Comments on Time To Keep Score: Sex and Capitalism

thanks for the clarification.

2009-12-17T18:58:00.961-08:00

thanks for the clarification.

2 things I can't let go unnoticed. 1) Mere the go...

2009-12-17T18:37:02.757-08:00

2 things I can't let go unnoticed.

1) Mere the government did not try to prevent stem cell research. They simply decided that tax dollars would not fund certain types of stem cell research that would be offensive to a large portion of the aforementioned tax payers.

George Washington visiting brothels? Really? I'd like to see one credible historian backing that claim up.

Well I have always been sensitive, but I wonder if...

2009-12-17T13:27:32.926-08:00

Well I have always been sensitive, but I wonder if you are trying to influence people or shock them?

Influence would require more 'sensitive' wording. If a reader sees generalizations and perceived attacks they will likely miss the message. The message seems to be more important to you than specific words?

Woodrow Wilson? really?

Well George Washington frequented brothels. Exactly.

RE: Chris 1) Perhaps. But I am less interested in...

2009-12-17T13:13:04.552-08:00

RE: Chris

1) Perhaps. But I am less interested in intent and motive than I am results. I think Progressive policy results speak for themselves.

2)Yes, I agree. But you criticize me of implying they are ignorant, and then claim they also need to be educated.

Why is it that Blacks (or anyone) had to take civil rights seriously? One reason is the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. A Progressive, indeed THE Progressive. His political goals were to quell dissent, foster an environment of crisis through which he could empower the federal government beyond anything it had previously enjoyed. He segregated the Navy and the federal government and then told the objecting Blacks that he was doing them a favor.

There was a reason Mussolini admired him greatly.

3) Exactly. Which is why am harping so loudly about all this.

But the real question is this: are we really becoming so sensitive here at TTKS? :p

1) By implying that corrupt progressive leaders wh...

2009-12-17T12:15:37.303-08:00

1) By implying that corrupt progressive leaders who are nothing but power-hungry have those motives and by attempting to concede that not all progressive-minded folks on the grounds have that motive, you're implying ignorance or duped-ness.

2) Blacks vote 95% democrat as an echo of a time when blacks were the only party willing to treat Civil Rights seriously. If we can stop accusing them of ignorance or being duped, we can educate them that their moral base is more similar to conservatives than not. If we can encourage them to see the dangerous half of government entitlement without insulting them, maybe that percentage would round out a bit.

3) Progressive politicians don't want to control people any more than any other politician. Every first-term politician has the same goal: a second term. If conservatives don't want control of your liberty the way you are saying liberals do, they want control of government just as much.

(Standard disclaimer: I agree with the substance of your arguments as usual. I take issue with what I perceive to be the potential for harm in the tone.)

When you give me an example of any Politician who ...

2009-12-17T12:14:28.768-08:00

When you give me an example of any Politician who does not. But I'm a cynic.

Your post, however says Progressive, not Progressive Politician.

I'm splitting hairs, i know. I'm in the middle of my off season :)

Can you give me an example of a Progressive politi...

2009-12-17T11:58:22.945-08:00

Can you give me an example of a Progressive politician that did not attempt to control people?

Adam, if a few of us, who are somewhat reasonable,...

2009-12-17T11:36:43.524-08:00

Adam, if a few of us, who are somewhat reasonable, somewhat intelligent, interpret your posts as vilifying, maybe that is a good indicator.

Your intent may not be that, but it does come across that way.

"Progressives want to control people. That point is hardly worth arguing."

That is a fairly general attack.

LDS don't vote 95% Republican. Mere, don't confu...

2009-12-17T10:44:29.703-08:00

LDS don't vote 95% Republican.

Mere, don't confuse the means from ends.

"from mussolini to Obama" if doesn't imply progres...

2009-12-17T10:36:49.935-08:00

"from mussolini to Obama"
if doesn't imply progressives are evil, I don't know what it was supposed to mean...

and why is it that LDS vote 95% Republican?

2009-12-17T10:29:49.887-08:00

and why is it that LDS vote 95% Republican?

