.”

Killing hogs and the modern day vote. You see how it all ties together?

*

Thank you Australia!

GEICO Ad: Pig (Piggy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJDni6Bopzo

Walker wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Walker wrote: There you go again. All insults and apologies, veering wildly from one side of the goat path to the other.

May I remind you, it’s not about me.

Military tends to vote Republican,
It is true that the majority seems to vote repub, but obviously I'm one of those other kind, you know, actually smart.

which is why Democrats like POTUS have been known to disenfranchise the military vote with red-tape when possible. Watch for Clinton to try that crafty little piece of politicking.

As a proud veteran of the armed forces, you may want to consider if fraternizing with a disenfranchising organization of Democrats is in the best interest of the principles which shape your pride. You may be doublethinking unawares against your own interest.

You know it's extremely funny that you can both, so adamantly speak of these things as if you can in fact be certain, and be so utterly incorrect at the same time. My conclusion: you must either be a rich man, or have stock in companies that stand to loose if the democrats win this election, which seemingly at this point, is probably the way it's going to end up. So how does it feel pissing into the wind? Wet? Change directions, it's nice and dry from my vantage point!

Amazing how a paragraph can say absolutely nothing.

If you repeat that to yourself, over and over again enough times, you'll actually start to believe it.

Walker wrote: Why, I do think you’re on the right track in displaying a patronizing attitude because that likely played a psychological factor in the crossing over. Hard times, Democrats (specifically Roosevelt) moronically destroying food in answer to real hunger, the Constitution and Jim Crow. Someone to watch over me and all that. Load up enough paradoxes into the psyche and oppressed folks don't know if they're coming or going.

We covered this already. The Southern Democrats were more racist than any Republicans. But it was Democrats who held the White House when segregation laws were forced through against Republican objections. It was the Republican presidential candidate in 1964 that opposed the civil rights legislation of the 60s. It was his successor who traded all future Black votes for a 50 state election strategy in 1968 that nakedly appealed to white racists.

Since then it has been the choice of Republican state houses to gerymander districts to corral as many black voters as possible into a single constituency. It has been Republicans who enact voter suppression laws to minimise the black vote. It was a Repub who boasted of securing an entire state for the republican candidate by disenfranchising black voters. It was a republican presidential candidate whosaid that black folks vote Democrat because they are lazy and want free handouts.

You may fool yourself with this specious bullshit. But you aren't fooling anyone else.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

Walker wrote: Why, I do think you’re on the right track in displaying a patronizing attitude because that likely played a psychological factor in the crossing over. Hard times, Democrats (specifically Roosevelt) moronically destroying food in answer to real hunger, the Constitution and Jim Crow. Someone to watch over me and all that. Load up enough paradoxes into the psyche and oppressed folks don't know if they're coming or going.

Next thing you know, you've got the oppressed voting for the political party of racism, segregation, Jim Crow and slavery. In other words, you've got a monolithic mentality that finds identity in the group, in the block, facts be damned. In other words, you've got folks acting against their own self-interest.

From the link, this philosophy from the patricians reveals:
“Yet the basic governmental approach of supporting farm prices by reducing supplies continues to this day.”

Killing hogs and the modern day vote. You see how it all ties together?

We covered this already. The Southern Democrats were more racist than any Republicans. But it was Democrats who held the White House when segregation laws were forced through against Republican objections. It was the Republican presidential candidate in 1964 that opposed the civil rights legislation of the 60s. It was his successor who traded all future Black votes for a 50 state election strategy in 1968 that nakedly appealed to white racists.

Since then it has been the choice of Republican state houses to gerymander districts to corral as many black voters as possible into a single constituency. It has been Republicans who enact voter suppression laws to minimise the black vote. It was a Repub who boasted of securing an entire state for the republican candidate by disenfranchising black voters. It was a republican presidential candidate whosaid that black folks vote Democrat because they are lazy and want free handouts.

You may fool yourself with this specious bullshit. But you aren't fooling anyone else.

You're living in fantasy land.

*

I heard a recent Clinton speech. She was speaking to teachers. At her mere mention of charter schools the audience of teachers booed her. They shut her noise down right away. Then Clinton begins her dance and before you know it, she is convincingly back on the teachers’ side again.

Anyone can see that vouchers for education at a school of choice would greatly benefit families currently forced into suck-ass government excuses of inner-city schools. There’s lots of reasons why those schools are that way (Democrat controlled cities for generations), but that’s another topic.

Teachers and Democrats are joined at the hip. Therefore, no government vouchers. No choice for you, Mr. Citizen.

Just imagine. Your child has an aptitude for art, or physics, or plumbing. You get an education voucher from the government. Specialized schools compete for that dollar. For instance, you now have the choice to send your child to trade school, which to be competitive also would have academic electives such as the world history of plumbing for those so interested, with mandatory business and civics classes to prepare the student for an ethical life as a contributing member of society. With your life wisdom, you as parent have impartially assessed your child’s aptitude because let’s face it, this is your responsibility. You see that your child has a future in the plumbing industry, perhaps as a small business owner. You know that your child will have a secure and a responsible life. So in this common-sense world, in return for all those taxes you don't pay, the government will give you a voucher to pay for the school of your choice. And there will be safeguards in place so you can’t sell your vouchers for crack, like you sell your food stamps.

