feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

  1. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,546

    Ok PDXRadio netizens! Time to self-identify politically!

    Me? Economically Progressive, Socially Liberal. That makes me pretty damn liberal on the two major axis.

    If you would, answer one more:

    Where are you at in terms of the distribution of powers? Authoritarian, where the executive calls the shots? Or the other extreme, where it's all decided in a distributed way?

    I am a moderate here, where I believe some concentration of power is good, but not that good. Checks and balances are important. The Unitary Executive is not ok, but then again, the helpless one who just signs stuff isn't either.

    Posted on April 24, 2011 - 09:56 PM #
  2. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,050

    I'm Andrew. I don't have a political label.

    Posted on April 24, 2011 - 09:58 PM #
  3. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,546

    Posted on April 24, 2011 - 10:04 PM #
  4. I'm a Groucho Marxist (if you think that means "Cranky Communist", I can't help you).

    Posted on April 24, 2011 - 10:27 PM #
  5. Quite left. Harder on my own party than the others. Hate hypocrisy - but fall into that category too often. I think everyone should pay more taxes. Everyone.

    Pro capital punishment. No issues with that whatsoever.

    Economics and I have an understanding - I'm not an economist.

    Socially? Please. Everyone should get everything they want.

    Posted on April 24, 2011 - 11:20 PM #
  6. motozak3

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,469

    I'm a vacuum tube. Does that count?

    Posted on April 24, 2011 - 11:42 PM #
  7. I believe the government should butt out of business and let it alone as much as possible. Just the basics. Don't allow stealing and don't allow them to dump their poop and their chemicals in the river.

    The government should be lean and mean and just do what was intended by the founding fathers and not be all things to all people. Defend the people and coin money. Leave the rest, including the business of charity to the private sector.

    I don't know what the question "distribution of powers" is referring to. If to business, then whatever a particular private business determines is best for them.

    I COULD accept certain socialistic ideas if I believed people were fair, honest, and not greedy, but they aren't that, and the free market, though not perfect, is the best system to prevent waste and corruption and is most efficient and fair. And churches and private charities are the best ways to deal with those who fall through the cracks.

    Personally, I like doing my own thing, and not being beholden to a boss or a time-clock, and want no parts of a "real job." I don't know if that's consevative or liberal. Maybe it's..."mavericky."

    Posted on April 24, 2011 - 11:44 PM #
  8. motozak3

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,469

    "I don't know if that's consevative or liberal. Maybe it's...'mavericky.'"

    None of those. I've been doing that off and on for years. Nice, yes, and certainly liberating, but definitely not new or even unique.

    Posted on April 24, 2011 - 11:55 PM #
  9. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,849

    I suppose I'm the house union thug, that said, I haven't voted FOR a property tax increase for a God long time.

    I have BS detector so that would make me a lousy Republican.

    I want the government out of my pants and in the upper 5%'s wallet.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 12:48 AM #
  10. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,137

    I have become much, much more progressive over the years. I wouldn't say "liberal", I would say right in the middle.

    Like CJ, I absolutely despise hypocrisy. And I have NO problem calling it out, on both sides.

    On social issues, I am all over the map. I strongly believe that ALL people are created equal, no matter their gender, race, creed, color, national origin, or sexual orientation, and I will ALWAYS vote accordingly. I also believe that, while I am not a fan of abortion, that it is wrong for us to dictate to a woman what to do there. That said, I am **VERY** pro-capital punishment. I support the second amendment rights, and own a gun myself.

    Ideally, I would LOVE to be in line with F&B on the scope of the federal government, domestically and economically. But it's not feasible, and the last 30 years have proven that. Without government transparency and regulation, that rampant greed and theft that F&B says he is against has happened, which led to the financial sector meltdown. Just like the three chambers of government check and balance each other, the government needs to have some checks and balances on big business. If you look back at history, we had a very laissez-faire view of business during the Industrial Revolution, and our labor was exploited, sometimes literally to death. It took government intervention by the progressives, led by Teddy Roosevelt, to give labor a chance. The economy didn't hurt, on the contrary we had very booming times back then, and eventually harmony.

