[Quantum_Wizard]

BartSimpson wrote:

China does not allow foreign ownership of any business. Try again.

This is patently false. As you can see here, China does allow foreign ownership and even bestows a preferential tax treatment on such companies! Where did you get your information from?

[Thanos]

Interesting article that states all the anti-government hate has been tried, and failed, before.

"To dismiss George Wallace as a racist or a demagogue is to seriously underestimate his allure," said the National Observer in 1968. "His appeal is broader, far broader, than racism, and his themes too vital to be contained within mere demagoguery." Wallace drew a map for Republicans' subsequent inroads into the South and blue-collar America, and he pioneered legitimate issues to which establishment politicians paid too little attention: easy money, dysfunctional welfare programs, perverse crime policies.

What Wallace did not do was frame a coherent program or governing philosophy. His agenda was "this strange conglomeration," says Dan Carter, a University of South Carolina historian and biographer of Wallace. "I don't expect politicians to be running a seminar, but there's an absolute incoherence about the thing that is more a cry of angst than a program."

Wallace's national appeal came neither from the racial backlash he exploited nor from his program, such as it was. "It was a deep sense of grievance," Carter says -- a feeling that elites "are not only screwing you over but at the same time they're laughing at you, they're looking down their noses at you."

"Cry of angst"? GASP! The TeaBaggers aren't neo-patriots! They're EMO KIDS!!!!

[JJ]

DerbyX wrote:

JJ wrote:

I thought my cartoon was making a pretty clever point, which I wanted to discuss, but we've somehow wound up back in partisan crazyland once again.

That's twice now you have complained that other posters aren't debating the topic in the narrow confined terms you think it is. Don't post in an open forum then. Start a blog that allows you to edit posts you don't think belong or failing that post the topics in the L X D forum and set up the debate criteria in advance. even then you may not find that everybody holds your opinion on what points should and should not be discussed.

For instance, in your "why do some countries elect more gay officials" thread I though homophobia and morality far from being topics you didn't want to be debated were actually the most important factors in that question since it was probably the number one reason.

Well I deeply apologize, DerbyX, for thinking that I, as the creator of the comic for whom this section of the forum nominally exists to discuss, should have any right to even suggest that posters show some fleeting interest in my work. The gay politicians thread (which has now apparently disappeared for some reason) was okay, and I never objected to morality being discussed there, but I did object to people using the thread as an excuse to unthinkingly launch into a generic back-and-forth dialogue with all their favorite canned talking-points about homosexuality, when the original issue (and my commentary on it) was much more rigid and specific.

The posters in this current thread (with some exceptions, mainly Thanos, who has been saying interesting things) have not shown any interest in keeping to the topic, they just want to flame each other over the same old junk I suspect they flame each other about in every other section of the CKA forum.

I will readily admit that this is a structural flaw with the way I chose to have a forum for my site. I joined with CKA because I rightly assumed that I would benefit from their existing forum infrastructure, and gain some new readers from their existing forum membership. But now I feel like there's not a lot of respect for the "separateness" of the Filibuster side of the forum, and people from the other sections just leap in and say whatever simply because they see new threads popping up, and thus new opportunities to spread their endless opinions to the world.

I don't think I'm being too unreasonable expressing some disappointment with the status quo.

[ShepherdsDog]

Dayseed is the moderator for the L X D thread, or was. Why don't you ask Trevor to give you moderator status on the Filibuster thread? That way you can weed out those posts from the hack(s) you find inflammatory and off topic. I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to grant you control over your own thread.

[Mr_Canada]

I agree with Shep. I advise you talk with Trevor about our "disrespectful" actions.

[Psudo]

JJ wrote:

I thought my cartoon was making a pretty clever point, which I wanted to discuss, but we've somehow wound up back in partisan crazyland once again.

You're right, conspiratorial kooks and shallow populists don't deserve the same respect as reasonable arguments. But what is popular is not always right, so some Goofus-types get popular. It's obnoxious and inevitable.

The magnitude of popularity achieved with so little reason is not inevitable, and probably has been motivated by right-wingers hurt by the bad economy. Typically it's the left-wing that fights for the unemployed worker, but these guys aren't going to switch political sides just because of a bad economy (especially since they blame the left for it's state). Thus, they're disenfranchised and searching for validation. That's a strong motive to cling to whomever comes along.

Now would be a great time for a Reagonesque figure to appear, someone with substantial arguments and major populist credentials. But I'm not expecting it.

Mr_Canada wrote:

Corporations look like monarchies to me. And at the top are Human Beings. Too many consider them infallible, pure.

"Not Satan" is not the same as "infallible". Further, white collar crime also entails middle managers embezzling from CEOs, too; do you have the same compassion for victimized CEOs that you do for victimized workers?

Mr_Canada wrote:

I just simply don't see what is at all right in having massive profits and NOT passing any of that down to the Grunt workers, but only to yourself.

About a quarter of corporations have profit sharing programs these days. Do you have any continuing qualms about those corporations?