I've not claimed anyone is evil or duped or ignora...

2009-12-17T10:26:19.606-08:00

I've not claimed anyone is evil or duped or ignorant. What I have said is that these "good-intentions" usually have terrible consequences.

But then, I do think there are ulterior motives to most government legislation. HCR is not about reform any more than the war on poverty (the same could be said for the war on drugs) was about eliminating poverty. Most of these measures are all about preserving the power these people THINK they have. And how do they preserve that perceived power? Through the manipulation of us, the voters.

Why is it that Blacks vote 95% Democrat?

I'll stick up for SB somewhat and point out, Adam,...

2009-12-17T09:54:04.363-08:00

I'll stick up for SB somewhat and point out, Adam, that your intelligent arguments will continue to be undercut by your vilification of the left. You attribute sinister behavior where it may or may not exist and immediately put on the defensive those who should be listening to you cogently argue for a more limited government that, really, has as much potential to achieve the same ends that lefties seek--not necessarily control, but greater equality, greater access, yada yada yada.

Individuals seek power and control on both sides of the political equation. They should well be defamed, called out, and removed.

Keep fighting the fight, man, but occasionally you have to acknowledge that the half the country that votes liberal isn't evil, duped, or ignorant. They've merely come to the wrong (in our shared view) conclusion about the best way to achieve the ends that we all seek based on the same circumstances.

Good to have you back, by the way. How's the snow?

other parts of life/innovation government has trie...

2009-12-17T09:45:46.253-08:00

other parts of life/innovation government has tried to control via legislation.
- woman's reproductive rights
- same sex marriage
- stem cell research
- drug laws

and the market will give Tiger a slap on the wrist for awhile, but I would bet some points (not money, because that is controlled by legistlation too) that Tiger will be back on top in a few years.

The Global Warming issue is being overplayed, by b...

2009-12-17T09:12:46.823-08:00

The Global Warming issue is being overplayed, by both sides, for political capital. Meanwhile I can't breath the air in the valley.

Maybe we should qualify the vilification with 'Progressive Politician'

All threats, foreign and domestic. I interpret that liberally.

The point is that behavior cannot be controlled th...

2009-12-17T08:50:18.760-08:00

The point is that behavior cannot be controlled through heavy-handed policy. Which is what Progressives (capital P) have tried to do for the last 100 years. From prohibition to global warming.

The fundamental tenant of that movement has always been a strong and authoritative central government.

Can you reconcile the current political "progress" with your belief that the government ought to play a "small role" in protecting us?

And what is the government meant to protect us from? Outside of physical harm (police, military) or other infringements on our rights (theft, property, opinion...) I don't see any other appropriate, nor lawful place for Uncle Sam.

But that is the trickeration – Global warming is not meant to control, we are told. We are protecting ourselves from imminent destruction. Health care reform is not meant to control our medical choices they say, it is meant to "level the playing field". And so on.

But stripped of those intentions, the root of these movements is the ability for politicians to make top down decisions for citizens who are unqualified to do so on their own.

This isn't fear based. It's fact based.

Nor is it partisan. Progressives have boasted D's and R's after their names since forever.

The solution you speak of is not more government control. It never has been. It is, instead, I believe, the shrinking of government power and influence, thus my comment in the post that politicians ought to be powerless and irrelevant.

Your premise of Progressives wanting Control over ...

2009-12-17T07:52:01.601-08:00

Your premise of Progressives wanting Control over the world is false.

Your fear based belief is not reality, sure, you can suppose the intent of a piece of legislation or action,but disagreement does not have to be so extreme.

This Progressive believes in a forward moving dynamic society that treats all equally, where my liberty is not infringed upon. Where capitalism exists, but does not squash anyone on the way to success. Government should play a small role in this, small role. Because my belief in a government is that it is meant to protect us.

I truly believe (and always have) that demonizing those who we barely disagree with is the main reason our political system is so hosed.

I think I'll try and be a part of the solution.

That and if I had a Billion dollars, I would quote Chappelle often
http://tinyurl.com/5rqsmb