    THAT is what we need, my friends.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 06:37 AM #
  11. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,546

    Yeah, can't argue with that. Economic issues are trumping everything right now, IMHO.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 07:43 AM #
  12. warner

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,363

    Gee, let's see.
    Socially liberal. In favor of marriage equality (same sex marriage). Despise discrimination of all types.

    Government has a place, private business has a place. Balance is key.

    Regulation has a place, as we have seen. Where it has gone away (Radio, Media, Airlines, Banking) there has been great harm and corruption.

    Generally, where we have let the marketplace set the rules, the rules have been broken to favor corporations and CEO's bonuses. Sorry, they can't be trusted.

    Despise hypocricy, myself included, probably daily.

    Against death penalty as long as the justice system is so flawed and biased and corrupt.

    Abortion decision is between a woman and her doctor(s). Government should stay out.

    Yep, pretty lib-like I guess. And proud of it!

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 09:22 AM #
  13. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,648

    Haven't we gone through this exercise before? Is there a renewal date that I missed or something? What value does this bring to the board?

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 09:38 AM #
  14. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,546

    I did it in response to "liberal dominated" forum. That's not exactly true. Skip it, if you like.

    And yes we have.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 10:24 AM #
  15. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,648

    I was just wondering if it was time to renew my membership with the left-wing, flag-burning, welfare-dependent, baby-killing abortionist, gay-advocating, communist-hugging, eco-preservationist, christian-hating Cadre for Cthulhu. I missed it last time and it was a bitch getting back in.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 10:31 AM #
  16. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,546

    LOL!!!

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 11:05 AM #
  17. HD

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,781

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 11:27 AM #
  18. Alfredo_T

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,164

    I am a political agnostic.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 12:40 PM #
  19. Herb,

    You call yourself a Christian and you believe greed is good?

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 12:56 PM #
  20. Herb is a religious zealot with a demonstrably shaky grasp on reality. So, you know, Republican.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 01:05 PM #
  21. Oh your so clever.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 01:12 PM #
  22. Way to miss the point, LP. You must not have watched the video.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 02:12 PM #
  23. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,648

    "Way to miss the point, LP. You must not have watched the video."

    Yeah...It's obvious...Herb supports big hair and pink sport coats.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 02:26 PM #
  24. Herb's a good guy who is hounded and harrassed simply because of his ideology, yet he remains a gentleman, and never is mean in return, and is never vulgar.

    And what about the actual principles discussed in the video. Where is he wrong?

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 02:30 PM #
  25. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,648

    So, you think a Milton Freidman speech from 1979 has value today? Oh, that's right, St. Ronnie and all. Of course you do.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 02:36 PM #
  26. Do you think 2 + 2 = 4 in 1979 means we need to think of a new answer today?

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 02:42 PM #
  27. He’s an intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, disingenuous, willfully ignorant, bible thumping, troll whom would no doubt be happier in a Christian Theocracy than a secular, representative democracy. But whatever.

    He’s not harassed due to is ideology unless you ascribe such traits as exclusive to said ideology. Taken as a generalization I anecdotally find such depictions to be alarmingly accurate; though it’s certainly a debatable point as Zealot-Herb is a particularly far right specimen. Seeking a “reasonable” Republican in the Tea Party driven (a.k.a. Circus of Ignorance) GOP of the modern era is a cryptozoological pursuit akin to unicorn hunting, but it’s nonetheeless an interesting endeavor.

    And allow me to dereail a nascent meme a few have begun to gallop about upon. Note: Lack of civility is not in of itself indicitiave of anything. Langauge is a tool. Some of us simply have greater facility with it than others. While it can be entertaining, in a somewhat base and smug manner, to imply or outright state that an infusion of insult and/or profanity into a series of statements somehow undermines otherwise cogent points is inherently illogical.

