Maverick He Is Not...

[saltandsand]

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/10/vp-debate-biden-bodyslams-mccain-palin/

Come on Joe... say it ain't so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnasnlPZ1Uk&feature=related

Gee whiz... talk about a journey of personal discovery....

[BubbaHoTep]

I thought the footage in that first link was Biden's "best moment" in the debate, in terms of equating the McCain-Palin ticket with Bush and what the Dems needed to do, I guess. Even though I thought Palin did a good job last night, she wasn't able to "rebutt" that. Biden seemed to define the term "maverick" in terms of the major issues only, not in terms of McCain's larger personality/demeanor, so I'm not sure how many people "bought" what Biden was saying anyway.

I also must admit that I chuckled out loud when I glanced at the top of the page on the link and saw this was a "black bourgeoisie perspective." It had nothing to do with the video's authenticity/content/accuracy or anything, but I was stunned to discover that there are any true Marxists left (apart from myopic ideologues on university campuses). It absolutely baffles the Hell out of me how anyone can take Marxism seriously as an ideology anymore, given the fact that capitalist governments have done SOMETHING over the past hundred years or so to prevent the evolution of the system Marx said would occur. Amazing stuff. Marx based his dialectic on economic forces in historical development, and his followers can't even look at history to see how his theories have been rendered meaningless. It would be amusing, I suppose, if they didn't have access to media outlets to influence others. :)

The previous paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with your original post, SnS, and it sure wasn't an attempt to hijaak or anything like that. I just saw that at the top of the page in that first link and got a kick out of it. :D

[lil red jeep]

I was fast asleep before the debate began, but prior to the debate, I saw folks holding their candidates signs and cheering as usual. One sign I saw really made me laugh "Bush/ Cheney 1984". :rolleyes: Thought I'd bust a gut!

[steve grossman]

No way to get around it--it is, what it is......

[wolfva]

In today's political climate, anyone who bucks their party 10% of the time is a maverick.

[saltandsand]

I also must admit that I chuckled out loud when I glanced at the top of the page on the link and saw this was a "black bourgeoisie perspective." It had nothing to do with the video's authenticity/content/accuracy or anything, but I was stunned to discover that there are any true Marxists left (apart from myopic ideologues on university campuses). It absolutely baffles the Hell out of me how anyone can take Marxism seriously as an ideology anymore, given the fact that capitalist governments have done SOMETHING over the past hundred years or so to prevent the evolution of the system Marx said would occur. Amazing stuff. Marx based his dialectic on economic forces in historical development, and his followers can't even look at history to see how his theories have been rendered meaningless. It would be amusing, I suppose, if they didn't have access to media outlets to influence others.


BHT:

Excellent observation. With all due respect, I quote one simple line:

“ The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. ”
— (The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1)

This line is more complex than it appears. The term "existing society" places emphasis upon and is dependent to the term "class struggles." Essentially, in order for a society to "continue" to "exist" it MUST address, redress, mitigate, resolve, enhance, improve, delineate, ameliorate, and otherwise ensure the proper course of "class struggles."

Kindly understand that I am NOT promoting communism. What I am espousing is that alienation of the needs of any particular class or segment of a population, usually to the disporportionate benefit of another class or segment, is the cause of decay.

Using a simple example I'll illustrate. Say a society such as ours can be equally divided into thirds. With continued taxation upon the middle class, the economic engine of a capitalistic society moves into negative growth. BTW: Taxation is a broader term than merely revenue derived by IRS, it includes the most hideous form of taxation which is inflation.

As the upper third continues to prosper in an apparently boundless manner, the middle class suffers and the economic engine fails to produce, this production being essential for the well being of the lower third. Assistance programs faulter, crime rises, drug use and dispondency, and a host of other ills form and fester. As a result the public policies that were once aimed at the lower third begin to expand as the needs of the middle class worsen. And a cycle of negative growth perpetuates.

Ultimately the upper third is affected. Return on capital diminishes as the economic engine screams for an overhaul. As the equity returns are stymied the capital market seeks to re-invent itself, thereby shifting away from a production-consumption cycle to a leverage-leverage cycle and unsustainable risk is then assumed. The goverment meets untold challenge and can no longer issue debt as a baseline of of financial return, ever greater returns are demanded to offset losses assumed through sham risk.