Also, what specifically do mean by "all right"? Are you seeking justice? Equity? Fairness? What constitutes "all right" pay?

If an inventor creates a great new product which is then mass produced and bought by millions worldwide, who deserves the bulk of the financial reward for the invention? The workers who manufactured it? The truckers who shipped it? The stockers at Walmart locations that carry it? Or the inventor? (Note: I am a stocker at Walmart.) Anyone can stock shelves. Most anyone can learn to drive a truck. Fewer can run manufacturing equipment. Fewer still can develop and run an efficient manufacturing or shipping process. And, to date, only one person has ever invented this particular product. Value is proportional to scarcity. The inventor deserves the money. That is just.

Who know what they call an inventor that goes commercial? CEO. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton, Henry Ford... that's what they did.

But that's not a career CEO, you might retort. What about the other CEOs, the career executives hired to run existing corporations? In my mind, that drops them down a rung to the "process development and operation" level. But they still do a job you and I and 99.95% of the world's population doesn't know how to do. I'm fine with them receiving a similar proportion of the profits from the organization they run. It aims that omnipresent profit motive in a reasonable direction.

[commanderkai]

JJ wrote:

I thought my cartoon was making a pretty clever point, which I wanted to discuss, but we've somehow wound up back in partisan crazyland once again.

It did, and I'd address it by saying that the "Two Party" system in the United States basically divides the crazies evenly into halves.

The Democrats have:

Truthers
Communists
Environmental extremists
Black Panthers-esque racist organizations

The Republicans have:

Birthers
Anarchists (big government haters)
Extreme libertarian/fascist views (strange mix, I know)
and traditional racist groups like the KKK and White Power movements

Sadly, and this is the fault of the Internet, extremist organizations have been given more voice by both parties. The fact that extremists are seemingly more motivated than the average citizen is saddening, but that's a fact of life. However, unlike a few people on this site, I wouldn't call the various protest movements in 2000-2008, and the Tea Party movement currently as extremist in their own right, but rather people, like some on this site and in the media, will be attracted by the loudest, most absurd, and most ridiculous people to have as attack points against those who politically oppose their views.

[DerbyX]

JJ wrote:

Well I deeply apologize, DerbyX, for thinking that I, as the creator of the comic for whom this section of the forum nominally exists to discuss, should have any right to even suggest that posters show some fleeting interest in my work. The gay politicians thread (which has now apparently disappeared for some reason) was okay, and I never objected to morality being discussed there, but I did object to people using the thread as an excuse to unthinkingly launch into a generic back-and-forth dialogue with all their favorite canned talking-points about homosexuality, when the original issue (and my commentary on it) was much more rigid and specific.

The posters in this current thread (with some exceptions, mainly Thanos, who has been saying interesting things) have not shown any interest in keeping to the topic, they just want to flame each other over the same old junk I suspect they flame each other about in every other section of the CKA forum.

I will readily admit that this is a structural flaw with the way I chose to have a forum for my site. I joined with CKA because I rightly assumed that I would benefit from their existing forum infrastructure, and gain some new readers from their existing forum membership. But now I feel like there's not a lot of respect for the "separateness" of the Filibuster side of the forum, and people from the other sections just leap in and say whatever simply because they see new threads popping up, and thus new opportunities to spread their endless opinions to the world.

I don't think I'm being too unreasonable expressing some disappointment with the status quo.

As the creator of the comic you have that right as long as its on your blog but when you post openly in a public forum on a site that encourages debate you don't. I've created loads of threads with specific topics but I don't own the thread or retain the right to delete posts. Threads at CKA frequently go of topic and that always isn't a bad thing. Despite the ravings of a few people who blame only a few other people pretty much everybody is guilty of it at one point. You see most people respond to other peoples posts (especially after the first few) and what they said rather then simply posting their opinion on the thread subject. Additional information and opinions have been added that aren't completely and directly related to the topic (at least as you seem to think) and so responses to that post deal with new material. I responded to N-fiddledogs video point about Obamacare and not to your cartoon. Was that not allowed?

Now you say you joined CKA in order to increase readership of your own site and no doubt it has since lots of us see it as a direct result of it being on here but if you are going to make unreasonable demands about it then people just won't bother reading or responding.

Now there are lots of ways you can deal with what you think is a problem. As has already been mentioned you may post in the L X D forum which has rules set up to keep threads on topic but again you might find that people are going to discuss additional points you didn't consider or expand the purvue of the thread.

You can also post a little disclaimer detailing exactly what points you want discussed and what points are to be ignored but nobody is under any obligation in an open forum to follow you "suggestion" anymore then they are obligated to do that in any thread I (or anybody) create.

You can flag the offending posts to the mods and ask that they remove posts you feel are off-topic and/or make a public reminder to stay on topic. They have done it loads before but I don't think the mods will be as restrictive as you want them to be.