    I.e. “No, the sky is blue”, has the equivilant weight of truth as, “No, the sky is blue, you fucktard”.

    You can generally assume the colorful metaphor as addendum is a deliberate choice of the author to underscore a point in an emphatic matter rather than due to a limited vocabulary.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 02:43 PM #
  28. OK, other than that, what's your problem with him?

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 02:51 PM #
  29. "Way to miss the point, LP. You must not have watched the video."

    I see logic is not your strong point, how would I know the video was about greed if I didn't watch it??

    Greed is defined as an excessive search for wealth; greed is not required to have a successful capitalist system, in fact I believe it can be the destruction of it.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 02:55 PM #
  30. Here's some logic for you. "Greed" was in the title of the video on Youtube, so you could have thought it was about greed on that basis.

    But there was no promotion of "greed" in the video. That was Phil Donahue begging the question. The "free market" is what was being promoted.

    Some of the greediest people are broke. It has nothing to do with how much you have. If greed is the problem in the private sector, then it also is the problem in the public sector, with so many who swill at the public trough, fighting to get as many golden eggs as possible, courtesy of the free market "goose."

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 03:02 PM #
  31. For Zealot-Herb: Mathew 19:24.

    I ascribe as much relevance to that particular collection of fairytales as my Grimm's volume, but it's an amusing bit of irony in regards to the self described "Christians" whom are entirely of a corporate bent that control the modern Republican party at a macro level.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 03:04 PM #
  32. "And allow me to dereail a nascent meme a few have begun to gallop about upon. Note: Lack of civility is not in of itself indicitiave of anything. Langauge is a tool. Some of us simply have greater facility with it than others. While it can be entertaining, in a somewhat base and smug manner, to imply or outright state that an infusion of insult and/or profanity into a series of statements somehow undermines otherwise cogent points is inherently illogical.

    I.e. “No, the sky is blue”, has the equivilant weight of truth as, “No, the sky is blue, you fucktard”. "

    True. Just like being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate an assertion. I could smoke like a chimney and tell others to not smoke because of health issues, and it doesn't change whether or not what I'm saying is correct.

    But incivility can be a means to intimidate and otherwise silence an opponent, espeically one who doesn't want to go down that road and get down in the mud with a sophistacted verbal abuser. And I've heard that it's unwise to make eye contact with someone who has road rage.

    It reminds me of when I was young and had fights with my brother. I soon learned that it was best to take a punch and not return it, because he would ALWAYS return mine, and the fight would never end.

    Incivility does demonstrate a lack of character, and that lack of character can make one question whether a DEBATABLE position is so held on that basis, instead of coming from a place of reason and compassion.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 03:09 PM #
  33. And I think the use of the word "retard" or "tard" or any varition should be retired to the same place where words like the "n-word" should go.

    It has no place in a discussion, and it's wrong to use even in jest.

    I don't have any children so challenged, but if I did, I would find that very hurtful and demeaning.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 03:14 PM #
  34. warner

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,363

    "And I think the use of the word "retard" or "tard" or any varition should be retired to the same place where words like the "n-word" should go."

    And, for the first time, ever, I agree with you. Very good statement.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 03:25 PM #
  35. "But there was no promotion of "greed" in the video. That was Phil Donahue begging the question. The "free market" is what was being promoted."

    Maybe you didn't watch the video, what did Milton Friedman say about greed? I think you will see he says everyone is greedy, so apparently there is nothing wrong with greed.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 03:31 PM #
  36. HD

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,781

    The free enterprise system has provided some of the most free societies.

    What's 3 hots and a cot, if you are denied freedom of speech, worship, assembly or private ownership?

    Plus, show us where communism has worked so fabulously.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 03:45 PM #
  37. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,648

    Herb's a good guy who is hounded and harrassed simply because of his ideology, yet he remains a gentleman, and never is mean in return, and is never vulgar.

    UF&UB hasn't been here very long......

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 03:57 PM #
  38. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,648

    Plus, show us where communism has worked so fabulously.

