Things Liberalism Leads To.......

[john9blue]

people who are excessively verbose typically use so many words because it takes a great deal of language twisting and obfuscation to form their preconceived and often baseless opinions into a worldview that "makes sense"... even though it actually doesn't make any sense at all.

Many people who are excessively verbose are such because they are attempting to detail a complex situation with the most clarity. Unfortunately, those with the attention span of a gnat can't manage to keep up, so they try to demean it as being obfuscation and twisting.

i absolutely guarantee i have a greater command of the english language than you do.

I wouldn't even try to argue that, since I have no idea to what level your command of the English language is. Unlike you, I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I can make that judgement based on Internet postings.

yeah, reading pages and pages of someone's writing doesn't give you any idea of their linguistic skills.

keep trying though, maybe some day one of your insults will really hurt me down deep...

Insult? I'm simply pointing out the reality. If you take that as an insult yourself, then perhaps there is a reason you're feeling defensive about it.

notice here how you claim to not be so arrogant as to judge someone's language skills based on their writing style... and THEN you claim to KNOW the reality of both my attention span and intelligence, based on the SAME THING. how can you not see that hypocrisy?

i knew this would be fun.

[jay_a2j]

notice here how you claim to not be so arrogant as to judge someone's language skills by their writing style... and THEN you claim to KNOW the reality of both my attention span and intelligence, based on the SAME THING. how can you not see that hypocrisy?

i knew this would be fun.

john when dealing with woody you have to take his drivel with a grain of salt. Most of his ramblings are just that, ramblings.

[Woodruff]

people who are excessively verbose typically use so many words because it takes a great deal of language twisting and obfuscation to form their preconceived and often baseless opinions into a worldview that "makes sense"... even though it actually doesn't make any sense at all.

Many people who are excessively verbose are such because they are attempting to detail a complex situation with the most clarity. Unfortunately, those with the attention span of a gnat can't manage to keep up, so they try to demean it as being obfuscation and twisting.

i absolutely guarantee i have a greater command of the english language than you do.

I wouldn't even try to argue that, since I have no idea to what level your command of the English language is. Unlike you, I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I can make that judgement based on Internet postings.

yeah, reading pages and pages of someone's writing doesn't give you any idea of their linguistic skills.

You do realize, with that massive command of the English language, that "any idea" is certainly not the same as "absolutely guarantee", of course.

keep trying though, maybe some day one of your insults will really hurt me down deep...

Insult? I'm simply pointing out the reality. If you take that as an insult yourself, then perhaps there is a reason you're feeling defensive about it.

notice here how you claim to not be so arrogant as to judge someone's language skills based on their writing style... and THEN you claim to KNOW the reality of both my attention span and intelligence, based on the SAME THING. how can you not see that hypocrisy?

I don't recall saying anything about your attention span or your intelligence...perhaps you could point me to it? I think perhaps your "command" is slipping a bit into presumption.

[Woodruff]

notice here how you claim to not be so arrogant as to judge someone's language skills by their writing style... and THEN you claim to KNOW the reality of both my attention span and intelligence, based on the SAME THING. how can you not see that hypocrisy?

i knew this would be fun.

john when dealing with woody you have to take his drivel with a grain of salt. Most of his ramblings are just that, ramblings.

What, I'm not a leftist trying to take over your world any more? I'm hurt, Jay!

[AAFitz]

i absolutely guarantee i have a greater command of the english language than you do. keep trying though, maybe some day one of your insults will really hurt me down deep...

"i" is typically capitalized in this usage. But Im really not questioning your command of the english language. I only question your basic reasoning and logic. I am quite sure you are capable of expressing those thoughts well however, and I commend you on your command.

[john9blue]

i absolutely guarantee i have a greater command of the english language than you do. keep trying though, maybe some day one of your insults will really hurt me down deep...

"i" is typically capitalized in this usage. But Im really not questioning your command of the english language. I only question your basic reasoning and logic. I am quite sure you are capable of expressing those thoughts well however.

woody constantly tells everyone that they lack language comprehension skills, so i felt the need to say it. can you respond to my other post though? plzzz

[AAFitz]

i absolutely guarantee i have a greater command of the english language than you do. keep trying though, maybe some day one of your insults will really hurt me down deep...

