Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/18/beware_of_the_new_elites_117491.html

I generally agree with it, but crony capitalism is profitable for both political parties. Advertising messages against that status quo is politically suicidal at the moment, so how does one incentivize politicians to 'do the right thing'?

Guillotines.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Guillotines.


--Andy

@ Washington, D.C.

"All in favor of the Guillotines Against Politicians, say Aye."

....

"All oppose, say Nay."


"NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY"


Andy, we need a better name for the Guillotines program!

How about Head Start? Hm, that's taken already...


--Andy

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/18/beware_of_the_new_elites_117491.html

I generally agree with it, but crony capitalism is profitable for both political parties. Advertising messages against that status quo is politically suicidal at the moment, so how does one incentivize politicians to 'do the right thing'?

Ah HA! But, I put it in both threads!

There are fundamental flaws with the way politics works in general, I wouldn't say one particular party is so much more dysfunctional than the other, we're looking at two rotten apples but only pointing at one of them.

AndyDufresne wrote:It is high time we start eliminating the media. Lets just bump the 2nd amendment up a spot.

But we're REPUBLICANS, damn it. We just let natural selection and the free market do its proper work and function.

They will be gone any decade from now; mark my words.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/18/beware_of_the_new_elites_117491.html

I generally agree with it, but crony capitalism is profitable for both political parties. Advertising messages against that status quo is politically suicidal at the moment, so how does one incentivize politicians to 'do the right thing'?

Ah HA! But, I put it in both threads!

I was thinking of posting the same response in both threads, but I didn't.

/cool story

Gillipig wrote:There are fundamental flaws with the way politics works in general, I wouldn't say one particular party is so much more dysfunctional than the other, we're looking at two rotten apples but only pointing at one of them.

No, there's 2 threads.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/18/beware_of_the_new_elites_117491.html

I generally agree with it, but crony capitalism is profitable for both political parties. Advertising messages against that status quo is politically suicidal at the moment, so how does one incentivize politicians to 'do the right thing'?

You don't incentivise politiciaons, you teach people. They then vote for the right thing.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/18/beware_of_the_new_elites_117491.html

I generally agree with it, but crony capitalism is profitable for both political parties. Advertising messages against that status quo is politically suicidal at the moment, so how does one incentivize politicians to 'do the right thing'?

You don't incentivise politiciaons, you teach people. They then vote for the right thing.

People with undergrad degrees can still be uninformed.

tzor wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:It is high time we start eliminating the media. Lets just bump the 2nd amendment up a spot.

But we're REPUBLICANS, damn it. We just let natural selection and the free market do its proper work and function.

They will be gone any decade from now; mark my words.

The first amendment , the second amendment or the free market?


Regardless, I would agree, though the second amendment bit would be moot.

The problem is that most of what is put forward as "supporting the free market" is really about maintaining current businesses and current business models. It is inherently not about freedom, it is about not changing much.

What this means is that many, many opportunities for innovation, for other ideas are stifled. Oil is favored because not favoring it would be too detrimental... even though we are using it up and there is no ready and easy alternative. We cannot control pollution because the cost is too much and the damage is not quantified until years in the future. We cannot raise the minimum wage or increase social security because it will "harm business" today... but never mind that this means millions of seniors will be left with nothing. (anyone who doesn't save is just not working... never mind that its almost impossible to save for retirement and raise a family on $8 an hour)

Oh yeah... and don't ever forget that "freedom" only applies if you happen to be a white, heterosexual male.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/18/beware_of_the_new_elites_117491.html

I generally agree with it, but crony capitalism is profitable for both political parties. Advertising messages against that status quo is politically suicidal at the moment, so how does one incentivize politicians to 'do the right thing'?

You don't incentivise politiciaons, you teach people. They then vote for the right thing.

People with undergrad degrees can still be uninformed.

Yes, so can people with advanced degrees.

Knowing a lot about part of one subject doesn't mean you are universally informed.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:They will be gone any decade from now; mark my words.

The first amendment , the second amendment or the free market?

The liberally biased main stream media.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:They will be gone any decade from now; mark my words.

The first amendment , the second amendment or the free market?

The liberally biased main stream media.

