In response to Mac 1958 s thread regarding partisanship.

[Tommy Tainant]

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

There is one thing the right does better than anyone...

"Building a communication infrastructure across all
forms of media to get their message out to the masses non-stop 24/7!"
​

If there is one thing the left could learn from the right, that is it. When the left is out of power, we protest. When the right is out of power, they build infrastructure. And what they've been able to build, is quite impressive:

• television - Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity
• radio - Michael Savage, Limbaugh, Beck
• print - WSJ, American Thinker, Drudge Report
• internet - Little Green Footballs, Presidential Tweets, USMB's own right wing posters
• think tanks - Heritage Foundation
• organizations - Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity

The list just goes on and on. I don't like their message. I don't agree with their message. And sometimes, their message disgusts me. But there is no denying the fact that their message is getting out every day, 24/7, non-stop to the entire planet.

There is nothing on the left that could compare to that. There's Soros. But that's just one contributor. Nothing on the left has anything of that magnitude that crosses all forms of media.

Its different in the UK. The right controls the printed press almost 100% and that is still the most powerful tool out there. They also currently control the agenda on the BBC but that is not a given and can change over time.
On the net they are weak and most of the right wing activity is confined to what you would call alt right shite.
It works well on people who cant spel peeple but not on adults.

The left is confined to a couple of papers. however they do have a strong coverage on the net. Much of it is crap though and at a student level of crap at that.

The right generally have more money and that gives them the edge every time.

What about centralised state funding for parties ? Cut out the donors completely.

 

[Mac1958]

Holy crap, you REALLY need to get me out of your head.

Maybe answer the freaking question. Wow.
.

See? That is EXACTLY what I've been referring to. You don't dare debate me one on one on the issues. Your only motive is to troll like a child.

And you still haven't addressed the question in the thread. You're crazed.


get

me

out

of

your

head
.

You are the topic of the thread.

You accuse people of being mindlessly partisan. You accuse me of being mindlessly partisan.

My response is this. Show me ONE TIME that I have taken an indefensibly wrong position merely because I was siding with Democrats, or with the left, or with any other partisan delineation you wish to point out.

ONE is all I ask,

or, as an alternative, you can respond with something mindlessly childish.

Y'know what's really neat about this thread? I inspired some thoughtful conversation. A thread I started led to another one that had people who are usually partisan talking about something they'd agree on with the other side. Interesting conversation, people willing to go out of their comfort zone. And it started with little ol' Mac.

Wow, that's pretty damn neat. You'll never know what that's like.

I don't have to show you anything. I don't care enough about you or your opinion to put forth any effort. But I do know this: As the obedient little partisan ideologue that you are, you don't even have the balls to participate in thread. You've only trolled it, and me.

Neat thread. I'll remember this.
.
.

I see, so for the record, you cannot come up with a single example to support your repeated accusations against me.

Fair enough. that sums it up perfectly. You're basically full of shit.

.

 

[Mac1958]

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

There is one thing the right does better than anyone...

"Building a communication infrastructure across all
forms of media to get their message out to the masses non-stop 24/7!"
​

If there is one thing the left could learn from the right, that is it. When the left is out of power, we protest. When the right is out of power, they build infrastructure. And what they've been able to build, is quite impressive:

• television - Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity
• radio - Michael Savage, Limbaugh, Beck
• print - WSJ, American Thinker, Drudge Report
• internet - Little Green Footballs, Presidential Tweets, USMB's own right wing posters
• think tanks - Heritage Foundation
• organizations - Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity

The list just goes on and on. I don't like their message. I don't agree with their message. And sometimes, their message disgusts me. But there is no denying the fact that their message is getting out every day, 24/7, non-stop to the entire planet.

There is nothing on the left that could compare to that. There's Soros. But that's just one contributor. Nothing on the left has anything of that magnitude that crosses all forms of media.

Its different in the UK. The right controls the printed press almost 100% and that is still the most powerful tool out there. They also currently control the agenda on the BBC but that is not a given and can change over time.
On the net they are weak and most of the right wing activity is confined to what you would call alt right shite.
It works well on people who cant spel peeple but not on adults.

The left is confined to a couple of papers. however they do have a strong coverage on the net. Much of it is crap though and at a student level of crap at that.

The right generally have more money and that gives them the edge every time.

What about centralised state funding for parties ? Cut out the donors completely.

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

I'd like to see term limits too. Between the two, they would entirely change the landscape overnight.

But obviously, we know that can't happen, and we know why.
.