"i" is typically capitalized in this usage. But Im really not questioning your command of the english language. I only question your basic reasoning and logic. I am quite sure you are capable of expressing those thoughts well however.

woody constantly tells everyone that they lack language comprehension skills, so i felt the need to say it. can you respond to my other post though? plzzz

I actually have no need to. You ignored my entire discussion and instead chose to point out that it was just verbose. You then simply moved on to simplistic linguistic points which do not even touch on the actual topic itself. I responded in kind. If you instead have an intelligent question about my views, instead of this petty version of it, Ill be happy to discuss it. I am sorry if you feel the need to condense the entire message down to one word, but that simply is not my problem. I understand your need and desire to paraphrase, because it was a complex explanation, and one mostly for effect for that matter. What I posted was not a one line response. It was not meant to be. It was meant to be a message conveyed through the use of many words, and not simplified down to good, or bad. You are free to call it verbose, and I will simply contend it was detailed.

In any case, my view is quite clear, and if you'd like to argue against the logic, Ill be happy to read. If you want some silly word games, go play a game of scrabble or something. Ordinarily Id oblige, but Im a little tired right now.

[AAFitz]

i absolutely guarantee i have a greater command of the english language than you do. keep trying though, maybe some day one of your insults will really hurt me down deep...

"i" is typically capitalized in this usage. But Im really not questioning your command of the english language. I only question your basic reasoning and logic. I am quite sure you are capable of expressing those thoughts well however.

woody constantly tells everyone that they lack language comprehension skills, so i felt the need to say it. can you respond to my other post though? plzzz

Well, I posted that wrongly assuming you were addressing me, because it was on the same post as one of my quotes. I was wondering what insults I was launching, but my eyes are at half mast, and it was an easy enough mistake to make I guess.

...........
Things liberalism leads to: mundane pointless discussions with conservatives.

Pretty sure we can all agree on that one.

[Nobunaga]

... On Saturday, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, will be giving the keynote speech at the Energy Action Coalition's Power Shift 2011 conference, a meeting of potentially 10,000 green youth activists in Washington, D.C.

Some of the breakout sessions to include:

1. Sex and Sustainability

2. How to Win Back Mainstreet

3. Why Capitalism is Killing the Planet

4. Uncloaking the Kochs

5. Challenging Corporate Power

6. Feeding the Revolution: People Power and Community Building in the Environmental Movement.

... Attending panelists to be:

> Chris Williams, International Socialist Organization
> Heather Kangas, International Socialist Organization
> Amanda Duzak, International Socialist Organization

(link to their group: http://www.internationalsocialist.org/w ... d_for.html)

Notes on ISO group, from their site:

The International Socialist Organization (ISO) is committed to building an organization that participates in the struggles for justice and liberation today--and, ultimately, for a future socialist society. [...]

A world free of exploitation--socialism--is not only possible but worth fighting for. The ISO stands in the tradition of revolutionary socialists Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky in the belief that workers themselves--the vast majority of the population--are the only force that can lead the fight to win a socialist society. Socialism can't be brought about from above, but has to be won by workers themselves. [...]

We see our task as building an independent socialist organization with members organizing in our workplaces, our schools and our neighborhoods to bring socialist ideas to the struggles we are involved in today, and the vision of a socialist world in the future.

... Isn't that nice? A member of the White House is speaking at a conference where avowed socialists are going to tell kids why capitalism is destroying the planet.

... And notice, not a word in the big media. That's something else we can thank American liberalism for.

...

[spurgistan]

I love how the media not talking about our rally is a sign that they support us. Because the media cares about the environment.

[BigBallinStalin]

Fitz, I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum thinks you write way too much.

At first, I was like: DO NOT WANT.

But then I was like: SORT OF WANT.

so....

Fitz, I'm pretty sure everyone--except BigBallinStalin--on this forum thinks you write way too much.