Ain’t gonna happen with Democrats setting the agenda. Not with Clinton. You could in fact say that this great opportunity for education in the wealthiest country in the world is being ... suppressed. By the Democratic elite. Same old song even when the tempo changes.

That doesn't address any point I was making, nor does it target any political affiliations I hold.

We don't do your teachers' tenure system over here and from what I understand getting rid of it over there should priority one for both Dems and Repubs. If the teachers object then fuck them because their job is to teach kids and if they don't do that they can flip burgers. But school vouchers isn't a panacea, and neither are charter schools (I don't object to either on the whole). But you still have to spend more money on education either way.

FlashDangerpants wrote:That doesn't address any point I was making, nor does it target any political affiliations I hold.

We don't do your teachers' tenure system over here and from what I understand getting rid of it over there should priority one for both Dems and Repubs. If the teachers object then fuck them because their job is to teach kids and if they don't do that they can flip burgers. But school vouchers isn't a panacea, and neither are charter schools (I don't object to either on the whole). But you still have to spend more money on education either way.

You do realize that gerrymandering is based on the predictability of the black vote, which is monolithically Democratic.

Monolithic voting is the cause. Gerrymandering is the effect.

You’re looking at the leaves of the tree rather than the root. Monolithic voting is somewhere in between the leaf and the root. Perhaps in the pith, or the bark.

Gerrymandering is an effect of monolithic voting upon the political process of citizen representation.

Inquiring into the ignorance of voting against self-interest gets you closer to the root.

The monolithic black block ignorantly votes against its own self-interest in voting Democrat, as evidenced by decades of Democratic-ruled, crumbling economic deserts of inner cities.

Teachers are another monolithic voting block for the Democrats. But the teachers demand and get bang for their buck. Their bang is their own self-interest, advocated by a union.

The Democratic party represents the teacher’s interests under threat of union duress.

The union represents the teachers.

The children don’t have a union. When children pay union dues they will have aggressive union representation.

Who represents the children’s interests? Do you think it’s the government?

The government represents the government’s interests, not the children’s interests. At every level of government this means self-perpetuation. Government programs are often initiated but rarely cut.

The method of government self-perpetuation is to change government by the people, to government by the government. A method of this is to control the educational curricula and content. Feds have a big stick over local and state government. The feds say do as we say or no soup for you.

Most times locals looking to get re-elected prefer the federal soup with cheese on top. The alternative method to fat supplemental federal dollars that locals use to finance the high school aquatic parks and athletic fields/running tracks not made of dirt and cinders is to jack up the taxes yet again. This makes the politician unpopular, which is the death-knoll for politicians at the local level. Yet we must have the computers and excellent facilities to keep up with the Joneses in the next county.

However, on Mt. Olympus the members of Congress, acting in their own self-interest, rely on base-line budgeting to absolve them from the notorious unpopularity caused by voting yes to taxes. But even that's not set in stone these days with the idiocy of voters. I saw some politician promising to raise taxes and the obligatory live applause machine in attendance was ecstatic. Their applause was monolithic.

People hate Trump's style. Too pushy. Too American.

What do you think of the content of this most recent in time, and most clear speech to date of policy intent.
He highlights in greater detail what made him popular in the first place. Tough talk on a focused issue.
This is a small clip. The full speech is pretty long with a number of details, and more of his philosophy.

Re: long speech. I’ve never heard anything like it. Not fresh and live.
There are implications.
Make sure your papers, passports and visas are in order.
Remember what Roosevelt did.

Trump immigration speech highlights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqQXp1PnvsU

See the man behind her? He should have stepped in to give her a break instead of clapping like an oblivious seal.
Safety tip: popping a pill during a coughing fit increases the odds of invoking Dr. Heimlich.

If she’s elected, his job would be to replace her, if necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld-yRgZL-8Y

artisticsolution wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"I think the liberal message is more ethical."

What is that message?

What's the conservative message?

How often does the liberal or conservative message match up cleanly with liberal or conservative actions?

What actions? The only actions that really matters is how Congress votes and how the president runs the country. Which is for all to see.

How did the country look when Bush left office vs. Now?

There is a stark contrast....people are actually spending money. Go figure.

Eight years of running it into the ground.

“Factually, if the number of American people on EBT or SNAP welfare benefits had to line up for soup and meals (instead of just get money on an electronic card for use anywhere), there would be massive lines, miles-long lines, all day and all night in hundreds of thousands of soup kitchens nation-wide. Such visibility would make the soup lines of the great depression seem insignificant by comparison.”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... -see-them/

The soup lines are invisible, out of sight, out of mind, out of consciousness. But they exist.