Clown Car 2016

[Timsup2nothin]

I once reported a post for an highly inappropriate fat comment (about Christie). Only afterward did I notice they were made by a global mod (not this site). Liberals dislike me because I think climate change is non-urgent and champion fiscal responsibility. Conservative dislike me because I support gay marriage, amnesty and legal weed

J

You seem to be interpreting disagreement as disliking. Everyone disagrees with you doesn't explain them all disliking you.

 

[onejayhawk]

I would guess you have more experience listening to Rush than I have, and certainly more with citing him as a source...in that we are at best dead even.

I highly doubt that, since I do not seek him out. That said, the man is hard to completely avoid.

I can understand why you would never cite him, especially if you happened to agree.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I manage to avoid him pretty easily for the most part. Once in a great while he says something so glaringly idiotic that it gets him some negative publicity. Every time that happens I'm surprised he is still around. Is there somewhere that he is talked about more regularly?

 

[Hygro]

I know what it is... but I'm not telling

But they all join in unison to insist it's not so....

Btw, as the person who was first arguing the conservative-as-zerg trope, I do not endorse the "urban" prefix to it. The style of consumerism needed to feed that culture is not well supported by the concrete jungle, which demands real individualism to stay sane. It's much easier to espouse the myth you are an individual-minded American while promoting the culture (mis)-appropriating borg that is modern conservatism when you go from TV to car to work to car to TV, dodging other people not part of your bubble in between.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hygro, in an urban setting it is easy to go from home to work and back without engaging another human being. I get that you don't live that way, but I think a truly remarkable number of people do.

 

[Cutlass]

The last sentence, while it makes sense, proves the point and justifies it at the same time. If I want to vote for a major political party that wants science to back its food policy rather than fat shamers and the PETA/vegan umbrella, I wind up with the capitalist overlords and the anti-gays. I detest our system as presently functioning. The fault of people being selfish, ignorant, and harmful pricks is multisided. Welcome to the two party system. Woot. Woot.

Bu, you see, here's the trick: The capitalist overlords and the anti-gays are not using science to back food policy. They're using greed, selfishness, and emotion, to make policy. No science is involved. On the other hand, the fat shamers and the PETA/vegan side is so trivial that they have hardly any effect on policy at all.

What you are seeing is that people on the right are believing leaders on the right, without doing any independent thought or observation as to which side is telling the truth.

 

[Cutlass]

I once reported a post for an highly inappropriate fat comment (about Christie). Only afterward did I notice they were made by a global mod (not this site). Liberals dislike me because I think climate change is non-urgent and champion fiscal responsibility. Conservative dislike me because I support gay marriage, amnesty and legal weed

J

Fiscal responsibility is a liberal issue in US politics. No conservative who has held office, or run for office, in the US in decades has supported fiscal responsibility.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Fiscal responsibility is a liberal issue in US politics. No conservative who has held office, or run for office, in the US in decades has supported fiscal responsibility.

Democratic party policy is derisively called tax and spend. Republican party policy is in fact tax and spend...mostly spend.

 

[Cutlass]

Democratic party policy is derisively called tax and spend. Republican party policy is in fact tax and spend...mostly spend.

Not to mention that the US government doesn't have any debt which isn't the result of a Republican policy.

 

[Farm Boy]

Bu, you see, here's the trick: The capitalist overlords and the anti-gays are not using science to back food policy. They're using greed, selfishness, and emotion, to make policy. No science is involved. On the other hand, the fat shamers and the PETA/vegan side is so trivial that they have hardly any effect on policy at all.

What you are seeing is that people on the right are believing leaders on the right, without doing any independent thought or observation as to which side is telling the truth.

No, the capitalist overlords and anti-gays are not, but the Farm Bureau generally does and that's the side of the idiots' coin that is generally less hostile to it, unless profits to richer people are on the line.

