Operation Chaos

[Matthew Carberry]

Well, the simple fact that Limbaugh would even promote something like 'Operation Chaos' shows two things:

1) He has contempt for the representative process of democracy, which is why he attempts to subvert it.

2) He doesn't believe his 'philosophy' will succeed in the open marketplace of democracy.

That makes him a deceitful hypocrite.

These are primaries, not the general elections. The "representative process of democracy" is only tangentally involved in the first place.

After all, if a party wants to protect the purity of its primary vote by restrictive membership rules or limiting access to the primary vote to those who have demonstrated a committment to that party, it is free to.  Many state party organizations have done just that for just that reason.   

Rush's "philosophy", whatever that may be, isn't running for election, in fact no one who actually agrees with Rush to a great degree is even running.  But the philosophies of the actual candidates chosen under their party's self-designed primary system will be represented and competing in the "open marketplace" of the actual election.

In short, if you want only Dem's voting for the Dem. candidate, restrict the primary to registered Dem's of a certain length of time.  If the independant's want to get involved, let them choose to register or wait like everyone else until the general election.

[grampster]

Well, the simple fact that Limbaugh would even promote something like 'Operation Chaos' shows two things:

1) He has contempt for the representative process of democracy, which is why he attempts to subvert it.

That statement is so patently illconceived that I'm stunned you would print it under your screen name.  The Democrats have been using this tactic for years, mostly in states that do not require one to register party affiliation.  Rilley, I give you credit for sticking by some of the things you believe, but you have seriously gone wacko on tis one.[/b]

2) He doesn't believe his 'philosophy' will succeed in the open marketplace of democracy.

Wrong again.  The most serious political attempt by conservatives to promote conservative governance was The Contract With America, which swept Republicans into control of the House and the Senate, after 40 years of liberal D governance.  The fact the R's didn't keep their word was one of the largest betrayals of the American public in perhaps 100 years.

That makes him a deceitful hypocrite.

Well, at least you can fairly call him a hypocrite because if he were a conservative that would mean he would have some principals that he would be hypocitical about.  Which is more than what you can say for liberals who have no principals at all.   Situational ethicists (libs) could not ever be accused of having principals because one must have a position that lasts longer than the last breath one took.

[Iain]

You have used the term 'situational ethics' several times lately. Does it mean what you think it means?

[grampster]

At the moment, it probably wouldn't be a good idea.  Or maybe not.

[Iain]

Well, you'd have to predict the future path of this conversation and then decide which course of action love is best served by.

[The Annoyed Man]

That increased productivity belongs to those who produced it, not solely to those who provided the capital, but also to those who provided the labor.

Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself. OH! Wait. He did say it or words to that effect.

If there were a Godwin award for mentioning communism, you just won it.  Now explain why, in a modern democracy,  capital trumps labor in the production of goods.

[Matthew Carberry]

That increased productivity belongs to those who produced it, not solely to those who provided the capital, but also to those who provided the labor.

Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself. OH! Wait. He did say it or words to that effect.

If there were a Godwin award for mentioning communism, you just won it.  Now explain why, in a modern democracy,  capital trumps labor in the production of goods.

Did they stop paying people wages when I wasn't looking?  Are workers no longer free to not accept a job or to change an existing one if they don't like those wages anymore?

Can people no longer choose to live frugally and make wise investment decisions thus also taking part in the "capital" part of the process, even while simultaneously working for wages?

Is it now illegal to determine one's strengths and an opportunity and start one's own business, thus being the one paying the wages instead of earning them?

If that happened, someone send me a PM or something, right now I'm busy increasing my income by working harder as a commissioned loan originator. 

(Well, not right now, right now I'm playing hookey, which, as long as I meet my minimum negotiated contract requirements for production, I can do at will)

If only I had actually gotten that college degree... 

[Bogie]

Guys, the weirder the election gets, the more money Bogie makes.
 
Now get to it!
 

[The Annoyed Man]

Did they stop paying people wages when I wasn't looking?  Are workers no longer free to not accept a job or to change an existing one if they don't like those wages anymore?

Can people no longer choose to live frugally and make wise investment decisions thus also taking part in the "capital" part of the process, even while simultaneously working for wages?

Is it now illegal to determine one's strengths and an opportunity and start one's own business, thus being the one paying the wages instead of earning them?

Translation: "If you're working for a wage to support your family, you're a lazy dumbass who deserves what he gets.  The smart industrious people have businesses and investments.  Everybody else can take a hike."

OK.  Let's just go back to feudalism then and abandon democracy altogether.

[Matthew Carberry]

Did they stop paying people wages when I wasn't looking?  Are workers no longer free to not accept a job or to change an existing one if they don't like those wages anymore?

Can people no longer choose to live frugally and make wise investment decisions thus also taking part in the "capital" part of the process, even while simultaneously working for wages?