In summary, the attention (or lack of attention) must be spread proportionately across all segments of the population. The recent bail out is an example where the lower class is put at peril. This bail out also disporpotionately advantages the upper third in relation to the middle class. I predict that the next market sabbotage will occur within the commodity markets... too many strains, without adequate oversight and regulation may lead to a problem that cannot be "financed away." It truly is time to recognize that some problems cannot be denied, they must be met with hard action and those who stand to benefit more must accept more of the cost.

Dang... and now I'm going to go pick some orchard fresh apples, make me an apple pie from scratch and enjoy the fruits of my labor. :)

[BubbaHoTep]

. . . “ The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. ” — (The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1)

This line is more complex than it appears. The term "existing society" places emphasis upon and is dependent to the term "class struggles." Essentially, in order for a society to "continue" to "exist" it MUST address, redress, mitigate, resolve, enhance, improve, delineate, ameliorate, and otherwise ensure the proper course of "class struggles."

Kindly understand that I am NOT promoting communism. What I am espousing is that alienation of the needs of any particular class or segment of a population, usually to the disporportionate benefit of another class or segment, is the cause of decay.

What you say about alienation, I think, may be seen in the disillusion and disenchantment many folks now have with the existing political and economic system, much of which we have seen here on this forum. Absolutely fair points, you make here, me thinks. I would not disagree with a Marxist in the sense that economic forces are major forces in shaping events. I would, however, disagree strongly with a Marxist in terms of suggesting the necessity of two classes emerging and, of course, I would disagree with Marx's "solution," because Communism emerged in Third World, rather than capitalist nations (for one reason). Anyway, this is not a thread about Marxism's flaws or Marxism in general for that matter, so I'll end it by saying that The Communist Manifesto was geared toward a mid-nineteenth century industrial order of prodution/manufacturing, and not necessarily a commercial or service-oriented economy. Marxism is a buzzword used by pundits far too frequently, imo. All forms of socialism are not Marxist, and all "leftists" are not Marxists either. Whether or not what we know as "leftists" are socialists, well, I'm not going there. :)

[saltandsand]

What you say about alienation, I think, may be seen in the disillusion and disenchantment many folks now have with the existing political and economic system, much of which we have seen here on this forum. Absolutely fair points, you make here, me thinks. I would not disagree with a Marxist in the sense that economic forces are major forces in shaping events. I would, however, disagree strongly with a Marxist in terms of suggesting the necessity of two classes emerging and, of course, I would disagree with Marx's "solution," because Communism emerged in Third World, rather than capitalist nations (for one reason). Anyway, this is not a thread about Marxism's flaws or Marxism in general for that matter, so I'll end it by saying that The Communist Manifesto was geared toward a mid-nineteenth century industrial order of prodution/manufacturing, and not necessarily a commercial or service-oriented economy. Marxism is a buzzword used by pundits far too frequently, imo. All forms of socialism are not Marxist, and all "leftists" are not Marxists either. Whether or not what we know as "leftists" are socialists, well, I'm not going there. :)

Alienation also includes programs that dissociate and form dependence, essentially patronage as a form of exlcusion. Integration is not a purist ideology it is a process that requires omni-lateral inclusion and unilateral, subjective acceptance. Safe to say that only when a person wants to belong may such acceptance be possible. Gamemanship has no place with these matters... I think we know what I'm talking about...

Since we're off in tangental land, consider this scernario:

Two jewlery stores, one has controls in place, the other arguably does not.

The controls are that no clerk can wait on more than two customers at a time and no more than two diamonds can be on the counter at a time per customer. This store has to hire more clerks but sustains less loss.

The other store has no control policy. The clerks can place any number of diamonds on the counter and wait on any number of customers at the same time.

Now the store with controls has experienced consistent sales with lower losses, the other store rides the tide and has had booms and busts as well as periods of large loss due to thefts from palming at the counter.

The store with controls argues that he should not have to pay toward the criminal justice system because his practices avoid theft. After all, he's paid his costs through hiring more clerks and instituting controls. The other store argues that it is some of his customers that are criminals and justice should prevail. That such theft should be punished and that he is an innocent victim.

Do you see where I am going? Why should the responsible store, albeit less profitable during boom times, pay for the losses of the greedy store that refuses to institute controls? Why should the taxpayer pick up the costs of greed during times of shortage? BHT: I think you see what I'm saying but I'm wondering if others understand what corporate America has done... the shifting of risk and costs... the inpropriety of greed.