You might also simply take a more active role in guiding the debate to what you want since none of us can read your mind as to what you want at every point in the debate. Additionally you can simply ignore the posts you find are off-topic and simply keep debating the people you find are debating the points you want debated. What good do you think you achieve when you openly complain about it?

Now if none of these suggestions are any thing you would consider then feel free to let me and others know. We won't bother clicking on your cartoon or thread.

[JJ]

Psudo wrote:

Now would be a great time for a Reagonesque figure to appear, someone with substantial arguments and major populist credentials. But I'm not expecting it.

I've been reading a good oral biography of Reagan lately, and time and time again what his supporters praise him for, and see as the most substantial root of his success, was his pleasant personality. I think that's a huge factor that goes so ignored today amidst all the superficial Reagan-worship. So many of the people that evoke him today are bitter, angry, reactionary types, and see simply portray Reagan as a guy who was as viciously anti-liberal as themselves, and ignoring the charming, avuncular optimism that made up at least 50% of his appeal.

I like Thanos analogy to George Wallace. I think he is much more the spiritual predecessor of the Tea Party people and shallow politicians like Palin that seek to ride their wave.

[Psudo]

commanderkai wrote:

The Republicans have:

Birthers
Anarchists (big government haters)
Extreme libertarian

Anarchists hate all government, not just big government. Wikipedia says "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology" and has two sources. Right-wing libertarian is a better description of Republican big government haters. "Minarchist" would also work.

DerbyX wrote:

As the creator of the comic you have that right as long as its on your blog but when you post openly in a public forum on a site that encourages debate you don't.

There can't be a debate if the topic changes too frequently. Attempting to stabilize the topic is itself encouraging debate by trying to see particular discussions progress through to some kind of conclusion or stopping point and defending against red herring distractions (like this one).

JJ wrote:

I've been reading a good oral biography of Reagan lately

What's the title? It sounds like my kind of reading.

JJ wrote:

time and time again what his supporters praise him for, and see as the most substantial root of his success, was his pleasant personality. I think that's a huge factor that goes so ignored today amidst all the superficial Reagan-worship. So many of the people that evoke him today are bitter, angry, reactionary types, and see simply portray Reagan as a guy who was as viciously anti-liberal as themselves, and ignoring the charming, avuncular optimism that made up at least 50% of his appeal.

I have to agree; his likable, disarming personality helped him do more for conservatism with an opposition-controlled legislature than any President since has been able to do even with same-party legislatures. People liked him enough personally to listen with an open mind, where people hated the divisive partisans (Bush, Clinton) enough to assume the worst and emotionally invest themselves into defending those assumptions.

The "major populist credentials" I mentioned are the result of him being well-liked by the public at large in addition to being personally liked by personal acquaintances (including Tip O'Neill and Mikhail Gorbachev).

I am a little envious of the left in this regard; it seems to me that Obama is similarly likable in his personality (though it's hard to tell without knowing him personally). But, then, I thought the same about Dubya when he first appeared on the scene ("I'm a uniter, not a divider."), and he became pretty radically hated. Maybe I just like people too easily.

[Thanos]

Reagan was a good man. The TeaBaggers and the other fringe-rightists disgrace his memory whenever they strategically invoke his name for the benefit of their ludicrous and hate-fueled cause.

But give it a few years and maybe they'll stop doing it. After all, CPAC and Glenn Beck both attacked Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt with their brain-dead and anti-historical "progressive" smear during that disgrace of a conservative convention the other week. With a few more years gone by Reagan will probably end up on the nutcases' official enemies list too.

[Psudo]

Glenn Beck gave the CPAC keynote!? *despair*

"It's a tough year if you're down to me." -- Beck's keynote opening

[commanderkai]

Psudo wrote:

commanderkai wrote:

The Republicans have:

Birthers
Anarchists (big government haters)
Extreme libertarian

Anarchists hate all government, not just big government. Wikipedia says "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology" and has two sources. Right-wing libertarian is a better description of Republican big government haters. "Minarchist" would also work.

I've seen anarchists fit under both, I just tossed them under the Republicans to keep a balanced list. I'm sure there are many other groups that can fit under both parties, but my general point was that the "Big Tent" concept fits for both parties, and attracts plenty of crazies.

[JJ]

The book was called "Reagan: The Man and his Presidency" written by a husband and wife team, Debroah and Gerald Strober. They also wrote a good book on Nixon that I've also read, and evidently one on Kennedy too. I hope they do one on Clinton eventually.

I just wrote a blog post about Obama's likability factor, some of which I think stems from his air of maturity, which is of course rare in politics these days.

When you have an immature political culture, it's natural for people to want to believe immature things, because there's no real social stigma. That's part of the problem with the conservative movement of today, unwillingness to stigmatize bad behavior within its own ranks.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Psudo wrote:

Anarchists hate all government, not just big government. Wikipedia says "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology" and has two sources. Right-wing libertarian is a better description of Republican big government haters. "Minarchist" would also work.

This really depends on the type of anarchist one is talking about. There are people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists. I think it's fairly reasonable to classify them as right wing.