 

[Billo_Really]

Its different in the UK. The right controls the printed press almost 100% and that is still the most powerful tool out there. They also currently control the agenda on the BBC but that is not a given and can change over time.
On the net they are weak and most of the right wing activity is confined to what you would call alt right shite.
It works well on people who cant spel peeple but not on adults.

The left is confined to a couple of papers. however they do have a strong coverage on the net. Much of it is crap though and at a student level of crap at that.

The right generally have more money and that gives them the edge every time.

What about centralised state funding for parties ? Cut out the donors completely.

How about making all campaign donations above a certain amount to be made anonymously? Make it illegal for PAC's and Super PAC's to disclose to their candidate how much money they've donated to his/her campaign. Or have a general fund for each party (where all donations go) and are distributed equally to each candidate (running for that party)?

Or go the other route...since they are so good at publishing their message to the masses, lets celebrate it by forcing all members of Congress to dress like NASCAR drivers when they're in session.

https://postimage.org/

That way everyone can see the fruits of their (or our) efforts.

 

[Billo_Really]

I've always noticed that while they are unmatched at that --- they can't figure out humor at all. Completely uncomfortable with it. That's because humor makes people feel good. So you have the Mahers and the Colberts and the Noahs etc etc, and no equivalent on the "right".

They got that one show. I don't know if it is on anymore. But it was like a conservative Daily Show or Fox News with an SNL theme to it.

 

[Kondor3]

Given that in today's context, "Opposition" = Democrats...

Example: Democratic push to investigate Trump's (and his campaign's) alleged collaboration and collusion with Russia in the run-up to the November 8, 2016 election.

I have no problem with that, whatsoever, and see it as necessary and crucial to the political health of the Republic.

 

[Mac1958]

Given that in today's context, "Opposition" = Democrats...

Example: Democratic push to investigate Trump's (and his campaign's) alleged collaboration and collusion with Russia in the run-up to the November 8, 2016 election.

I have no problem with that, whatsoever, and see it as necessary and crucial to the political health of the Republic.

I heard a conservative talk show host yesterday mocking all this, downplaying the whole thing as no big deal.

That's what partisans do, of course, but the possibility that there is collusion between an American political group and Russia is serious shit.

We have to get all the way through this, no matter what.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

I don't have a real problem with cutting funds to PBS, NEA, NEH and all the other optional things. If we are serious about being in too much debt, we need to restrict ourselves to merely the things we need.

The problem I have with the right is that they don't really stand for what they claim to believe in. They talk about fiscal responsibility, but then they spend like drunken sailors in a cathouse when they get into power.

 

[JoeB131]

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

Yeah, for the worst.

I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.

Start handing out welfare for politicians, you are going to get every nutcase in the universe asking for money because he got enough names on a petition to put him on a ballot.

 

[JoeB131]

I'd like to see term limits too. Between the two, they would entirely change the landscape overnight.

We already have term limits. They're called "Elections".

 

[Correll]

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

There is one thing the right does better than anyone...

"Building a communication infrastructure across all
forms of media to get their message out to the masses non-stop 24/7!"
​

If there is one thing the left could learn from the right, that is it. When the left is out of power, we protest. When the right is out of power, they build infrastructure. And what they've been able to build, is quite impressive:

• television - Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity
• radio - Michael Savage, Limbaugh, Beck
• print - WSJ, American Thinker, Drudge Report
• internet - Little Green Footballs, Presidential Tweets, USMB's own right wing posters
• think tanks - Heritage Foundation
• organizations - Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity

The list just goes on and on. I don't like their message. I don't agree with their message. And sometimes, their message disgusts me. But there is no denying the fact that their message is getting out every day, 24/7, non-stop to the entire planet.

There is nothing on the left that could compare to that. There's Soros. But that's just one contributor. Nothing on the left has anything of that magnitude that crosses all forms of media.

My God, you are deluded.

YOu live in a culture dominated by your lefty nonsense and you think that the small amount of opposing view that gets broadcast in the problem.

 

[healthmyths]

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

My question is who designated you as "As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off."

 

[Montrovant]

You think people should be able to buy political influence?

Of course. You do too, you just don't realize it.

Say you want to have blue widgets outlawed and you write a bill to make it so. You have to get some quantity of people to vote with you to pass the bill, and some or all of those people want something too. What do you do to get them to agree to outlawing blue widgets? You may not give them cash, but you give them something. Call it bartering. Call it buying; call it something else. I don't care what you call it; it's still exchanging one thing for another to influence people to concur with you, to give you their approbation, thus what you want -- blue widgets outlawed.