Why on g*d's green Earth should I pay to put someone in jail for a theft that a business could have otherwise averted? I'm not the theif, I'm not the greedy business that jetisons during times of booming business, and I'm certainly not gaining a single thing from the incarceration of those who practice theft at the lowest level. Yet theft through the Board rooms of American Enterprise goes unaddressed, costs passed off to the consumer, and taxes scribed toward a remedy. Bad business is bad business, may it be extinquished through economic darwinism.

Now consider wages being fair, and executive compensation being suited to afford fair wages, where work is reasonably apportioned...

You thoughts?

[BubbaHoTep]

I absolutely understand what you're saying here. Right, alienation takes many forms. I don't think any sane, reasonable person *morally* or *ethically* approves of this bailout business specifically, or to the principle of making harsh sacrifices to compensate for others' irresponsibility. I know I don't. I also think that most people believe that people should be fairly compensated for the work they do. As we know, that doesn't always happen. Here is where you and I will have to agree to disagree to some extent. :) I don't think that includes a "guaranteed" wage, though (as I think you've said in other posts). I know some sorry individuals who do half-a$$ work, have a crappy ethic and don't even go to work when they're supposed to, or work a job just long enough to buy a bag of stash or blow or whatever. To me, the very notion of a guaranteed wage for someone who is too sorry to wipe his/her own hind end is an affront to all of the people out there who get up, put in hours at work, do the very best they can, and try to provide the best lives they can for themselves and their families. It's the same general principle you're talking about, right? I mean, any effort at equalization will by definition mean that someone must sacrifice, right (see deTocqueville's discussion of liberty versus equality in *Democracy in America*)? (And I'm not trying to be crude above. That's an actual example. My friend, who has been "between jobs" for twenty-five years, comes here to do his laundry. Let's put it this way, he does his own.) I don't know what the balance is. It certainly looks like moral/ethical issues become inoperative and meaningless. Nah, I don't want to go off on a Nietzsche tangent, too. :)

This latest business really pi$$es me off. My father never graduated from high school, and he very literally worked his a$$ off his entire life (nearly 40 yrs with the same company). He is watching his retirement, much of which is in 401k, go down down down. Many others, many on this board, have worked their butts off and are facing the same scenario or have lost their work and watched the source of their pride and livelihood disappear.

I don't even pretend to know the solution to this mess. We're hearing that the bailout must occur to prevent tremors that will affect everything else and that's why it passed. I am appalled. Honestly, though, I don't care who's to "blame" as a priority. Finger pointers sicken me. The priority, as I see it, is "how do we fix it and move on." Don't get me wrong, those who caused it should be accountable and face the severest possible consequences; it must NEVER happen again. Alas, though, it seems to me that we live in a world where individual accountability and responsibility no longer exist. Again, I don't know the answer to this. I just hope we make it through.

[sprtsracer]

BHT:

Excellent observation. With all due respect, I quote one simple line:

“ The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. ”
— (The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1)

This line is more complex than it appears. The term "existing society" places emphasis upon and is dependent to the term "class struggles." Essentially, in order for a society to "continue" to "exist" it MUST address, redress, mitigate, resolve, enhance, improve, delineate, ameliorate, and otherwise ensure the proper course of "class struggles."

Kindly understand that I am NOT promoting communism. What I am espousing is that alienation of the needs of any particular class or segment of a population, usually to the disporportionate benefit of another class or segment, is the cause of decay.
Using a simple example I'll illustrate. Say a society such as ours can be equally divided into thirds. With continued taxation upon the middle class, the economic engine of a capitalistic society moves into negative growth. BTW: Taxation is a broader term than merely revenue derived by IRS, it includes the most hideous form of taxation which is inflation.

As the upper third continues to prosper in an apparently boundless manner, the middle class suffers and the economic engine fails to produce, this production being essential for the well being of the lower third. Assistance programs faulter, crime rises, drug use and dispondency, and a host of other ills form and fester. As a result the public policies that were once aimed at the lower third begin to expand as the needs of the middle class worsen. And a cycle of negative growth perpetuates.

Ultimately the upper third is affected. Return on capital diminishes as the economic engine screams for an overhaul. As the equity returns are stymied the capital market seeks to re-invent itself, thereby shifting away from a production-consumption cycle to a leverage-leverage cycle and unsustainable risk is then assumed. The goverment meets untold challenge and can no longer issue debt as a baseline of of financial return, ever greater returns are demanded to offset losses assumed through sham risk.

