On 9/9/2012 4:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, September 9, 2012 2:58:32 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/9/2012 2:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, September 9, 2012 1:41:37 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King
��� Why are we even considering the thoughts of
paranoids? Are they in control of our daily lives?
I agree, I was responding to what Roger said about liberals:
"ironically and paradoxically they see the world in terms of race.
Conservatives attempt to live by facts. I never
saw racism in what what I wrote until you brought
the subject up."
which sounded to me like 'conservatives aren't racist, liberals
are', which - although conservative thought has some admirable
virtues, I can say without hesitation that tolerance for racial
and gender diversity is not one of them. That's why I brought up
JBS and KKK, to show the absurdity of that claim, since the most
racist hate groups are known to be political right wing
extremists and not left wing extremists.
The contest of recrimination is not winnable, but let's try
for the sake of the discussion.
Personally I don't know of any left wing extremist groups in this
country - not that there aren't any but even self-proclaimed
anarchists seem to stay out of trouble.
I guess that you have never heard of
I had heard of Earth First but not much. Yeah, I think it's fair to
call them left wing eco-terrorists. Unfortunately the way they are
going about it, using arson and destruction will only serve to
discredit their cause and provide a ready excuse for stepping up
surveillance and security operations around the world. I don't think
that mainstream liberals are aware or support groups like this though
generally. Contrary to the overwhelming drift to the right by
conservatives, groups like these have not seemed to influence the
politics of the mainstream (Democrats can't really even be called
liberals, more like fiscal conservatives who are socially moderate).
We could point out bomb-throwers that affiliate themselves to all
political brands, but that does this tell us other that insanity is
evenly distributed in the human population.
What do they do that is bad? Do they threaten innocent people?
The crew of whaling ships might disagree with you, but again, my
point is to defend Truth, not any political brand.
Maybe they are over-zealous and unrealistic about ecological
priorities but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the global
machine they are up against. From what I see it looks like they mainly
are concerned with protecting human beings in general:
Certainly they are not racists or bullies of innocent people.
Sure, but do they have the "legitimacy" of government agency behind
them? I only worry about people that can do things to me or my family or
any one with the stamp of authority. For example, if I take money from
you by force we call it theft. If the government does the same thing, we
call it "taxation"....
SDS lasted from 1960-1969, so it hasn't been relevant for almost 50
years. I had a professor who was in SDS. Extremely nice and gentle
guy. He said he had a metal plate in his skull from the FBI. His class
was on revolutionary movements, talked about SDS, the IWW and labor
unions. He seemed to have a mature and reasonable perspective on the 60s
It is good to see that people can recover from the insanity of
youth, but not all do. Some remain unrepentant and are actually involved
in setting public policy today.
sure. my point was about racism though. Are there any groups of white
racists who are liberal?
Do we have access to polling data from people that are in this
group to tell us what political camp they associate themselves with? I
have not seen any.
In other parts of the world, there are certainly left-wing
violent extremists but I don't guess that they are racially
motivated in particular (unless maybe the distribution of wealth
and power falls along racial lines in their area). What are the
left wing presences in the US? Farmers markets? Small
organizations that try to help people get birth control or
protect people from being poisoned by industry?
It might be helpful if you laid out for us the definition of
the terms that you are using. What exactly is left-wing and
Why can't we just get along?
The left wing are those who see themselves as being the people who
want to just get along or, if politically active, oppose those who
prevent us from getting along. Left wing means tolerance, which means
a certain degree of intolerance of intolerance. That's where it gets
I'm not sure who the right wing thinks they are. Patriots? Grownups
who don't like to see people get anything without paying a price? Not
I frankly don't care what they think of themselves, what matters is
who have the official imprimatur to control my life.
To my mind, while I can understand why liberals would be
criticized as whiny, weak, and impractical, I think conservatives
who do not understand why they are criticized as racist,
anti-intellectual bullies are in deep denial or just sheltered
from other viewpoints.
From my point of view we need objectivity.
I'm on board with that.
Tell me why didn't trickle down economics work?
It didn't? Do you know what is meant by that term? Maybe we need to
do a lesson in economics focusing on the effects of tax policy. Let's
see what the Wiki tells us:
""Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms in
United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other
economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy
will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a
whole. The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said
during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top
in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy." The term is mostly
used ironically or as pejorative.
Proponents of tax cuts often claim that savings and investment are
essential to the economy, and thus less taxes for an income bracket need
not harm any other income bracket. It has been referred to as a
straw-man argument. Economist George Reisman, a proponent of tax
cuts, said the following: "Of course, many people will characterize the
line of argument I have just given as the 'trickle-down' theory. There
is nothing trickle-down about it. There is only the fact that capital
accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and
that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and
accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all,
through economic progress, achieved in this way, is the futile attempt
of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and
plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative
advocated by the critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory.""
Why did Bush's 8-year presidency end in such catastrophic failure?
The housing bubble, driven by artificially low interest rates and
super lenient lending guidelines, burst.
Why haven't the corps making record profits behaved as the 'job
creators' they are supposed to be?
Corporations, like any business, is an organism that adapts to
changing environmental conditions or it perishes. What does it size or
location really matter? Have I told you about the attempt that my wife
and I made to run a small pottery business? The taxes and regulations
alone eat every bit of profits that we could possibly make. We lost more
than $10,000 on that one... We can't even give away the equipment that
we had to buy...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at