The example above is among the most simplistic, but make no mistake, simple or complex, the core principle is the same. People exchange what they have to offer in order to influence the actions of others. They buy influence and they have no problem doing so. They'd have it no other way. You, I, and everyone else must either be lying or ignorant/naive to seriously suggest otherwise.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should. I don't at all question that it happens, and it will continue to do so for the rest of my lifetime and probably many lifetimes beyond, but that doesn't mean I consider it the best way for things to get done. I'd rather political influence were not bought, that political decisions and laws written were based on convictions. I realize it is not the reality.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should.

Okay. You want to address the normative side of the matter. Fine.

I'm a democratic capitalist, and so is "Mark". I purchase services from Supplier A and I donate money to Charity B. "Mark" is also a capitalist. He buys services from Supplier A and contributes to Charity B. Our expenditures are as follows:

• Xelor
  • Supplier A --> $632K/year
  • Charity B --> $230K/year
• "Mark"
  • Supplier A --> $6K/year
  • Charity B --> $200/year

Lest you think the sums noted are outlandish, see this: Here's What the Average American Pays in Federal Income Taxes

If Supplier A or Charity B announces a change in their policy, assortment of offerings, or something else (doesn't matter what changes). Assuming A and B are wiling to receive input from stakeholders,

1. Should I expect to have more influence than Mark? Should it be the other way round?
2. Should A or B place more weight on my or Mark's opinion about their future course of action?

I don't think I need to tell you what my answers are to the two questions above, but just in case:

1. Yes, I should expect to have more influence.
2. A or B should place more weight on my opinion than Mark's.

Now consider that A is going to provide the very same services whether Mark or I pay for them; thus my and Mark's only real options are (1) pay for A's services, (2) suffer the consequences for receiving A's services but not paying for them, or (3) move to a locale where A doesn't provide services. Looking at the same two question, my answers are the same.

Government is not a business, nor a charity.

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

Yes. Of course. I thought that was clear from the final paragraph of the post to which you responded.

I suppose I'm just surprised that someone would so clearly indicate they are happy with the idea of the wealthy being in control of the nation based on their wealth, or that someone would so openly disparage the concept of one person, one vote.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

Yeah, for the worst.

I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.

Start handing out welfare for politicians, you are going to get every nutcase in the universe asking for money because he got enough names on a petition to put him on a ballot.

It doesnt have to be like that.
The alternative is what we have now. The rich an buy a party and the pay off is approved legislation. I would rather see a parade of idiots than be cheated as we are today.

 

[healthmyths]

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

Yeah, for the worst.

I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.

Start handing out welfare for politicians, you are going to get every nutcase in the universe asking for money because he got enough names on a petition to put him on a ballot.

It doesnt have to be like that.
The alternative is what we have now. The rich an buy a party and the pay off is approved legislation. I would rather see a parade of idiots than be cheated as we are today.

Immediate BSD goes off when some one writes "the rich"!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

Yeah, for the worst.

I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.

Start handing out welfare for politicians, you are going to get every nutcase in the universe asking for money because he got enough names on a petition to put him on a ballot.

It doesnt have to be like that.
The alternative is what we have now. The rich an buy a party and the pay off is approved legislation. I would rather see a parade of idiots than be cheated as we are today.

Immediate BSD goes off when some one writes "the rich"!

"BSD" ?

 

[Montrovant]

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

Yeah, for the worst.

I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.

Start handing out welfare for politicians, you are going to get every nutcase in the universe asking for money because he got enough names on a petition to put him on a ballot.

It doesnt have to be like that.
The alternative is what we have now. The rich an buy a party and the pay off is approved legislation. I would rather see a parade of idiots than be cheated as we are today.

Immediate BSD goes off when some one writes "the rich"!

"BSD" ?

I'm guessing bullshit detector.

 

[healthmyths]

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

Yeah, for the worst.

I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.

Start handing out welfare for politicians, you are going to get every nutcase in the universe asking for money because he got enough names on a petition to put him on a ballot.

It doesnt have to be like that.
The alternative is what we have now. The rich an buy a party and the pay off is approved legislation. I would rather see a parade of idiots than be cheated as we are today.

Immediate BSD goes off when some one writes "the rich"!

"BSD" ?

BULL SHIT DETECTOR

 

[Pogo]

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

Yeah, for the worst.

I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.
.

Bullshit. No such thing ever existed.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well lets replace the word "rich" with the more descriptive "groups or individuals with the means to buy influence over political figures".