In summary, the attention (or lack of attention) must be spread proportionately across all segments of the population. The recent bail out is an example where the lower class is put at peril. This bail out also disporpotionately advantages the upper third in relation to the middle class. I predict that the next market sabbotage will occur within the commodity markets... too many strains, without adequate oversight and regulation may lead to a problem that cannot be "financed away." It truly is time to recognize that some problems cannot be denied, they must be met with hard action and those who stand to benefit more must accept more of the cost.

Dang... and now I'm going to go pick some orchard fresh apples, make me an apple pie from scratch and enjoy the fruits of my labor. :)


I'm breaking my "no comment" rule on your posts this once, simply because I can't resist. What about when the top 10% of the population in terms of wealth pay 80% of the taxes??? What about when those making under $250,000 per year get a "tax cut" when those over $250,000 per year get a tax increase??? What about when the top "2 classes" have to pay taxes (to their detriment) to the "disproportionate benefit" of the "lower class" (i.e.welfare)??? Do you propose a flat rate tax??? Do we do away with welfare??? Do we vote for Obama/Biden to move closer to Socialism??? Is a "Corporation", which is legally considered an "individual" included in this??? Of course, it's probably rediculous for me to pose these questions to you, since you'll probably never answer them, then post some links to web sites that have no bearing on the questions, and then ask me to give definitions to various "terms" such as "classes", "welfare", "taxes", "benefit", etc.

[BubbaHoTep]

. . . and then ask me to give definitions to various "terms" such as "classes", "welfare", "taxes", "benefit", etc.

Not really responding to what you said per se, here sprts, but in terms of "defining" words like this, it's hard to do with "class" if you have the prospect of upward mobility and fluidity, which we do, or the opposite. And how many "classes" do we really have anyway (me thinking out loud there, not really expecting an answer)? To me, anyone who tries to fit this into a "package" or "model" (and I"m not necessarily saying anyone here is, it's just a general observation) is making a huge mistake if "class" can't be rigidly defined. I guess the simplest models would be the "haves" and the "have-nots" maybe? But as "sure as God made little green apples" it won't be "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat." :D

[sprtsracer]

Not really responding to what you said per se, here sprts, but in terms of "defining" words like this, it's hard to do with "class" if you have the prospect of upward mobility and fluidity, which we do, or the opposite. And how many "classes" do we really have anyway (me thinking out loud there, not really expecting an answer)? To me, anyone who tries to fit this into a "package" or "model" (and I"m not necessarily saying anyone here is, it's just a general observation) is making a huge mistake if "class" can't be rigidly defined. I guess the simplest models would be the "haves" and the "have-nots" maybe? But as "sure as God made little green apples" it won't be "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat." :D

This was in response to another post he made in which HE, as usual, failed to answer the questions I posed, and completely ignored my request to answer what HE meant about statements he made. In his typical manner, I just figured he'd skirt the questions in the same way he always does, not taking accountability for his statements, refusing to provide answers for his reasoning, and confusing the issue by asking more questions and attempting to turn his irresponsible statements back onto the shoulders of everyone else. That's his "MO", and it continues!!!

[saltandsand]

I'm breaking my "no comment" rule on your posts this once, simply because I can't resist. What about when the top 10% of the population in terms of wealth pay 80% of the taxes??? What about when those making under $250,000 per year get a "tax cut" when those over $250,000 per year get a tax increase??? What about when the top "2 classes" have to pay taxes (to their detriment) to the "disproportionate benefit" of the "lower class" (i.e.welfare)??? Do you propose a flat rate tax??? Do we do away with welfare??? Do we vote for Obama/Biden to move closer to Socialism??? Is a "Corporation", which is legally considered an "individual" included in this??? Of course, it's probably rediculous for me to pose these questions to you, since you'll probably never answer them, then post some links to web sites that have no bearing on the questions, and then ask me to give definitions to various "terms" such as "classes", "welfare", "taxes", "benefit", etc.

Which of these seven questions are important? Come on now, you know you're not going to read my answers before firing off another couple dozen questions and criticisms, and all the time never once acknowledging any aspect, never confirming agreement, nor agreeing to disagree.

So one simple question for you.... Why should I respond when all you'll do is continue to nit pick like a nanny with a ball of yarn?

I've answered these questions. There's a thread dealing specifically with taxation. For your convenience I'll summarize... PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, which means the more you make the more you pay because the more you make the more benefit you derive from capitalism under a democratic/free model. A person that makes more uses more PUBLIC resources and alas should pay more in taxes. It's really that PALIN SIMPLE. ... oops I meant PLAIN AND SIMPLE...

