- This topic has 230 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 28, 2010 at 2:58 PM #611336September 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM #610314
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]eavesdropper, that was a great post.[/quote]
Except for the part where he repeatedly referred to me as an ‘ultra-conservative’…which erodes most of the credibility for the rest of the rant.[/quote]
Meadandale, I apologize. I mean, it’s so easy to generalize on these threads, especially the ones that tend to elicit knee-jerk reactions.
I used the word “ultraconservative” twice, so, in theory, I guess that counts as “repeatedly”. But the petty part of me can’t help but feel it’s a bit of hyperbole on your part.
If you did actually read my post, I made every attempt to avoid name-calling. And, while I may have apologized, I AM tired of ultraconservatives (whether that describes you, or not) equating dissatisfaction with distortions of capitalism with unreserved endorsements of communism and socialism. I’m tired of ANYBODY doing it. It’s untruthful. It’s inaccurate. It’s polarizing. And it’s getting old.
Perhaps I completely misread the post, and, in reality, you meant every word you said. If so, I must tell you that I don’t agree with you. I may have problems with the actions of a number of corporations and their officers and executives. But I do not believe the United States should turn to socialism or communism as an economic/sociopolitical alternative.
As for my “rant”, I’m sorry that you see it in that way. I prefer to think of it as a well-thought out dissertation on the misuse of words, distortion of their meanings in an effort to change peoples’ minds about an issue when the truth is not adequate, and use of terms to elicit fear, revulsion, and other visceral responses in the citizenry.
To be perfectly honest, your post did not deserve a response of this length and breadth of topic. However, every day I come across dozens and dozens of polarizing posts of the “Liberals/moderates/ RHINOs hate capitalism and love communism and socialism” variety that are penned by authors from a range of IQs and educational backgrounds. There is never a shortage of accompanying information, but there is always a complete absence of proof. Most of them I simply do not respond, but once every 5000 posts, I react. You were the big winner today. Again, I apologize. (Gee, I’m starting to feel like one of those whiny, wimpy, sandal-wearing, Prius-driving, Obama-worshiping, socialism-practicing, liberal-leaning Commiecrat with all of this apologizing)
In all seriousness, meadandale, I took your post as a sarcastic riposte to the individual who started the thread. I interpreted this as being from someone who is 100% for capitalism, and 100% against communism and socialism. I found it a rather black-and-white view, and I did not see it as a response to the opinions of the OP, but as an emotional reaction. I encounter many posts of this variety on a range of websites; virtually all of the websites and/or the posters are right-wing/conservative by admission. I view “Liberal/Progressives = Communists/Socialists” sentiments as polarizing and untruthful, and I view individuals making these statements as ultraconservatives, meaning that they are conservative to the exclusion of everything else. It was not meant to be an insult, and I’m not sure why you took it as such. However, we appear to be in a period of reverse political correctness, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult determining what everyone wants to be called.
As for my use of the term “ultraconservative”, I don’t see why it affects the credibility of what I brought up in my post. Could you cite examples from the text to which you take exception?
September 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM #610398Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]eavesdropper, that was a great post.[/quote]
Except for the part where he repeatedly referred to me as an ‘ultra-conservative’…which erodes most of the credibility for the rest of the rant.[/quote]
Meadandale, I apologize. I mean, it’s so easy to generalize on these threads, especially the ones that tend to elicit knee-jerk reactions.
I used the word “ultraconservative” twice, so, in theory, I guess that counts as “repeatedly”. But the petty part of me can’t help but feel it’s a bit of hyperbole on your part.
If you did actually read my post, I made every attempt to avoid name-calling. And, while I may have apologized, I AM tired of ultraconservatives (whether that describes you, or not) equating dissatisfaction with distortions of capitalism with unreserved endorsements of communism and socialism. I’m tired of ANYBODY doing it. It’s untruthful. It’s inaccurate. It’s polarizing. And it’s getting old.
Perhaps I completely misread the post, and, in reality, you meant every word you said. If so, I must tell you that I don’t agree with you. I may have problems with the actions of a number of corporations and their officers and executives. But I do not believe the United States should turn to socialism or communism as an economic/sociopolitical alternative.
As for my “rant”, I’m sorry that you see it in that way. I prefer to think of it as a well-thought out dissertation on the misuse of words, distortion of their meanings in an effort to change peoples’ minds about an issue when the truth is not adequate, and use of terms to elicit fear, revulsion, and other visceral responses in the citizenry.