Is it now illegal to determine one's strengths and an opportunity and start one's own business, thus being the one paying the wages instead of earning them?

Translation: "If you're working for a wage to support your family, you're a lazy dumbass who deserves what he gets.  The smart industrious people have businesses and investments.  Everybody else can take a hike."

OK.  Let's just go back to feudalism then and abandon democracy altogether.

What? 

Where the hell do you get that from what I said?

If you are working for a wage to support your family you aren't lazy or a dumbass, but neither are you being "exploited".  Your wage reflects the value you add to the company who pays you.  That's why they pay you. 

If you sweep the floor, you probably add less value to the company than the guy who runs the lathe, so you get paid less.  You could run the lathe if you chose to get trained on it like he did.

If you design the part to be lathed, you add still more value, and again you were and are free to learn design and take that job.

No matter what you do for a wage-earning job, you are compensated "fairly".  After all, you chose to take that job and you choose to stay there. 

If you don't agree the compensation is fair, you can negotiate for a higher one by demonstrating you add more value than they are taking into account, or you can change to a different company that pays more for the same job, or you can do what it takes to get a different job that pays better.

None of that is impossible or against the law.

Now, if you really want to get ahead, set aside a little every payday and invest it, either for interest or in education, let those savings work for you and double your efforts.

How is any of that implying inadequacy in the worker.  They are free to do any of it, just like millions of other people every day actually do.

[Bogie]

Too many folks choose to snarf down the cupcake, and then they wonder why they didn't end up with two...
 
Too many folks choose to go home and watch American Idol instead of working overtime in a training program or going to night school.
 
Cause and effect - if you do not have education or skills for a position, do not expect to make the money which it pays.
 

[Werewolf]

That increased productivity belongs to those who produced it, not solely to those who provided the capital, but also to those who provided the labor.

Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself. OH! Wait. He did say it or words to that effect.

If there were a Godwin award for mentioning communism, you just won it.  Now explain why, in a modern democracy,  capital trumps labor in the production of goods.

Democracy has jack to do with it. Democracy describes a social convention not an economic system.

The USA's economic system is Capitalism not the socialism you seem to wish it to be. In a capitalist economic system labor is a commodity to be bargained for no different from the hard materials, transport etc. necessary for production. Capital has the money. Labor wants it and sells it to whomever the highest bidder is. In other words capital is at the top of the food chain.

But just to tweak your socialist behind at the most base level it boils down to the golden rule. He who has the gold rules.

[The Annoyed Man]

Actually, you've got it bassackwards.  Capital (money) is one component of the means of production.  The other is labor.  Without labor, capital produces nothing.   More importantly, capital(money) is the means of exchanging goods (produced with capital+labor) and services (labor).   Capital has no inherent value; its value is what it can purchase.

Labor is an exclusive product of humans.  To relegate labor to merely a commodity on par with materials is to completely miss the purpose of the founding of the United States of America.

[grampster]

Heh!  Actually the founding of America, the America that has a constitution, a federalist government system, a rerpresentative constitutional republic, had more to do with anger about taxation and the redistribution of income; that is taxing it and redistributing it to the King of England.

The only difference today is that the King (statist R's and D's) has deigned to slobber a little of "the take" to the welfare state the King depends on to keep it's power.

Capital makes the world go round in an industrial society.  No Capital?  No industry. No need for workers.  In the old agrarian society, Riley, maybe labor was king.  No longer.  Labor grabbed up some land, hunted, planted some crops. Became self sustaining.  But if you'll notice sometimes came a bumper crop and lots of game.  Now there's a bit of Capital available.  Once that happened, industry started to happen.  Guys started to labor making glass windows to get some of that capital.  Then maybe a wagon maker and a buggy maker and a buggy whip maker and then a steam engine and the beat goes on.

Now "King" Fed Gov wants to take away most of that capital and use it to buy votes to gain and increase power.  Too bad nobody gives a rat's behind about the Constitution any more.

[taurusowner]

Life is a race.  Those who choose to work harder, train harder, and run faster are the ones who get rewarded by winning.

Some of you(socialists) seem to think that people are owed something simply for showing up.  That is a falsehood.  Your success is what you make it.  The opportunities are there.  Having the sense of mind to strive for them is up to you.  But no one else owes you there work.  And it's no one's responsibility but your own to carry your burden.

It may seem cruel, but anything else just gives people rewards for shifting their burden to others.  And that is even more cruel.

[seeker_two]

That increased productivity belongs to those who produced it, not solely to those who provided the capital, but also to those who provided the labor.

So are you going to form a new Worker's Party now?  Please explain what you mean by that statement.  I can see it could go different ways. 

In other words....."trickle-down" economics works great......if the top allows the benefits to trickle down to the rest of the workers. That hasn't been happening lately....