The mainstream left, or whatever you want to call it, is not toothless. It's easy to see it as such when it doesn't smack people you interact with around on a regular basis. While I might agree that cutting out the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics in livestock is a good idea out of an abundance of caution the people hollering about it, annoyed at having their profits cut, are not lying when they claim an astounding lack of evidence of harms resulting from the practice. The practice seems like something that could be dangerous, it's a good thing to keep in mind, but the counterpoint that keeps coming back is prove the negative, prove it isn't hurting anything. The livestock industry will lose this issue, btw, they're already losing, the rest is just a matter of time.

I'm confused as to the last part though Cutlass. I'm the one arguing the right is typically more in tune with ag than the left, and that is saying a lot. Am I considered "on the right" when I make this argument? Am I simply not thinking and lapping up dross when I identify the mainstream Democratic left as typically hostile to my interests on several issues? Typically, not consistently. Being aware, after all, how much this issue counts for when there are points to be scored regarding being "tough of food stamps" or axing ethanol at the bequest of the petroleum lobby. Do people dissatisfied with both our options warrant that little respect?

 

[Cutlass]

No, the capitalist overlords and anti-gays are not, but the Farm Bureau generally does and that's the side of the idiots' coin that is generally less hostile to it, unless profits to richer people are on the line.

The mainstream left, or whatever you want to call it, is not toothless. It's easy to see it as such when it doesn't smack people you interact with around on a regular basis. While I might agree that cutting out the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics in livestock is a good idea out of an abundance of caution the people hollering about it, annoyed at having their profits cut, are not lying when they claim an astounding lack of evidence of harms resulting from the practice. The practice seems like something that could be dangerous, it's a good thing to keep in mind, but the counterpoint that keeps coming back is prove the negative, prove it isn't hurting anything. The livestock industry will lose this issue, btw, they're already losing, the rest is just a matter of time.

I'm confused as to the last part though Cutlass. I'm the one arguing the right is typically more in tune with ag than the left, and that is saying a lot. Am I considered "on the right" when I make this argument? Am I simply not thinking and lapping up dross when I identify the mainstream Democratic left as typically hostile to my interests on several issues? Typically, not consistently. Being aware, after all, how much this issue counts for when there are points to be scored regarding being "tough of food stamps" or axing ethanol at the bequest of the petroleum lobby. Do people dissatisfied with both our options warrant that little respect?

I think we're having a failure to communicate. You say 'the mainstream left', but you also say PETA. PETA is not on the mainstream left. The mainstream left barely gives lip service to PETA. Now it is fair to say that farm issues aren't big on the left's agenda. Which is the result of the fact that farmers are a very small minority of voters as a whole, and that they tend to be an even smaller portion of Democratic voters. So there simply isn't a lot of motivation for Democrats to appeal to the farmer vote.

But, that said, can you really say that most Democratic policies related to farming don't have some science in their background, even if some of the conclusions are controversial? Treating livestock more humanely, and cutting out the antibiotics, may be a profit risk to the farmers. But where does the science really land? GMOs are an emotional topic. But GMOs also put a hell of a lot more power and wealth in the hands of corporations, not farmers. The science may be more in line with the money interests there, but it hardly seems to have any concern for how the farmers will fare in the matter. Most of the other public policy issues regarding farming, the science seems to support the left. Now I'll grant you that that is hard on the farmers themselves. But, let's face it, farmers are pretty damned hard on the environment, and in ways that spill over onto the lives and property of a great many people around them.

So I would agree that the right is more in tune with farmers. But I would not agree that there is any respect for science in their doing so.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would like to suggest that there is no more a 'mainstream left' than there is a 'mainstream right'. There is a mainstream, in that the majority of people ponder things and make compromises and are more or less considerate within the bounds of reasonable circumstance. Then there is a left, exemplified by PETA, and a right, exemplified by the NRA. The left and right are chock full of people who have their pet issue and demand the mainstream comply or die on that issue.