    China is kicking our asses Herb! And ready to overtake the US economy real soon!

    http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=359e72b8-8531-44a9-a190-d1246d5556bd&GT1=33002

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 03:58 PM #
  39. HD

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,781

    Trixter, if you think China is 'kicking' us, how about their:

    1. Forced abortions
    2. Slave labour
    3. Lack of freedoms

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ikOKhFpdSkvn279UMCDsWLu7XVkw?docId=CNG.2f5a8fbdc481f0ab21e58aa4d496db7e.501

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ&feature=related

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 04:15 PM #
  40. Alfredo_T

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,164

    To be fair, Phil Donahue asked a somewhat pointed question by injecting the word "greed." Friedman's response was along the lines that there are no societies that are free of all elements of greed, regardless of whether they are labeled communist or capitalist.

    I don't know how to describe the Chinese system. Their political party still calls itself the Communist Party, but as far as I know, their policies have morphed into something quite different than what the Cold War era Communist rhetoric identified as the purposes of that movement. Ironically, I think that the Chinese have turned themselves into an Industrial Revolution society that is bent (as a whole) on making as much money as possible from the so-called capitalist countries and on dominating the world economy.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 04:22 PM #
  41. HD

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,781

    "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." Lenin

    In a way, this is somewhat reversed...many ropes are probably now made in China.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 04:30 PM #
  42. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,057

    Remember folks, 'communism' and 'capitalism' are unattainable absolutes. Every economic system in existence is an amalgam of these two approaches (otherwise known as 'socialism')

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 06:51 PM #
  43. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,006

    Herb, you're stuck in the 70's. Communism is no longer a threat. It's not even really relavent to talk about other than reviewing history.

    Getting back to the spirit of the thread, I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

    Social liberal being defined as: Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization of drugs, pro-legalization of prostitution, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun, and anti-religion. Live and let live. Do what you want, cause no harm to others and we're good. Believe what you want, but don't legislate your beliefs as those that all others must follow.

    Fiscal conservative being defined as: Balanced budgets, pro-military cuts, pro-tax hikes for the wealthy, pro-saving, pro-small guy, anti-public transportation pork projects. Collect the money necessary for the services people rely on, and those that have benefited most from our set up should pay the most to support their priveledged lifestyles.

    I'm pro death penalty when it's 100%. Scott Peterson, no. Christian Longo, yes.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 06:57 PM #
  44. edust1958

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,484

    I will describe myself as a free-thinking person who would like government to do the things that it can do the best (defend the country -- which doesn't mean go off and fight wars on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction or the War on Terror; protect the commons; enforce laws needed to protect people from others)... but for me government does need to enforce laws supposedly meant to protect me from myself... if you want to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality then fine... but if you hurt yourself doing it, not my problem... you have no money for healthcare... not my problem... it is alright if the bill is paid for by charity but I don't have a problem of the doctor, hospital or other service provider telling you "no money, no service" ... just don't shift that cost on to me. Government should not be in the business of religious ceremonies... if you want to have a religious service called "marriage" that religious service should not grant you any different treatment under the law than anyone else ... no special tax treatment... if you want to have children, fine.... no special tax treatment... if you want to buy a house... no special tax treatment...

    So I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (maybe liberatarian)... politically... my own religious belief would call me to help those who are less fortunate if I am able to do so... just as I personally would not want to fund an abortion (I am a keep the pregnancy type of guy), I don't want my government to force anyone to make a certain decision on the issue.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 07:05 PM #
  45. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,546

    Thanks edust1958. I don't think I knew all of those positions. Well said.

    Of all the people here, I always admire Vitalogy for short, to the point, solid positioning posts.

    Re: Greed being good.

    Absolutely it is. Probably the shortest way to disagree with the free market, besides the fact that there are no free markets, is the desire to profit cannot trump the general welfare. In other words, business exists because we allow it to, and it profits by adding value to our lives. We do not exist to serve business.