You have certainly impressed me with a few of those quid pro quo discussions.

I'm sorry, sir, but I must refuse your offer of "quid pro quo" because exchanges involving sexual favors violate the laws of my country.

[john9blue]

i absolutely guarantee i have a greater command of the english language than you do. keep trying though, maybe some day one of your insults will really hurt me down deep...

"i" is typically capitalized in this usage. But Im really not questioning your command of the english language. I only question your basic reasoning and logic. I am quite sure you are capable of expressing those thoughts well however.

woody constantly tells everyone that they lack language comprehension skills, so i felt the need to say it. can you respond to my other post though? plzzz

I actually have no need to. You ignored my entire discussion and instead chose to point out that it was just verbose. You then simply moved on to simplistic linguistic points which do not even touch on the actual topic itself. I responded in kind. If you instead have an intelligent question about my views, instead of this petty version of it, Ill be happy to discuss it. I am sorry if you feel the need to condense the entire message down to one word, but that simply is not my problem. I understand your need and desire to paraphrase, because it was a complex explanation, and one mostly for effect for that matter. What I posted was not a one line response. It was not meant to be. It was meant to be a message conveyed through the use of many words, and not simplified down to good, or bad. You are free to call it verbose, and I will simply contend it was detailed.

In any case, my view is quite clear, and if you'd like to argue against the logic, Ill be happy to read. If you want some silly word games, go play a game of scrabble or something. Ordinarily Id oblige, but Im a little tired right now.

i just asked you a few questions! here, i'll quote my post:

AAFitz, what you are saying (in simpler terms) is that this discrimination based on race is good?

In simple terms, no I am not.

wow. i actually expected you to just say yes and tell me how you wouldn't be bothered by it. but i guess this will be fun.

tell me then how our modern implementation of affirmative action (which involves giving different people different things based on race) is not racial discrimination.

or else tell me how you can perceive something as not good and still call it "corrective measures", "fair", and "leveling the playing field".

i look forward to you trying to talk your way out of this one.

actually i just realized that you only have to answer ONE question. just one. why would you avoid that? too easy.

the reason i ask them is because you said that you weren't saying this instance of racial discrimination is good. so either you don't see affirmative action as racial discrimination, or your post wasn't supporting affirmative action. i genuinely don't know which one it is.

[radiojake]

... Isn't that nice? A member of the White House is speaking at a conference where avowed socialists are going to tell kids why capitalism is destroying the planet.

So you don't think that capitalism is destroying the planet?

(by the way, this does not mean that I am a socialist - )

[john9blue]

"human nature is destroying the planet" would be more accurate

[Army of GOD]

I thought Crab People were destroying the planet...


















"Craaaab people, Craaab people. Look like crabs, talk like people"

[spurgistan]

... Isn't that nice? A member of the White House is speaking at a conference where avowed socialists are going to tell kids why capitalism is destroying the planet.

So you don't think that capitalism is destroying the planet?

(by the way, this does not mean that I am a socialist - )

Actually, I might argue that climate change (which is, according to the majority of scientific research conducted on the subject, the single greatest threat to the future of the planet as we know it, anthropogenic or otherwise) is being caused by not enough capitalism. If the negative economic effect greenhouse gas emissions have on the Earth's climate were properly included in the costs of conducting business, as they ought to be, the market would correct the bias against the environment caused by the unpriced negative effect caused by the release greenhouse gases.

If you don't believe anthropogenic climate change exists, as is your God-given right, then just substitute "pollution" for greenhouse gases, it still works.

[john9blue]

^ assuming that businesses look at long-term impacts, which they usually don't sadly

[spurgistan]

^ assuming that businesses look at long-term impacts, which they usually don't sadly

Right, but if coal cost more to process based on the costs associated with the release of all the awful things that come out when you process coal, that's short term impact, ergo reduced stock prices, ergo CEOs actually giving a shit.

[radiojake]

"human nature is destroying the planet" would be more accurate

This is self-fulfiling and a cop out - There has been plenty of examples of egalitarian societies that did not impact negatively against the environment, infact, they understood that they were very much a part of it.