If you believe that, then you have no idea what real liberals even say, never mind what liberal bias sounds like. The media is pretty right of the center, with the exception of homosexuality and a couple other narrow issues.

What you are seeing is that the WORLD, data, has a "liberal bias".

Environmental destruction is real and significant, differences between genders are real and signifcant to daily life. Constantly blaming the poor, particularly the working poor for their plight is an old game, as is blaming immigrants. (anyone but those in power and those truly profiting from the status quo).

The bias is that the media is not blasting all those facts every day.

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you believe that, then you have no idea what real liberals even say, never mind what liberal bias sounds like. The media is pretty right of the center, with the exception of homosexuality and a couple other narrow issues.

The media is "right of center" if you consider the center, on a scale of 1 to 10 to be, say a 2. I'm sorry but 3 is still left of 5.

STUDY: ALL MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS HAVE LEFT-LEANING BIAS THAT ‘DISTORTS’ MINDS

What do studies tell us about mainstream media bias?

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Or you can just follow the money ...

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Please, put down the NPR Cool Aid ... It's rotting your brain.

And back to my point; the New York Times is dying. It's not pretty watching that newspaper die; don't we already have laws on the books to prevent suicide?

The original major networks, once known for news journalism, are pretty much dying as well. Even cable news networks are undergoing chemotherapy because of the liberal cancer that is killing their ratings.

(This just in, the tumor commonly known as Ed Schultz has been contained by isolating it to the weekends.)

I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you believe that, then you have no idea what real liberals even say, never mind what liberal bias sounds like. The media is pretty right of the center, with the exception of homosexuality and a couple other narrow issues.

The media is "right of center" if you consider the center, on a scale of 1 to 10 to be, say a 2. I'm sorry but 3 is still left of 5.
.

No, its "right of center" if you use any accepted pre-1981 definition of "center".
Like I said, most people today have never really heard a truly liberal position, except on homosexuality and a few other very narrow topics.

And in the case of homosexuality, the current moderate position would have been an extreme left position back then.

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

That is absolutely true. However since destroying both parties and creating an entirely new system is not an option for Americans today... we have to work with what we can do. That means debating each party, while working within and outside to accomplish real goals.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

That is absolutely true. However since destroying both parties and creating an entirely new system is not an option for Americans today... we have to work with what we can do. That means debating each party, while working within and outside to accomplish real goals.

Then how will a new system come about? Any form of government is only strong as long as the people support it. If people stopped voting for the best of two bad alternatives and just withheld their vote we would soon see a change in the political climate.

Gillipig wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

That is absolutely true. However since destroying both parties and creating an entirely new system is not an option for Americans today... we have to work with what we can do. That means debating each party, while working within and outside to accomplish real goals.

Then how will a new system come about? Any form of government is only strong as long as the people support it. If people stopped voting for the best of two bad alternatives and just withheld their vote we would soon see a change in the political climate.

By voting for the best of the options, by starting locally to bring in and elect real alternatives, by working on referendums and education, by fighting for what is right and true, on all fronts.

I am not all that familiar with Sweden's system, but I know that in DK, they have many parties that each get some power, allocated based on the votes. Our system is just entirely different. The parties were never intended to represent any kind of ideal view, despite the rhetoric. In fact, I can remember my political science professor chuckling with some well known elected officials over that very thing... how the R vs D thing was really fiction, just a convenient way to ensure we don't have an appointment type system.

PLAYER57832 wrote:And in the case of homosexuality, the current moderate position would have been an extreme left position back then.

"Left" and "right" have no real meaning on social issues. Or rather they wrap around significantly. Many fiscal conservatives are social "libertarians" which is basically the same as social liberals but without government overreach. The late William F. Buckley Jr. was known for what many social conservatives would have considered "leftist" views towards minor drugs like pot and I suspect he would be strongly for the legalization of same gender marriage as well, were he living today.

And the definition of "center" was in fact influenced by a strongly left biased media. Only before the 1980's they had the ability to hide this by their semi-monopoly status as well as the tact not to make it exceptionally obvious. Back when there was only three major television news outlets, this was easy. It was ironic that the first "shot across the bow" was made by PBS, but at the time, their support of conservatives, like William F. Buckley Jr. was the only real place for an alternative viewpoint to the network news slanted reporting.