Because they have an overriding pet issue they will go along with anyone about anything as long as they get their way, so off in the wilderness you see coalitions like right to lifers and death penalty supporters or animal activists and government supported research grant supporters as long as their research doesn't involve animal testing, which leaves researchers who need animal testing wondering how they have been abandoned.

The nature of these extremists make mapping the territory impossible. Which party will make the most deals with extremists, and which extremists, and how will that affect their influence in the mainstream is always subject to change. Is fiscal conservatism on the right, or the left? No one in the mainstream will say 'fiscal conservatism overrides all other considerations', the mainstream is the land of 'well we can't just let the poor die' and 'defense is atrociously expensive but we can't just disarm' and all the other compromises.

The key is just to avoid letting any of the extremists get too close to the seats of power.

 

[Farm Boy]

But where does the science really land? GMOs are an emotional topic. But GMOs also put a hell of a lot more power and wealth in the hands of corporations, not farmers. The science may be more in line with the money interests there, but it hardly seems to have any concern for how the farmers will fare in the matter. Most of the other public policy issues regarding farming, the science seems to support the left. Now I'll grant you that that is hard on the farmers themselves. But, let's face it, farmers are pretty damned hard on the environment, and in ways that spill over onto the lives and property of a great many people around them.

Hah! Right, because the evil GMO technermologies haven't reduced drastically both the amount of tilling I've been doing, in my lifetime, and the amount of nasty ass chemicals I handle and spray onto the land, in my lifetime. Because set-aside programs supported, by the right, haven't reintroduced wetlands to areas that had been drained, again in my lifetime. But yer right. That science stuff is awful hard to follow. Specially when it's just so convenient that Monsanto can just tell me hows it is. I prolly haven't been givin' a fare shake to that lady professor that keeps landing on the front page of NIU tellin' me that I should take to cultivatin' instead of tillin' the soil though. Now, how exactly I'm supposed to cultivate without tillin' is a bit of a mystery, but perhaps I'll just drive around with the implements out of the ground for a while and see what comes up. Weird that I shouldn't just use a low horsepower targeted pesticide with a short activity period, but again, she's all scientificamcy.

Now, if one of the political parties would get off its ass and clamp the F down on water usage by industry, residential, and agriculture on depleted and soon to be a massive issue aquifers, maybe they'd get some damned respect from me. As it is, all both sides are doing is crapping on the kitchen floor and demanding payments for the G-D service. Since who's damned genius idea was it to build a massive megalopolis in California? Then start a crapton of industry there? Then grow fruits and vegetables in areas without adequate rainfall? Selfish selfish everywhere.

 

[jackelgull]

The key is just to avoid letting any of the extremists get too close to the seats of power.

Haven't they already?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Haven't they already?

Many times, most recently the neocon war party.

My point was that it is important for the mainstream to realize that the extremists are no less dangerous no matter which side they claim to be coming from. Every time a group of extremists successfully paints another group as 'the real threat' and gets their hands on the wheel they crash the car. Vigilance is hard because the claim is true; whoever they are painting as a threat probably is. They just aren't a sufficient threat to justify allowing other extremists to take over.

 

[Traitorfish]

Honestly, I've yet to be convinced that "extremist" is a meaningful category. What is "extreme"? Who gets to define "extreme"? I personally think that the state is a pretty extreme sort of institution, but common wisdom dictates that this makes me the extremist.

It all feels very arbitrary.

 

[jackelgull]

Hah! Right, because the evil GMO technermologies haven't reduced drastically both the amount of tilling I've been doing, in my lifetime, and the amount of nasty ass chemicals I handle and spray onto the land, in my lifetime. Because set-aside programs supported, by the right, haven't reintroduced wetlands to areas that had been drained, again in my lifetime. But yer right. That science stuff is awful hard to follow. Specially when it's just so convenient that Monsanto can just tell me hows it is. I prolly haven't been givin' a fare shake to that lady professor that keeps landing on the front page of NIU tellin' me that I should take to cultivatin' instead of tillin' the soil though. Now, how exactly I'm supposed to cultivate without tillin' is a bit of a mystery, but perhaps I'll just drive around with the implements out of the ground for a while and see what comes up. Weird that I shouldn't just use a low horsepower targeted pesticide with a short activity period, but again, she's all scientificamcy.

