Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby hamlet » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:33 am

Minardil wrote:
And, Bundy does not see himself as a Taker, even though he is


Which was my point. Conservatives assign the roles of "Maker" and "Taker" based NOT on any legitimate. fact-based calculation of an individual's contributions to and benefits from society, but rather along purely tribal lines. "We're MAKERS, they're TAKERS" is about as analytical as they get.


Having fun with that broad brush? :roll:
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10554
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby solicitr » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:56 am

It means that the people who use it have the right to determine how it will be used and to share the cost of using it, which we determine in the US by representative government or by incorporation


This assumes that "the people" = "the State." This is, I submit, one of the more pernicious fictions of modern times.* And remember, we are talking about Nevada, where the State (meaning the Federal government) owns a whopping 86% of the land, which means that it is completely beyond the control of the People of Nevada, whether or not through their elected representatives in Carson City.

But if you are taking the position that "people" and "state" are synonyms, I see no functional difference between Federally-owned rangeland pre-BLM takeover, and English commons since the signal characteristic of both was common pasture-right. Incidentally, the commons of the eastern United States certainly weren't granted by the Danes!

As I said above, legally Bundy has no case, especially since he's prone to confusing the issue even further with his "sovereign citizen" rubbish. The fact that he something of a sympathetic figure doesn't mean that he's an intelligent or well-educated one. Nonetheless it is entirely the case that his family has been grazing the cattle on the same land since the 1880s, without let, hindrance, or fee- as were all his neighbors. The assertion "claim...that one user has the right to appropriate it" is entirely offbase, because Bundy has never made any claim to exclusivity nor denied his neighbors grazing rights equal to those he claims.

Your points about the imposed societal or governmental costs of development in private interests is actually well-taken. Of course, it is almost always the case that such developments, in modern America, are nearly always undertaken with the connivance of government, and governmental persons who one way or another stand to gain by it. There is no actual evidence to my knowledge that the Bundy affair coming to a head was precipitated by Harry Reid and his son standing to make a tidy sum off developing the land in question, but it certainly is the case that that's how Dingy Harry has operated over the years, making himself a multimillionaire in the process.

It's I think a valid question to ask, why the Federal government continues to own the majority -yes, majority - of the real estate west of the Rockies outside California. If nothing else, look to the costs to the states; a Nevada legislative report has conclude that the state loses some $370 million in annual revenue thanks to 86% of its real estate being exempted from its tax base.

----------------------------------------------------

* Cf Nietschze, and of course this old classic: "The will of the People is expressed through the Party, and only through the Party."
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby solicitr » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:05 am

Minardil wrote:
And, Bundy does not see himself as a Taker, even though he is


Which was my point. Conservatives assign the roles of "Maker" and "Taker" based NOT on any legitimate. fact-based calculation of an individual's contributions to and benefits from society, but rather along purely tribal lines. "We're MAKERS, they're TAKERS" is about as analytical as they get.


Interesting. Bundy is a "taker" because he resents having money taken from him?

But let's look more broadly at ranchers, say Bundy's neighbors wo happily or not do pay BLM's grazing fees. They stay in business, because they are making a profit; they are producing beef of more value (as determined by consumers voting with their wallets) than the assessed value of whatever grass they eat,therefore contributing to the material wealth of society. Contrast this to, say, a welfare beneficiary or government bureaucrat, who produce nothing of economic value but subsist on tax dollars that were, yes, taken from those engaged in productive endeavors.

I'd be interested in being enlightened as to what your idea of a "legitimate. fact-based calculation of an individual's contributions to and benefits from society" is.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:12 am

Bundy is a "Taker" because he takes things from others without providing any value in return, possibly making the other pay more to cover what he takes, or depriving others of some of the benefits they would oterwise get.

It doesn't matter whether the open rage was a "commons" or even if the term means anything in the USA in light of its history in the UK. Other people who use the range, have to pay for it. It is not more complicated than that. Innuendos that the Senator gets a rakeoff are irrelevant and faintly ridiculous. They are no more than a mere distraction from the issue.