    I want people to innovate and make all the money they can, without devaluing the general welfare, and I generally mean put it at risk, since risk = cost, simply the word "devalue" works in this context.

    Economic freedom, as often expressed by the free market advocates essentially puts making money first, with the trickle down idea being that will bring us all a net gain in wealth. History does not demonstrate that.

    Our current state of the nation does not demonstrate that.

    The way I see it, we need to value people and their labor properly, or we issue business a license to profit by over-exploitation and litigation, which is exactly what we see going on right now.

    How that changes is something I'm wide open on, but it absolutely must change.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 08:17 PM #
  46. "Economic freedom, as often expressed by the free market advocates essentially puts making money first, with the trickle down idea being that will bring us all a net gain in wealth. History does not demonstrate that."

    You are more wealthy than many kings of old. Wealth certainly did "trickle down."

    We value labor properly the same way we value anything else. It goes into the marketplace and is bid to the appropriate level.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 08:38 PM #
  47. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,057

    But should we value labor the same way we value anything else? The wages of labor are the main source of sustenance for most Americans. It is acceptable for an object or investment to devalue ("bid to") zero. But is it acceptable for labor to be bid to zero, or near zero? Even the slaves of the old South received some compensation (food, shelter) for their work.

    At what point does the value of labor get bid so low as to qualify as slave wages? That's a serious question to you, F&B.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 09:28 PM #
  48. Alfredo_T

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,164

    If it is assumed that precious metals are relatively stable in value, I do not see how most of the readers of this forum could be more wealthy than the "kings of old" (which I take to mean the nobility of the Middle Ages and Renaissance).

    On the other hand, there are many things that are commonplace or generally available today that could not be bought for any amount of money in those days. By this, I am talking about telephones, radio, electricity, cars, bicycles, adults having all of their natural teeth, etc. Because nobody could attain these things, I don't think that they can fairly be used to compare wealth. If anything, these are triumphs of science and technology more than of any economic system. I wouldn't have enjoyed living in the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union had telephones, radio, electricity, cars, and bicycles--all made over there. I don't know much about the dental health in that country, though.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 10:17 PM #
  49. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,546

    Exactly. I'm curious about the answer.

    And our wealth today, measured in the classic way, in terms of time, is questionable for most lower income earners, who labor a very significant fraction of their waking lives.

    That is the definition of wealth F&B. Think of it this way. A slave living in poor conditions is the same as a slave living in great ones! How? Time, specifically, how much of it they have to put to their own purposes.

    That measure of time is important when considering whether or not labor is valued too low.

    Consider your life in thirds. One third is sleeping, leaving two thirds. So then, if one of those thirds is consumed by labor required to meet basic needs, is that fair? Is that a good labor value, leaving a person free to do as they will for one third of their life?

    What if a person only experiences that kind of freedom 10 percent of the time? Is that fair, is that a good value? And assume that is work for basic needs time, no luxury items, goods or services. Live to work, work to live. Family?

    And as for your other comment "we [let the] market decide", no. That is actually what is up for discussion right now. That is the core of economic policy. "we" get to do whatever "we" want with labor values and taxes, and that again is the question.

    I have to wonder whether or not asking people to labor so much, while we are granting extremely large tax breaks to people who really don't labor much at all is actually "shared sacrifice" or even just. One simple example being where we used to value labor such that one hard working father could provide for a family, retire, and often send a kid to school.

    Today, both parents work hard, and doing all those things is increasingly debatable. They are more poor for that lower labor value, in that they cannot invest in their family the same way, again in terms of time, or they must trade that for time to do things that they want to do.

    Looking at the up and coming generations of kids, clearly the lack of that investment is having a impact, and that costs something, further reinforcing the value of labor problem.

    There are other examples of this. My point being "value" is a holistic thing, not just dollars / time.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 10:17 PM #
  50. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,546

    Is it worth noting we've got a fair diversity of opinion here. Just for the record.

    Carry on, great thread! I'm reading with interest.

    Posted on April 25, 2011 - 10:20 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.