To be perfectly honest, your post did not deserve a response of this length and breadth of topic. However, every day I come across dozens and dozens of polarizing posts of the “Liberals/moderates/ RHINOs hate capitalism and love communism and socialism” variety that are penned by authors from a range of IQs and educational backgrounds. There is never a shortage of accompanying information, but there is always a complete absence of proof. Most of them I simply do not respond, but once every 5000 posts, I react. You were the big winner today. Again, I apologize. (Gee, I’m starting to feel like one of those whiny, wimpy, sandal-wearing, Prius-driving, Obama-worshiping, socialism-practicing, liberal-leaning Commiecrat with all of this apologizing)
In all seriousness, meadandale, I took your post as a sarcastic riposte to the individual who started the thread. I interpreted this as being from someone who is 100% for capitalism, and 100% against communism and socialism. I found it a rather black-and-white view, and I did not see it as a response to the opinions of the OP, but as an emotional reaction. I encounter many posts of this variety on a range of websites; virtually all of the websites and/or the posters are right-wing/conservative by admission. I view “Liberal/Progressives = Communists/Socialists” sentiments as polarizing and untruthful, and I view individuals making these statements as ultraconservatives, meaning that they are conservative to the exclusion of everything else. It was not meant to be an insult, and I’m not sure why you took it as such. However, we appear to be in a period of reverse political correctness, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult determining what everyone wants to be called.
As for my use of the term “ultraconservative”, I don’t see why it affects the credibility of what I brought up in my post. Could you cite examples from the text to which you take exception?
September 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM #610947Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]eavesdropper, that was a great post.[/quote]
Except for the part where he repeatedly referred to me as an ‘ultra-conservative’…which erodes most of the credibility for the rest of the rant.[/quote]
Meadandale, I apologize. I mean, it’s so easy to generalize on these threads, especially the ones that tend to elicit knee-jerk reactions.
I used the word “ultraconservative” twice, so, in theory, I guess that counts as “repeatedly”. But the petty part of me can’t help but feel it’s a bit of hyperbole on your part.
If you did actually read my post, I made every attempt to avoid name-calling. And, while I may have apologized, I AM tired of ultraconservatives (whether that describes you, or not) equating dissatisfaction with distortions of capitalism with unreserved endorsements of communism and socialism. I’m tired of ANYBODY doing it. It’s untruthful. It’s inaccurate. It’s polarizing. And it’s getting old.
Perhaps I completely misread the post, and, in reality, you meant every word you said. If so, I must tell you that I don’t agree with you. I may have problems with the actions of a number of corporations and their officers and executives. But I do not believe the United States should turn to socialism or communism as an economic/sociopolitical alternative.
As for my “rant”, I’m sorry that you see it in that way. I prefer to think of it as a well-thought out dissertation on the misuse of words, distortion of their meanings in an effort to change peoples’ minds about an issue when the truth is not adequate, and use of terms to elicit fear, revulsion, and other visceral responses in the citizenry.
To be perfectly honest, your post did not deserve a response of this length and breadth of topic. However, every day I come across dozens and dozens of polarizing posts of the “Liberals/moderates/ RHINOs hate capitalism and love communism and socialism” variety that are penned by authors from a range of IQs and educational backgrounds. There is never a shortage of accompanying information, but there is always a complete absence of proof. Most of them I simply do not respond, but once every 5000 posts, I react. You were the big winner today. Again, I apologize. (Gee, I’m starting to feel like one of those whiny, wimpy, sandal-wearing, Prius-driving, Obama-worshiping, socialism-practicing, liberal-leaning Commiecrat with all of this apologizing)
In all seriousness, meadandale, I took your post as a sarcastic riposte to the individual who started the thread. I interpreted this as being from someone who is 100% for capitalism, and 100% against communism and socialism. I found it a rather black-and-white view, and I did not see it as a response to the opinions of the OP, but as an emotional reaction. I encounter many posts of this variety on a range of websites; virtually all of the websites and/or the posters are right-wing/conservative by admission. I view “Liberal/Progressives = Communists/Socialists” sentiments as polarizing and untruthful, and I view individuals making these statements as ultraconservatives, meaning that they are conservative to the exclusion of everything else. It was not meant to be an insult, and I’m not sure why you took it as such. However, we appear to be in a period of reverse political correctness, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult determining what everyone wants to be called.
As for my use of the term “ultraconservative”, I don’t see why it affects the credibility of what I brought up in my post. Could you cite examples from the text to which you take exception?