Now, if one of the political parties would get off its ass and clamp the F down on water usage by industry, residential, and agriculture on depleted and soon to be a massive issue aquifers, maybe they'd get some damned respect from me. As it is, all both sides are doing is crapping on the kitchen floor and demanding payments for the G-D service. Since who's damned genius idea was it to build a massive megalopolis in California? Then start a crapton of industry there? Then grow fruits and vegetables in areas without adequate rainfall? Selfish selfish everywhere.

Yeah, the paranoia against GM's is kind of crazy. I think in a way they act like Hamilton's Bank of the United State's. Sure they're mainly benefiting some smarmy a hole with more money then most people will ever have, but they do help the little guy too. Though I doubt they'll ever lead to a result as bad as the panic of 1819.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Now, if one of the political parties would get off its ass and clamp the F down on water usage by industry, residential, and agriculture on depleted and soon to be a massive issue aquifers, maybe they'd get some damned respect from me. As it is, all both sides are doing is crapping on the kitchen floor and demanding payments for the G-D service. Since who's damned genius idea was it to build a massive megalopolis in California? Then start a crapton of industry there? Then grow fruits and vegetables in areas without adequate rainfall? Selfish selfish everywhere.

Thats US style capitalism at least you have first world country monitoring and some regulations. In India, the land of no regulations farmers and industry do whatever they want, drill and use aquifers as they want. Its a Libertarian utopia which will soon become a Libertarian nightmare when the aquifer run dry.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Honestly, I've yet to be convinced that "extremist" is a meaningful category. What is "extreme"? Who gets to define "extreme"? I personally think that the state is a pretty extreme sort of institution, but common wisdom dictates that this makes me the extremist.

It all feels very arbitrary.

I think it is a useful category as I defined it.

Are you an extremist? Do you have a particular issue on which if you could just get your way you would trade all else? I get it, you are opposed to governance...but are you ready to do without it tomorrow and willing to trade all else for that outcome?

I know that if I made that trade I would get in return a truly staggering body count on my conscience, if I survived at all, so despite being opposed to governance to the point that I have personally withdrawn my participation I am not willing to make that trade myself. I compromise with the existence of governance and stay in the mainstream, and I suspect that you do as well.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hah! Right, because the evil GMO technermologies haven't reduced drastically both the amount of tilling I've been doing, in my lifetime, and the amount of nasty ass chemicals I handle and spray onto the land, in my lifetime. Because set-aside programs supported, by the right, haven't reintroduced wetlands to areas that had been drained, again in my lifetime. But yer right. That science stuff is awful hard to follow. Specially when it's just so convenient that Monsanto can just tell me hows it is. I prolly haven't been givin' a fare shake to that lady professor that keeps landing on the front page of NIU tellin' me that I should take to cultivatin' instead of tillin' the soil though. Now, how exactly I'm supposed to cultivate without tillin' is a bit of a mystery, but perhaps I'll just drive around with the implements out of the ground for a while and see what comes up. Weird that I shouldn't just use a low horsepower targeted pesticide with a short activity period, but again, she's all scientificamcy.

Now, if one of the political parties would get off its ass and clamp the F down on water usage by industry, residential, and agriculture on depleted and soon to be a massive issue aquifers, maybe they'd get some damned respect from me. As it is, all both sides are doing is crapping on the kitchen floor and demanding payments for the G-D service. Since who's damned genius idea was it to build a massive megalopolis in California? Then start a crapton of industry there? Then grow fruits and vegetables in areas without adequate rainfall? Selfish selfish everywhere.

Wasn't it you who accused me of "shaking the Malthus stick"?