Western 'civilisation', and it's close relative, capitalism, is the single most destructive force on the planet - On top of this, the hegemonic power of capitalism has duped everyone into thinking (and believing) that the greedy, self-interest, me-first paradigm that is created by it is somehow 'natural' and believed to be self-evident.

Plus, the simple fact that our economy is based on perpetual growth surely indicates how out of touch our economic system is - NOTHING can perpetually grow, everything eventually dies, yet our economists insist that this system somehow sits outside the laws of nature?

Nature is a dictatorship - It sets the laws on how to live - If you break these laws (which we routinely do) it will eventually come back to kick our ass

Actually, I might argue that climate change (which is, according to the majority of scientific research conducted on the subject, the single greatest threat to the future of the planet as we know it, anthropogenic or otherwise) is being caused by not enough capitalism. If the negative economic effect greenhouse gas emissions have on the Earth's climate were properly included in the costs of conducting business, as they ought to be, the market would correct the bias against the environment caused by the unpriced negative effect caused by the release greenhouse gases.

Expecting a market mechanism to fix our environmental problems when the very same market got us into trouble in the first place is foolish - I don't actually care if 'Climate change' exists or not - I don't think that should be our biggest concern. We should concentrate on 'baby steps' and start by addressing our over consumption and addiction to waste and land-fill.

Computers, TVs, laptops, cars, igadgets, whitegoods, etc etc etc - They are all built to break down - They are built to last two or so years then replaced by 'updated models' - This is the biggest fault of capitalism and the single biggest environmental issue that we face. We should start producing things that last 10, 25, 50 years - Not the disposible way of life we lead now (which is required to continue the unattainble concept of perpetual growth

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm fully in agreement with spurgistan on this one.

Costs imposed through pollution aren't directly incurred by the businesses which create them. If they were, then through the markets, people would take more reasonable solutions.

With any economic system, an individual's actions are a primary determinant for future business decisions. Solutions proposed by socialists and hardcore environmentalists are ridiculous because they don't factor in human motivation. Many of them simply mandate that things should be run this way because their word is their truth, which must be applied to everyone--regardless of everyone's individual incentives and access to information.

[Woodruff]

1. Sex and Sustainability

This is an extremely important subject! After all, if you can't sustain...

[Nobunaga]

1. Sex and Sustainability

This is an extremely important subject! After all, if you can't sustain...

... Yeah, I thought that one was funny.

... And in reply to Radio, no, I do not think capitalism is detroying the planet.

...

[PLAYER57832]

^ assuming that businesses look at long-term impacts, which they usually don't sadly

Right, but if coal cost more to process based on the costs associated with the release of all the awful things that come out when you process coal, that's short term impact, ergo reduced stock prices, ergo CEOs actually giving a shit.

Doesn't happen, sadly, because someone polluting MY land just doesn't matter in the scheme of things.

I could point to many, many land owners here who sold away their entire mineral rights (not just natural gas) for a mere $250,000... and who thought they had done quite well.

Now, my region is struggling to get these gas companies to even just repair the road their trucks drive across.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm fully in agreement with spurgistan on this one.

Costs imposed through pollution aren't directly incurred by the businesses which create them. If they were, then through the markets, people would take more reasonable solutions.

With any economic system, an individual's actions are a primary determinant for future business decisions. Solutions proposed by socialists and hardcore environmentalists are ridiculous because they don't factor in human motivation. Many of them simply mandate that things should be run this way because their word is their truth, which must be applied to everyone--regardless of everyone's individual incentives and access to information.

Except, at some point.. "truth is truth". Allowing people to perpetuate false information and allowing others to make decisions based upon false information hgas been a keynoted of the far right.

The far, far left has tried it, too, but no one listens to those few any longer.

However, you are wrong when you say that there is unity among socialists and hardcore enviornmentalists. Newer evironmentalists very much take ecomics and sociology into account. Right now, the problem is not that biologists and ecologists lack economic information, its that economics STILL think its OK to ignore biology and the environment.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/