[Perd Hapley]

To relegate labor to merely a commodity on par with materials is to completely miss the purpose of the founding of the United States of America.

But the Founders did not think of the citizenry as labor.  They had a higher view of mankind than simply their economic worth.  Besides, America was founded by men who, typically for their time, thought of working for others as being slavish.  It was a completely different economy. 

[The Annoyed Man]

But the Founders did not think of the citizenry as labor.  They had a higher view of mankind than simply their economic worth. 

Exactly right.  That concept of humans having only economic value is common to tyrannical monarchies, Godless communism, and Godless corporatism.   It's an anathema to the United States because it's exactly what our Revolutionary War and founding were all about-to break the chains of bondage to Great Britain.  And now some of you (most of you) are quite willing to acknowledge the supremacy of the corporate state in the name of 'capitalism'.   You're quite willing to abandon the principles of democracy through representative government of, by, and for the people.  Like spoiled little children who want what they want when they want it, you have no idea of the value of your heritage of freedom.  Instead, you've been taught that any and all government is 'bad' and the corporate state is 'good'.  And you've swallowed it.

Go ahead.  Put yourselves on the corporate auction block.  The mythical but omnipotent 'free market' will determine your value.   

[ilbob]

I have been especially enjoying Rush the last few days. He is really having a good time poking fun at the democrats. People are calling in claiming they voted for Hillary in the primary and were than made official delegates to the convention. Rush is telling the world he has arranged for special secure lines of communication between himself and his operatives so he can give instructions to them on the convention floor.

[Perd Hapley]

But the Founders did not think of the citizenry as labor.  They had a higher view of mankind than simply their economic worth. 

Exactly right. 

Yes it is.  And you're putting a Marxist overlay onto the Founders.  They were not thinking about labor or the working man when they revolted.  These concepts had yet to be of serious concern. 

I'm not calling you a Marxist, but I am saying that you're putting those kinds of ideas into what they said and did.

  And now some of you (most of you) are quite willing to acknowledge the supremacy of the corporate state in the name of 'capitalism'.   You're quite willing to abandon the principles of democracy through representative government of, by, and for the people.  Like spoiled little children who want what they want when they want it, you have no idea of the value of your heritage of freedom.  Instead, you've been taught that any and all government is 'bad' and the corporate state is 'good'.  And you've swallowed it.

Who is he talking to? 

[Perd Hapley]

.

[AJ Dual]

But the Founders did not think of the citizenry as labor.  They had a higher view of mankind than simply their economic worth. 

Exactly right. 

Yes it is.  And you're putting a Marxist overlay onto the Founders.  They were not thinking about labor or the working man when they revolted.  These concepts had yet to be of serious concern. 

  And now some of you (most of you) are quite willing to acknowledge the supremacy of the corporate state in the name of 'capitalism'.   You're quite willing to abandon the principles of democracy through representative government of, by, and for the people.  Like spoiled little children who want what they want when they want it, you have no idea of the value of your heritage of freedom.  Instead, you've been taught that any and all government is 'bad' and the corporate state is 'good'.  And you've swallowed it.

Who is he talking to? 

 

I think he couldn't hold onto it any longer. The context to suddenly launch into Marxist diatribes was just a wee bit thin...

Paddy, for the love of the God you probably don't believe in, because the dialectic demands that you don't, please, please, please tell me you're under twenty-five years old.

(And yes, I'm kinda-sorta cribbing from Winston Churchill here...)

[Perd Hapley]

Well, that should set him off real good.   

[AJ Dual]

Well, that should set him off real good.   

Well, I will admit that I don't really have a dog in this fight, and I am old enough to know better.

Poking sticks at someone with a high-post count openly citing Marxist rhetoric on a predominantly libertarian-right discussion board is sort of the equivalent of having the bad judgment to tell the wino screaming obscenities on the street corner to shut up and seek employment when you've only got 20 minutes to get lunch and make it back to the office...

[grampster]

Awwww, Riley (Paddy) is all right.  He's just going through MENopause.  He's a seasoned citizen like me; I'm a bit older, but he'd been a life long repub (so he says) but now he's into withdrawal since the elected R's have mostly turned into RINO's or out and out statists over the last 30 years.  I don't think he actually believes some of the stuff he says.  He thinks he does, but he's old enough to know better; and I believe he does, but just doesn't know how to quit being so pissed at how we've been betrayed by the R party.

The single biggest issue we face today is not the war, it's energy; oil and gas.
It's what makes the world go round.  It is our freedom, it's everything.  If we'd become self sufficient in oil and gas starting in the 70's (and we could have because we've got more oil and gas in and around America than exists in the rest of the world), none of the political problems, war, or economic problems we have would exist.  And neither party, especially John Effing McCain, is talking about it except like loons.

I think that pisses Riley (Paddy) off.  I know it pisses me off big time.