Which, I repeat, is that Bundy is taking something for himself without paying for it, when others have to pay. If that is different from ordinary theft, I do not see the difference.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:55 am

hamlet wrote:
Minardil wrote:
And, Bundy does not see himself as a Taker, even though he is


Which was my point. Conservatives assign the roles of "Maker" and "Taker" based NOT on any legitimate. fact-based calculation of an individual's contributions to and benefits from society, but rather along purely tribal lines. "We're MAKERS, they're TAKERS" is about as analytical as they get.


Having fun with that broad brush? :roll:


Hamlet, you may self identify as "Conservative", and I respect that, but you have to agree that the center of mass of the "Conservative" movement has drifted very far to the Right of where you are, and THOSE are the folks I'm talking about, they would decry more traditional conservatives like you and Portia as being borderline commies (and in fact they DO here on the board), and yes, they really DO use this sort of "Maker vs Taker" all the time, and in precisely the way I described.

I should add that I DON'T see a business man who takes advantage of established tax breaks to save himself money, or who moves production off shore to be "evil" or anything like that, but I don't think he's a HERO either, just as folks on government assistance aren't heroes either, but nor are they wicked despicable parasites just because they need some help. The reality is that the lines between who contributes to society and who benefits from govt programs are very fuzzy, and none of us are really wholly on one side or the other, and most of us swing back and forth at various times in our lives based on situation, etc. Today's Fox News Tea Party brand of Conservatives (which I know Hamlet and Portia are not) utilize the labels "Maker vs Taker" in a purely tribal way, without regard to any economic reality or philosophical alignment, they simply decree by default that all Takers are Democrats, all Democrats are Takers, and all Makers are Republican, and all Republicans are Makers.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby hamlet » Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:08 am

Min, I know what you were saying. I was just commenting on the fact that in your posts you were getting your paint splattered pretty much everywhere and creating a rather unfriendly atmosphere for discussion. I might disagree with "Liberal Politician X" quite a lot, but I do my best not to lump all liberal thinkers, politicians and civilians in with that person and decry "this is what's wrong with liberals today!"

All's I'm saying is have a care where you throw that paint about.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10554
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:28 am

Well, this IS a discussion on the foibles of the Republican Party these days.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby hamlet » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:25 am

Not all (or many) conservatives are Republicans and not many seated Republicans are conservatives.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10554
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:42 pm

hamlet wrote:Not all (or many) conservatives are Republicans and not many seated Republicans are conservatives.


I have to take issue with that. What percentage of Republicans self-identify as conservative? What percentage of conservatives self-identify as Republicans?

(Very few Democrats or Republicans actually are Democrats or Republicans - see what percentage actually pays party dues, it is miniscule compared to those who self-identify).

When you have a majority both ways, then yes conservatives are Republicans and Republicans are conservative.

As for confining it to "elected officials", these guys keep getting reelected by conservative Republicans, as defined by self-identification. When I see the conservative Republican base choosing someone IN THE PRIMARY then I can only conclude that who they choose is someone they agree with.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Sat May 10, 2014 7:47 am

If a person takes advantage of a "loophole" in a tax or other piece of legislation, I may not approve, but that person is acting lawfully. The fault is in the Legislature and much less, if at all, in the individual.

Bundy is unquestionably a "taker" as he doesn't even have a law to hide behind; he is simply ignoring the law.

It is harder to classify people who use their influence to get special privileges or benefits for themselves, but stay within the law. Sometimes there are benefits for others as well and analysis gets confused trying to decide who benefits more, and whether the general benefit is possible without the specific benefit. Opinions are all over the map on these.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby GlassHouse » Mon May 12, 2014 11:46 am

I smell a song comin' on......"Like a Welfare Cowboy......
Livin' free on the range till my Medicare kicks on innnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Tue May 13, 2014 8:37 am

Repeat after me:

Karl Rove is NOT a role model; Karl Rove is not a role model. . . .
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Jnyusa » Tue May 13, 2014 8:56 am

How did Ham Rove sneak in here? :rofl:
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Wed May 14, 2014 7:10 am

He made some inaccurate (are you surprised?) remarks about Hilary Clinton, and I felt a comment was proper.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:02 am

Oklahoma State House Candidate and Tea Partier Scott Esk says that it would be okay to publically stone homosexuals to death.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/oklahoma-state-house-candidate-discussed-supporting-death-homosexuals-article-1.1826308

After Esk discussed a biblical verse that he interpreted as calling for the death of homosexuals in response to a Facebook post on the wall of Adam Bates, Bates asked Esk to clarify if he would support such executions, presumably by stoning.