September 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM #611059Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]eavesdropper, that was a great post.[/quote]
Except for the part where he repeatedly referred to me as an ‘ultra-conservative’…which erodes most of the credibility for the rest of the rant.[/quote]
Meadandale, I apologize. I mean, it’s so easy to generalize on these threads, especially the ones that tend to elicit knee-jerk reactions.
I used the word “ultraconservative” twice, so, in theory, I guess that counts as “repeatedly”. But the petty part of me can’t help but feel it’s a bit of hyperbole on your part.
If you did actually read my post, I made every attempt to avoid name-calling. And, while I may have apologized, I AM tired of ultraconservatives (whether that describes you, or not) equating dissatisfaction with distortions of capitalism with unreserved endorsements of communism and socialism. I’m tired of ANYBODY doing it. It’s untruthful. It’s inaccurate. It’s polarizing. And it’s getting old.
Perhaps I completely misread the post, and, in reality, you meant every word you said. If so, I must tell you that I don’t agree with you. I may have problems with the actions of a number of corporations and their officers and executives. But I do not believe the United States should turn to socialism or communism as an economic/sociopolitical alternative.
As for my “rant”, I’m sorry that you see it in that way. I prefer to think of it as a well-thought out dissertation on the misuse of words, distortion of their meanings in an effort to change peoples’ minds about an issue when the truth is not adequate, and use of terms to elicit fear, revulsion, and other visceral responses in the citizenry.
To be perfectly honest, your post did not deserve a response of this length and breadth of topic. However, every day I come across dozens and dozens of polarizing posts of the “Liberals/moderates/ RHINOs hate capitalism and love communism and socialism” variety that are penned by authors from a range of IQs and educational backgrounds. There is never a shortage of accompanying information, but there is always a complete absence of proof. Most of them I simply do not respond, but once every 5000 posts, I react. You were the big winner today. Again, I apologize. (Gee, I’m starting to feel like one of those whiny, wimpy, sandal-wearing, Prius-driving, Obama-worshiping, socialism-practicing, liberal-leaning Commiecrat with all of this apologizing)
In all seriousness, meadandale, I took your post as a sarcastic riposte to the individual who started the thread. I interpreted this as being from someone who is 100% for capitalism, and 100% against communism and socialism. I found it a rather black-and-white view, and I did not see it as a response to the opinions of the OP, but as an emotional reaction. I encounter many posts of this variety on a range of websites; virtually all of the websites and/or the posters are right-wing/conservative by admission. I view “Liberal/Progressives = Communists/Socialists” sentiments as polarizing and untruthful, and I view individuals making these statements as ultraconservatives, meaning that they are conservative to the exclusion of everything else. It was not meant to be an insult, and I’m not sure why you took it as such. However, we appear to be in a period of reverse political correctness, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult determining what everyone wants to be called.
As for my use of the term “ultraconservative”, I don’t see why it affects the credibility of what I brought up in my post. Could you cite examples from the text to which you take exception?
September 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM #611371Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]eavesdropper, that was a great post.[/quote]
Except for the part where he repeatedly referred to me as an ‘ultra-conservative’…which erodes most of the credibility for the rest of the rant.[/quote]
Meadandale, I apologize. I mean, it’s so easy to generalize on these threads, especially the ones that tend to elicit knee-jerk reactions.
I used the word “ultraconservative” twice, so, in theory, I guess that counts as “repeatedly”. But the petty part of me can’t help but feel it’s a bit of hyperbole on your part.
If you did actually read my post, I made every attempt to avoid name-calling. And, while I may have apologized, I AM tired of ultraconservatives (whether that describes you, or not) equating dissatisfaction with distortions of capitalism with unreserved endorsements of communism and socialism. I’m tired of ANYBODY doing it. It’s untruthful. It’s inaccurate. It’s polarizing. And it’s getting old.
Perhaps I completely misread the post, and, in reality, you meant every word you said. If so, I must tell you that I don’t agree with you. I may have problems with the actions of a number of corporations and their officers and executives. But I do not believe the United States should turn to socialism or communism as an economic/sociopolitical alternative.
As for my “rant”, I’m sorry that you see it in that way. I prefer to think of it as a well-thought out dissertation on the misuse of words, distortion of their meanings in an effort to change peoples’ minds about an issue when the truth is not adequate, and use of terms to elicit fear, revulsion, and other visceral responses in the citizenry.
