No, no, no... You're assuming these people are the problem when it is, in fact, the policies set in place. So stop pointing the finger like a kid. Be an intelligent adult and address what changes need to be made in policies in order to make things better. Bickering about who's to blame does NOTHING for anyone. It's an utter waste of time. If you want to make a case for your point of view, how about discussing how your policy stances are superior? I guarantee you there are conservative policies that have had very ill effects on the American people as well. It's not a simple dichotomy of one "party" is right and the other "party" is wrong. The best and most honest approach to take is to simply identify what policy changes need to be made. Simple as that. Or can you possibly conjure up an argument that shows positive action resulting from the blame of others compared to the intricate detailing and overview of policy change?
Blaming someone else is what a child does.
Figuring out and solving the problem is what an adult does.
They put the policies in place. The policies wouldn't be there without them. What's the problem?
And yes, self destructive modern liberalism is the biggest problem facing the western world currently regardless of whether or not you try to make light of the fact.
Well that settles that. Glad we've winnowed down the myriad of complex problems this world faces to a singular prime source. Except. . . Gonzo swears up and down that conservative ideology is the genesis for the problems of the world today. And you know, like you, he's just a guy with an internet connection who can prattle off empty platitudes with little to no context or substantiation. Who's demagoguery should I buy in to?
Both of you are cut from the same cloth.
__________________
Evil presupposes a moral decision, intention, and some forethought. A moron doesn't stop to think or reason. He acts on instinct, like a stable animal, convinced he's doing good, that he's always right, and sanctimoniously proud to go around ****ing up . . .What the world needs is more thoroughly evil people and fewer idiot ****heads.
Well that settles that. Glad we've winnowed down the myriad of complex problems this world faces to a singular prime source. Except. . . Gonzo swears up and down that conservative ideology is the genesis for the problems of the world today. And you know, like you, he's just a guy with an internet connection who can prattle off empty platitudes with little to no context or substantiation. Who's demagoguery should I buy in to?
Both of you are cut from the same cloth.
Mine. Because gonzo lies repeatedly, can't prove any of his claims, and loses every debate he gets in due to his support of ineffective liberal ideas that can't be sold on their own merits.
Don't even need to watch it. Been there. The answer is yes. When cops dgaf about DUI people because there are bigger fish to fry, then you know you have problems.
__________________
"Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy’s unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions." - Sun Tzu
lol you're actually arguing that people who make bad policies aren't to blame for them?
maybe you should stick to religion/philosophy....
Lol
You must have problems reading.
What does blaming someone accomplish? His does blaming a group of people help anything? It's nothing more than pointing a finger. In order to make something better, action has to be taken. In this case, an in depth look at which policies work and which don't, regardless of their originating affiliation. Either something works or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we need to see why and come up with a different plan to make it work. This action leads to success and has absolutely nothing to do with blaming people.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe
How about justifying this with facts rather than right-wing thinktank garbage? Be forewarned it will be difficult, as facts simply do not bear out your claim.
The reason the industry tanked was not unions in any way, shape, or form. Labor expenses add an insignificant amount of price to car -- it was poor management decisions that led to producing vehicles that people did not want or need. Corporate thinking is shortsighted and profit-centered, leading to a kind of societal blindness. It was a trivial task to justify or offset the slim labor cost differential.
Notice how all the foreign cars that outcompeted us during this time are from more socialized nations. That's not a coincidence.
Unions as of today are the only reason the US car industry still exists. What little political power workers have at least allowed it to be recognized what a devastating effect the conservative idea of letting the US auto industry die would have had, and provided a means by which to be involved in the rebuilding of the industry away from narrow corporate thinking. It has been a success.
Far more of a success than the prior corporate governance. Again this is not ancient history, just happened a few years ago. Quit trying to rewrite recent history.
What I'm saying is address the policy and don't make blanket statements about general groups. There can very well be good policies derived from liberals just as there can be good policies from republicans. Rather than seeking to polarize for the sake of sensationalism, it's much more productive to identify exactly which policies and which parts of those policies are at fault. That should be the discussion. Strip away the names; it's useless rhetoric. Instead, focus on the details to see exactly which changes need to be made to improve the situation.
Focusing on who to blame doesn't resolve the situation. It just leads to endless argumentation that gets nowhere until someone finally focuses on the changes that need to be made.
Oh let me be clear - I know what you are/were saying. Strip away the labels - that's a fair statement, and a good idea the majority of the time. I've stated many times up here that political parties are a terrible idea.
But we technically have two political parties, and the ideas of one helped lead to the demise of the city of Detroit. It's happening in California too. As long as the actual parties exist, then finger pointing at the left and right will continue to exist. I agree focusing on the changes that are needed to fix the problem is a good place to start, but at the same time, a brief mention to entitlement programs that happens to be a left favoring tactic, isn't entirely unreasonable. Especially when the policy is failing over and over, and one group just keeps on using the policy. People should be warned somehow, right?