“I think we would be totally in the right to do it. That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss,”


I wish I could be surprised by anything these Tea Bag nutjobs said or did any more, but this wackadoodelry has become just standard fare from that wing these days.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Jnyusa » Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:26 pm

But there are probably a lot of "one-issue" voters out there who will just skip over remarks like these and vote for the candidate because of some other congenial stance.

One of the reasons there's no real Left any more could be because of one-issue voters who brought in people with a congenial stance on race or the environment but who then quietly handed the country over to scalawags in exchange for campaign donations.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:59 am

Dick Cheney says about the war in Iraq:

“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.”


What's absolutely shocking about that quote is that he wasn't referring to the administration he served.

I don't know how any rational human being could listen to this pile of bile and arrogance, but I guess that's what passes for being Republican these days.



http://news.yahoo.com/dick-and-liz-cheney-accuse-obama-of--betraying--u-s--freedom-021526941.html
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:53 am

Republicans are also terribly upset that President Obama has interrupted their drumbeat of insanity on the Benghazi attack:

http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-arrest-spoils-gop-party-094500599--politics.html
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:14 am

Because, the only thing Republicans hate more than President Obama doing nothing on Benghazi, is when he does SOMETHING about Benghazi:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/right-questions-khatallah-timing-107962.html
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:57 am

I do not kow why anyone is surprised. OF COURSE the party out of power is going to criticize anything and everythng the party in power does, even when it is just exactly what the party out of power has suggested the admin do.
That is the state of American politics, right now.

I do not think it pays to listen to these pre-recorded criticisms. Think about on our own and decide what we think is the answer, ourselves. We are not going to get any help from our political parties.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:05 am

You see, it just doesn't matter how spectacularly wrong Mr. Cheney was about EVERYTHING, what matters is that he "fundamentally disagrees" that he was wrong on any of these things, despite the fact that he was wrong on all of them.

http://news.yahoo.com/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-iraq-interview-135553569.html;_ylt=A0LEVySiMKRTlSIAmWdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0OG4yZ2pwBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ0N18x

"But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong in Iraq as well, sir. You said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Kelly told Cheney. "You said we would be greeted as liberators. You said the insurgency was in the last throes, back in 2005. And you said after our intervention that extremists would have to 'rethink their strategy of jihad.' Now with almost $1 trillion spent there, with 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say, 'You were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many'?"

"Well, I just fundamentally disagree, Reagan — uh, Megyn," Cheney replied


I'd say this pretty much covers Conservative thought on every subject these days, it is an entirely Faith Based philosophy, which ignores all those inconvenient facts that exist in the real world.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:28 am

Not spotting the ISIS invasion of Iraq was amajor "miss" for the Admin. I am posting this same message in both the Republican and Deocratic threads, because both have people on the Intelligence Committees and why did no one raise the issue?
There is blame for the media, too. The media fasten their attention on one story, and nothing else gets heard. Possibly, not everyone was surprised, but it looks like it.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:06 am

The GOP must feel it has been out of the news too long, and so they are sicking Giuliani on the Pres. The comments are idiotic, and If I thought they were sincere, I'd wonder about his state of dementia.

To my "leaders" in the GOP:

Please try to do something constructive. You have controlled Congress for more than a month; what about all those big plans?

(PS: I do not count passing a law that you KNOW will be vetoed counts.)
Last edited by portia on Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby solicitr » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:25 pm

Post has been edited by a White Council Moderator.
Last edited by heliona on Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Personal attack on Minardil
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Minardil » Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:23 pm

Post has been edited by a White Council Moderator.
Last edited by heliona on Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Response to personal attack - not conducive to the thread's conversation.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby White Shadow » Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:08 pm

Please refrain from personal attacks and keep the debate civil.

~*~*~*~*~

White Shadow
White Council Moderator
User avatar
White Shadow
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Re: Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby portia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:28 am

There is going to be a problem with the Republicans' efforts to govern if they cannot agree on what to pass. The Homeland Security bill didn't pass in either the Democrats or Republicans form as no-one could muster enough votes. So they kicked the can down the street for another week.

SO far, all they have done is to invite Bebe to give a campaign speech in Washington, DC. What governing does that accomplish?
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Previous

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs.com and 1 guest

cron