To be perfectly honest, your post did not deserve a response of this length and breadth of topic. However, every day I come across dozens and dozens of polarizing posts of the “Liberals/moderates/ RHINOs hate capitalism and love communism and socialism” variety that are penned by authors from a range of IQs and educational backgrounds. There is never a shortage of accompanying information, but there is always a complete absence of proof. Most of them I simply do not respond, but once every 5000 posts, I react. You were the big winner today. Again, I apologize. (Gee, I’m starting to feel like one of those whiny, wimpy, sandal-wearing, Prius-driving, Obama-worshiping, socialism-practicing, liberal-leaning Commiecrat with all of this apologizing)
In all seriousness, meadandale, I took your post as a sarcastic riposte to the individual who started the thread. I interpreted this as being from someone who is 100% for capitalism, and 100% against communism and socialism. I found it a rather black-and-white view, and I did not see it as a response to the opinions of the OP, but as an emotional reaction. I encounter many posts of this variety on a range of websites; virtually all of the websites and/or the posters are right-wing/conservative by admission. I view “Liberal/Progressives = Communists/Socialists” sentiments as polarizing and untruthful, and I view individuals making these statements as ultraconservatives, meaning that they are conservative to the exclusion of everything else. It was not meant to be an insult, and I’m not sure why you took it as such. However, we appear to be in a period of reverse political correctness, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult determining what everyone wants to be called.
As for my use of the term “ultraconservative”, I don’t see why it affects the credibility of what I brought up in my post. Could you cite examples from the text to which you take exception?
September 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM #610319Nor-LA-SD-guy
ParticipantI think you guy’s left out the most important and most overlooked little piece in all the greater divide between classes over the last 30 years,
And that is in 1981 they came up with
” Owners Equivalent Rent ”
I think this little bit did more to separate the classes than anything else the last 30 years,
After all why should the poor (or near poor) be able to afford a home ??
September 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM #610403ParticipantI think you guy’s left out the most important and most overlooked little piece in all the greater divide between classes over the last 30 years,
And that is in 1981 they came up with
” Owners Equivalent Rent ”
I think this little bit did more to separate the classes than anything else the last 30 years,
After all why should the poor (or near poor) be able to afford a home ??
September 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM #610952ParticipantI think you guy’s left out the most important and most overlooked little piece in all the greater divide between classes over the last 30 years,
And that is in 1981 they came up with
” Owners Equivalent Rent ”
I think this little bit did more to separate the classes than anything else the last 30 years,
After all why should the poor (or near poor) be able to afford a home ??
September 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM #611064ParticipantI think you guy’s left out the most important and most overlooked little piece in all the greater divide between classes over the last 30 years,
And that is in 1981 they came up with
” Owners Equivalent Rent ”
I think this little bit did more to separate the classes than anything else the last 30 years,
After all why should the poor (or near poor) be able to afford a home ??
September 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM #611377ParticipantI think you guy’s left out the most important and most overlooked little piece in all the greater divide between classes over the last 30 years,
And that is in 1981 they came up with
” Owners Equivalent Rent ”
I think this little bit did more to separate the classes than anything else the last 30 years,
After all why should the poor (or near poor) be able to afford a home ??
September 28, 2010 at 5:57 PM #610327Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]
Bingo, Allan! There is no statement more true than your last. And when that is the case, economic systems, well laid out as they are on paper, sometimes stumble over human foibles.[/quote]Eavesdropper: Given your intellect, I thought you’d appreciate this little exegesis about business and political interests getting closely entwined. Back in the 1980s, I did military advisory work in Central America. The “bible”, if you will, for counterinsurgency work was the USMC Small Wars Manual, written circa 1940, and largely based on the Marine campaigns during the so-called “Banana Wars”. The main architect of these campaigns was a Marine named Smedley Butler, who was something of a Zelig-like character for the US during the 1920s and 1930s.
I bring Butler up, largely because of comments he made later in his life, wherein he recounted that his time with the Marines in places like Central America, China and elsewhere was largely in support of American business interests in those parts of the world, and I think we’d all agree that little has changed since then.
His comments, “War is a Racket” are interesting, to say the least:
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm“Plus c’est la meme chose”.[/quote]
Ain’t that the truth, though, Allan.
LOVED the Butler quotes! Don’t necessarily love that things haven’t changed. But this sort of thing has gone on since the beginning of our great nation, and, I’m sure, long, long before that. What I did get a bang out of was that someone of this gentleman’s rank and status not only made a public speech of this sort, but wrote a book with the same sentiments, and made his anti-war opinions known for the rest of his life.