If we strip the labels - is it fair to blame "people" who enacted massive entitlement programs for some of Detroit's demise?
And Stellar - you're a tool. Nothing useful to contribute o this topic at all.
And yes, self destructive modern liberalism is the biggest problem facing the western world currently regardless of whether or not you try to make light of the fact.
Lol. Self destructive teenage partying is the biggest problem facing the western world. Muslims are the biggest problem facing the western world. Cranky elderly people are the biggest problem facing the western world. Whether or not you try to make light of the fact.
See what happens when you just spout off your opinion without anything backing it up? You become the bull****ter that you pretend to hate. Smarten up. You're an adult.
__________________
PM me with interesting tippmann 98 parts!
Oh let me be clear - I know what you are/were saying. Strip away the labels - that's a fair statement, and a good idea the majority of the time. I've stated many times up here that political parties are a terrible idea.
But we technically have two political parties, and the ideas of one helped lead to the demise of the city of Detroit. It's happening in California too. As long as the actual parties exist, then finger pointing at the left and right will continue to exist. I agree focusing on the changes that are needed to fix the problem is a good place to start, but at the same time, a brief mention to entitlement programs that happens to be a left favoring tactic, isn't entirely unreasonable. Especially when the policy is failing over and over, and one group just keeps on using the policy. People should be warned somehow, right?
If we strip the labels - is it fair to blame "people" who enacted massive entitlement programs for some of Detroit's demise?
And Stellar - you're a tool. Nothing useful to contribute o this topic at all.
I'm not arguing over the fairness of blaming. I'm arguing about the utility of blaming. It doesn't do anything productive. All it does is create unnecessary animosity through a fictitious polarization of political "parties." This does nothing to solve any issue there is; it's entirely void of productivity.
Strip away the blame altogether. Focus on fixing the issue. The best way to do this is to be intellectually honest and forego any preconceived labels of political agendas. Like I said, either something works or it doesn't. Where it comes from on the ever-changing political spectrum should not matter.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe
Book discusses how blacks ruined Detroit with the riots, how they made up a bulk of the crime as the minority in the 50's, and it just got so bad, the Whites and Asians left, and the blacks....well you see what happened to Detroit. Anyone read this book or heard about it? Reviews seem mostly favorable.
"After finishing the book I found there was little, if anything, to disagree with since I've lived in and around Detroit for decades and have witnessed most of what the author wrote about. For the most part, the author merely highlighted news reports and essays about Detroit, and those, from reputable sources. His comments about these no doubt have incensed many a black reviewer who follows the dictates of black tribal law. The resulting profile of Detroit was not just about the destruction of a once great city, but the almost tragic-comedic behaviors of the black leaders that black Detroiters continually chose (and still choose) to govern the city or run their school board. Coleman Young began Detroit's destruction by using the politics of resentment as his group binding agent, and any objection to his demands and dictates was met with the toxic brand of "racist!". A Machiavellian move, and it worked magnificently. Black Detroiters worshipped him. Romanticizing riots by calling them "rebellions", Young legtimized the actions of mindless black mobs as they destroyed neighborhoods and businesses, and murdered during the mayhem"
Fair statement? These events seem factual, as in they occurred.
Locating the source of error is called blame when no solutions are given. Such action leads the recipient to the conclusion that the claims being made are erroneous.
If you are going to spout out rah rah rah liberals all day long and not contribute a productive solution, you are going to be accused of the blame game.
Most importantly, if you are going to blame liberals, you should really step back and make sure you aren't one before you do so. It might make you look foolish.
IM LOOKING AT YOU CLASSICAL LIBERALS LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES.
I'm not arguing over the fairness of blaming. I'm arguing about the utility of blaming. It doesn't do anything productive. All it does is create unnecessary animosity through a fictitious polarization of political "parties." This does nothing to solve any issue there is; it's entirely void of productivity.
Strip away the blame altogether. Focus on fixing the issue. The best way to do this is to be intellectually honest and forego any preconceived labels of political agendas. Like I said, either something works or it doesn't. Where it comes from on the ever-changing political spectrum should not matter.
no it does plenty of good. It makes people aware that groups of people like politicians are more interested in advancing their agenda than actually doing things to help. Awareness is the first step.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
no it does plenty of good. It makes people aware that groups of people like politicians are more interested in advancing their agenda than actually doing things to help. Awareness is the first step.
Wait... So how do we know these people are interested in advancing their agenda? Perhaps by... looking at the policies they support? Maybe we should focus on which policies work and which don't, seeing as that's the very foundation of what makes people wrong or right in your eyes.
Remember, no two people are the same. Believe it or not, two liberals can have vastly different views. Placing blanket statements over a generalization for political affiliation is childish.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe
I guess we have all forgotten that people form political parties around common ideologies and those common ideologies drive the policy enacted by the party.
No two people are the same. But pack a room full of conservatives and they become more alike than they are different. Its all about the sample size.