:popcorn:

[saltandsand]

This was in response to another post he made in which HE, as usual, failed to answer the questions I posed, and completely ignored my request to answer what HE meant about statements he made. In his typical manner, I just figured he'd skirt the questions in the same way he always does, not taking accountability for his statements, refusing to provide answers for his reasoning, and confusing the issue by asking more questions and attempting to turn his irresponsible statements back onto the shoulders of everyone else. That's his "MO", and it continues!!!


Thanks for admitting your shot gun approach and that you're bleeding topics over from one thread to the other... thusly, based solely on your criticism of me at least we have something in common. :D

The maverick lost his pride and ran out of Michigan... Leads one to ask does a real maverick give up in the face of unacceptance? Just a reasonable question... He ain't no maverick.

[sprtsracer]

Thanks for admitting your shot gun approach and that you're bleeding topics over from one thread to the other... thusly, based solely on your criticism of me at least we have something in common. :D

The maverick lost his pride and ran out of Michigan... Leads one to ask does a real maverick give up in the face of unacceptance? Just a reasonable question... He ain't no maverick.

You are so full of $hit, the stench carries over to the other boards. I'm going to have to clean up my computer now!!!

[HellRhaY]

This was in response to another post he made in which HE, as usual, failed to answer the questions I posed, and completely ignored my request to answer what HE meant about statements he made. In his typical manner, I just figured he'd skirt the questions in the same way he always does, not taking accountability for his statements, refusing to provide answers for his reasoning, and confusing the issue by asking more questions and attempting to turn his irresponsible statements back onto the shoulders of everyone else. That's his "MO", and it continues!!!
what do you expect? the usual suspect.

[HellRhaY]

You are so full of $hit, the stench carries over to the other boards.
oozing out from the ears and nose.

[wolfva]

Sorry I'm going to keep with the OT here, but SnS did ask a question, which I'll quote here, and answer. "So one simple question for you.... Why should I respond when all you'll do is continue to nit pick like a nanny with a ball of yarn?"
Because SnS...that is called 'debating'. See, when you make a comment that everyone agrees with it's called "preaching to the choir'. Now, you have just unequivocably stated for everyone that you are NOT here to debate, but to preach. Debating, on the other hand, requires a give and take of ideas and point of views. The debators may never agree, but they DO have that exchange. You don't want to exchange ideas, points of views, or anything else. You just want to preach, and have your 'wisdom' and 'insight' praised.

[jhmorgan]

Sorry I'm going to keep with the OT here, but SnS did ask a question, which I'll quote here, and answer. "So one simple question for you.... Why should I respond when all you'll do is continue to nit pick like a nanny with a ball of yarn?"
Because SnS...that is called 'debating'. See, when you make a comment that everyone agrees with it's called "preaching to the choir'. Now, you have just unequivocably stated for everyone that you are NOT here to debate, but to preach. Debating, on the other hand, requires a give and take of ideas and point of views. The debators may never agree, but they DO have that exchange. You don't want to exchange ideas, points of views, or anything else. You just want to preach, and have your 'wisdom' and 'insight' praised.

Game. Set. Match. That may be the most glorious internet-nut shell I have ever seen

[saltandsand]

what do you expect? the usual suspect.

oozing out from the ears and nose.


I'm not responding you any further... you're a JA who criticizes someone, his wife and their way of life without having a single factual basis upon which to base the caustic sewage spew that's frothing from your mouth.

[J_Lannon]

I'm not responding you any further... you're a JA who criticizes someone, his wife and their way of life without having a single factual basis upon which to base the caustic sewage spew that's frothing from your mouth.

But are you not trying to bait people on here? :rolleyes:

Almost every time you post, you include "cant wait for all the idiots responses"......or to that effect. :rolleyes: Of course your going to get keel hauled.

Like Flea said: Act like a Tool, and you will find this place as friendly as a prison shower.;)

[saltandsand]

But are you not trying to bait people on here? :rolleyes:

Almost every time quite an exageration on your part you post, you include "cant wait for all the idiots responses"......or to that effect. :rolleyes: Of course your going to get keel hauled.

Like Flea said: Act like a Tool, and you will find this place as friendly as a prison shower.;)

Oh I forgot.... I'm not allowed to express sarcasm even when I use the emoticon as was once pointed out... :D:D:D:D:D:D:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Sure nice for you to point out things in the negative.... consistently.... rarely if ever seen you point out something in the positive... hey whateva floats yer boat... I have made positive comments toward you, despite your actions to the contrary.