Liked the website it came from, also.
September 28, 2010 at 5:57 PM #610412Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]
Bingo, Allan! There is no statement more true than your last. And when that is the case, economic systems, well laid out as they are on paper, sometimes stumble over human foibles.[/quote]Eavesdropper: Given your intellect, I thought you’d appreciate this little exegesis about business and political interests getting closely entwined. Back in the 1980s, I did military advisory work in Central America. The “bible”, if you will, for counterinsurgency work was the USMC Small Wars Manual, written circa 1940, and largely based on the Marine campaigns during the so-called “Banana Wars”. The main architect of these campaigns was a Marine named Smedley Butler, who was something of a Zelig-like character for the US during the 1920s and 1930s.
I bring Butler up, largely because of comments he made later in his life, wherein he recounted that his time with the Marines in places like Central America, China and elsewhere was largely in support of American business interests in those parts of the world, and I think we’d all agree that little has changed since then.
His comments, “War is a Racket” are interesting, to say the least:
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm“Plus c’est la meme chose”.[/quote]
Ain’t that the truth, though, Allan.
LOVED the Butler quotes! Don’t necessarily love that things haven’t changed. But this sort of thing has gone on since the beginning of our great nation, and, I’m sure, long, long before that. What I did get a bang out of was that someone of this gentleman’s rank and status not only made a public speech of this sort, but wrote a book with the same sentiments, and made his anti-war opinions known for the rest of his life.
Liked the website it came from, also.
September 28, 2010 at 5:57 PM #610960Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]
Bingo, Allan! There is no statement more true than your last. And when that is the case, economic systems, well laid out as they are on paper, sometimes stumble over human foibles.[/quote]Eavesdropper: Given your intellect, I thought you’d appreciate this little exegesis about business and political interests getting closely entwined. Back in the 1980s, I did military advisory work in Central America. The “bible”, if you will, for counterinsurgency work was the USMC Small Wars Manual, written circa 1940, and largely based on the Marine campaigns during the so-called “Banana Wars”. The main architect of these campaigns was a Marine named Smedley Butler, who was something of a Zelig-like character for the US during the 1920s and 1930s.
I bring Butler up, largely because of comments he made later in his life, wherein he recounted that his time with the Marines in places like Central America, China and elsewhere was largely in support of American business interests in those parts of the world, and I think we’d all agree that little has changed since then.
His comments, “War is a Racket” are interesting, to say the least:
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm“Plus c’est la meme chose”.[/quote]
Ain’t that the truth, though, Allan.
LOVED the Butler quotes! Don’t necessarily love that things haven’t changed. But this sort of thing has gone on since the beginning of our great nation, and, I’m sure, long, long before that. What I did get a bang out of was that someone of this gentleman’s rank and status not only made a public speech of this sort, but wrote a book with the same sentiments, and made his anti-war opinions known for the rest of his life.
Liked the website it came from, also.
September 28, 2010 at 5:57 PM #611070Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]
Bingo, Allan! There is no statement more true than your last. And when that is the case, economic systems, well laid out as they are on paper, sometimes stumble over human foibles.[/quote]Eavesdropper: Given your intellect, I thought you’d appreciate this little exegesis about business and political interests getting closely entwined. Back in the 1980s, I did military advisory work in Central America. The “bible”, if you will, for counterinsurgency work was the USMC Small Wars Manual, written circa 1940, and largely based on the Marine campaigns during the so-called “Banana Wars”. The main architect of these campaigns was a Marine named Smedley Butler, who was something of a Zelig-like character for the US during the 1920s and 1930s.
I bring Butler up, largely because of comments he made later in his life, wherein he recounted that his time with the Marines in places like Central America, China and elsewhere was largely in support of American business interests in those parts of the world, and I think we’d all agree that little has changed since then.
His comments, “War is a Racket” are interesting, to say the least:
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm“Plus c’est la meme chose”.[/quote]
Ain’t that the truth, though, Allan.
LOVED the Butler quotes! Don’t necessarily love that things haven’t changed. But this sort of thing has gone on since the beginning of our great nation, and, I’m sure, long, long before that. What I did get a bang out of was that someone of this gentleman’s rank and status not only made a public speech of this sort, but wrote a book with the same sentiments, and made his anti-war opinions known for the rest of his life.
Liked the website it came from, also.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.