Last edited by Negligence DawnBeak : 07-20-2012 at 04:08 PM.
I guess we have all forgotten that people form political parties around common ideologies and those common ideologies drive the policy enacted by the party.
No two people are the same. But pack a room full of conservatives and they become more alike than they are different. Its all about the sample size.
While this is true, it still doesn't deter from what I'm saying. Blaming an entire spectrum of political affiliation for something gets nowhere. Examining which policies aren't working and making appropriate changes to them gets us places. Also, blaming an entire political affiliation party for something is incredibly ignorant, as you're assuming a 100% approval from that political affiliation, which is never the case (you're also assuming that 100% of the other political affiliations didn't support said policies).
It's easier to defend one's self when you can attack the other end of a sensationalized spectrum.
If a musician makes an album, it matters not if the music is pop or death metal. It matters if it sounds good and works. That's it.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe
That video should be called "The most ignorant people we could find to best support only our view vote republican, but they don't know why"
edit: actually, I think I like " the people in mississippi that we found who vote republican, but don't know why vote republican, but don't know why" better
Last edited by Riley Coyote : 07-20-2012 at 04:45 PM.
While this is true, it still doesn't deter from what I'm saying. Blaming an entire spectrum of political affiliation for something gets nowhere. Examining which policies aren't working and making appropriate changes to them gets us places. Also, blaming an entire political affiliation party for something is incredibly ignorant, as you're assuming a 100% approval from that political affiliation, which is never the case (you're also assuming that 100% of the other political affiliations didn't support said policies).
It's easier to defend one's self when you can attack the other end of a sensationalized spectrum.
If a musician makes an album, it matters not if the music is pop or death metal. It matters if it sounds good and works. That's it.
Actually, an entire political party can be aligned around a disastrous and failed philosophy. Or rather it can be the spawn of that disastrous core philosophy. Instead of pruning the bush you uproot it and dispose of it.
The title of the art is irrelevant however what you discuss is the "value." IE sounds good. Subjectivity. Instead let us focus on the Objectivity, Quality. For music, this is found in artistry or the degree to which the phrasing relates the underlying structure and narrative. Quality exists outside of value which is an internal feeling/opinion.
As this relates to political parties, you don't listen to a song for a part or two which you value, you listen and breathe the piece as a whole. Parts of the party/song cannot exhibit Quality on their own. The whole must be taken into consideration.
You acknowledge healthy pragmatism which is Good but a rotting foundation won't a stable home make, no matter how much we "like" the house.
That video should be called "The most ignorant people we could find to best support only our view vote republican, but they don't know why"
edit: actually, I think I like " the people in mississippi that we found who vote republican, but don't know why vote republican, but don't know why" better
mississippi is the poorest state in the US according to facts.
i'm sure they didn't have to go far to "handpick" these people
__________________
"Originally posted by blueshifty:
Also, eclipse only makes mid-range guns they just charge a premium for them."
Actually, an entire political party can be aligned around a disastrous and failed philosophy. Or rather it can be the spawn of that disastrous core philosophy.
Example?
Quote:
The title of the art is irrelevant however what you discuss is the "value." IE sounds good. Subjectivity. Instead let us focus on the Objectivity, Quality. For music, this is found in artistry or the degree to which the phrasing relates the underlying structure and narrative. Quality exists outside of value which is an internal feeling/opinion.
There is no objectivity in music. Sorry. There is no objectivity in any art. Anything goes. In order to make something objective, you have to utilize a foundation of which to determine right/wrong/better/worse. This can't be done with music.
Values are built off of facts. Without experience (facts), we cannot form values. Not to mention that values are used to initiate any following there can possibly be. We must value science to determine its discoveries as factual or not.
Quote:
As this relates to political parties, you don't listen to a song for a part or two which you value, you listen and breathe the piece as a whole. Parts of the party/song cannot exhibit Quality on their own. The whole must be taken into consideration.
This is not a correct analogy for what the message I'm trying to portray. What matters most is which policy is most beneficial, regardless of originating affiliation.
A song is either good or it isn't. Rather than looking at parts of songs, look at songs as parts of albums or as the artist's portfolio. Some songs work, some don't. Nothing wrong with disregarding a bad song and making a mix of your favorites, picked from a variety of artists. For this reason, I can't stand behind anyone saying one band is better than the other - it doesn't matter, as the only important aspect is that you enjoy one or more of the songs they made. The songs are either good, or they aren't. The artist isn't the deciding factor. The artist can build a reputation, but again, that doesn't deter from the fact that the song is either good or it isn't. Unfortunately for this analogy, "good" is purely subjective in terms of music. We can quantify and objectively study the effectiveness for policies though.
Quote:
You acknowledge healthy pragmatism which is Good but a rotting foundation won't a stable home make, no matter how much we "like" the house.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe
Maybe we should focus on which policies work and which don't, seeing as that's the very foundation of what makes people wrong or right in your eyes.
Your Privacy Choices