I propose a poll for Con and Lib subforums

rosco rathbone said:

If you have subforums, where do the partisans meet to do battle?

Click to expand...

JtohisPB said:

Where does it end? Independents and Libertarians are people, too.

Click to expand...

JtohisPB said:

Where does it end? Independents and Libertarians are people, too.

Click to expand...

query said:

A relatively new poster that I erroneously thought was a Zumi alt

Click to expand...

IrezumiKiss said:

Dude. Really?

Zumi don't alt.

Click to expand...

query said:

If Zumi did... you would be him.

A Zumi Alt would have to avoid flashing gifs if he wanted to stay sub-rosa, yes?

Shows up as a brand new poster, knows his way around and the various personalities, and his siggy, though tight and orderly had three separate neatly boxed quotes.

Who has a siggy line by their 6th post?

If your posting life is a Technicolor movie in Digital 3-D, his was an analog of black and white, crisply drawn, black and white lines.

His politics are not at all yours though.

I take "doesn't do alts" with a grain of salt. Rob says that all the time and he had 5 that I knew of. I got one of them banned. He knows that I know and how I know and he still publicly protests.

Click to expand...

IrezumiKiss said:

I don't do alts because I have no need to do so.

Now, I will admit to entertaining the thought of doing one or two. And if I did, I would make it utterly un-Zumi because that would be the point of doing an alt.

Not like your abysmally useless Queer-whatever alt you did. Guy. What were you thinking? I so thought you were losing it when you did that.

Still kinda think you're losing it.

Click to expand...

query said:

I think it is good, and telling, that both parties denigrate libertarians. A lot of libertarians share majority support and have no, "Well we have always voted for" baggage.

A relatively new poster that I erroneously thought was a Zumi alt made a very interesting statement the other day. I'll link it up if I can find it.

He said words to the effect that yes, Democrats have not improved the lot of the Black community, but Republicans are not even giving lip service. He liked a couple of things in Rand Paul's rhetoric. Paul is, of course, a more politically realistic libertarian in sheep's clothing.

There is a lot to like in the libertarian ideology. A little something for everyone. I had a thread to that effect. I'll see about bumping it. Where libertarianism fails is by cannibalism. The concept of non-aggression tends to aggressively eat it's young. No one ever seems to be ideologically pure enough for big "L" Libertarians.

All 3 parts are aptly named. If you do not capitalize the names, they do describe core philosphys. Mind you, none of the Washington pols seem to adhere to their guiding principles but I will outline them here:

Little "r" republicanism" is supposed to be about self-rule. Government at the local level. Thousands of small republics as described in some of the earliest philosophical treatises on governance. Governence closest to the people governed is thought to be best. Weak central governance is desired. Decisions made locally. The fail of big "R" Republicanism are legion. Local governments have budgets, they spend for things they cannot afford and look to the counties who look to the allegedly soverien State that they are located in. States usually have to balance budgets for practical or State constitutional reasons. SO they turn to the national government for funds in every category. The reason this is done is because the nation can deficit spend. The money comes with restrictions. A poison pill. The States, mostly run by big "R" Republicans these days eagerly gobble the carrot, while hollering "States Rights!" You cannot have it both ways you have to decline money with strings or accept the strings. The biggest fail, and it took me until maybe the last 5-6 years to get this, is that our foreign policy is completely anathema to this ideal. If we like local rule and control, why would we dictate to some tribe on the Pakistani/Afghani border how they should be governed? Properly constituted, little "r" republicanism is, in fact, classic liberalism. Des and I were discussing the fact that Americans do not know the actual meaning of liberal.

Next are fans of the concept of democracy. I'll be brief and endeavor to minimize snark, as I am not a fan. I'll leave it to others that support the view to elaborate the positives if they will. Big "D" democrats are of a mind that majority rule tends to give the best results because it involves the collective power of many individual minds looking for the best solutions. Detractors complain (and founders warned) that democracy can devolve to individuals voting themselves benefits at the expense of the others. In an effort to avoid bomb-throwing on that, I will point to cigarette taxes. Once the number of smokers reached minority status it was easy in my state to virtually outlaw smoking inside any public place, and these days within so man feet from an entrance. In addition to that smokers are taxed, not with the consent of the taxed, but despite it. Allegedly that money goes to support our states indigent health care. Smoking does add to that burden, but not all smokers do.

Little "l" libertarianism in its pure form is classic liberalism. Government has no say in my life unless or until I intrude into or commit an act of aggression on another. Most people agree in principle to this ideal for themselves. We mostly intend no harm to our neighbors. Where this inevitably fails is when people want to then turn around and use the government to commit hostile acts on their neighbors for the sake of structure. I think your house color is ugly and it assaults my eyes so of course we need a planning a zoning commission.

There is a very practical reason for blue states having large cities and red states having a lot of elbow room. It is much easier to speak of minding ones own business and having government do so as well when you have room to spread out. I have recently lived where I has only three neighbors within rifle range.

Click to expand...

Libsam said:

I think the poster you are talking about is Nubian_Legend.
I liked his Newbian ass too.

Click to expand...

query said:

I gave him crap designed for Zumi, so I owe him an apology when I bump into him. I'm piling up sins and I have no indulgences on file.

Click to expand...

rosco rathbone said:

If you have subforums, where do the partisans meet to do battle?

Click to expand...

Laurel said:

Exactly. Subforums would be lame.

Click to expand...

miles said:

Just like this one.

Click to expand...

miles said:

Just like this one.

Click to expand...

query said:

I think it is good, and telling, that both parties denigrate libertarians. A lot of libertarians share majority support and have no, "Well we have always voted for" baggage.

A relatively new poster that I erroneously thought was a Zumi alt made a very interesting statement the other day. I'll link it up if I can find it.

He said words to the effect that yes, Democrats have not improved the lot of the Black community, but Republicans are not even giving lip service. He liked a couple of things in Rand Paul's rhetoric. Paul is, of course, a more politically realistic libertarian in sheep's clothing.

There is a lot to like in the libertarian ideology. A little something for everyone. I had a thread to that effect. I'll see about bumping it. Where libertarianism fails is by cannibalism. The concept of non-aggression tends to aggressively eat it's young. No one ever seems to be ideologically pure enough for big "L" Libertarians.

All 3 parts are aptly named. If you do not capitalize the names, they do describe core philosphys. Mind you, none of the Washington pols seem to adhere to their guiding principles but I will outline them here:

Little "r" republicanism" is supposed to be about self-rule. Government at the local level. Thousands of small republics as described in some of the earliest philosophical treatises on governance. Governence closest to the people governed is thought to be best. Weak central governance is desired. Decisions made locally. The fail of big "R" Republicanism are legion. Local governments have budgets, they spend for things they cannot afford and look to the counties who look to the allegedly soverien State that they are located in. States usually have to balance budgets for practical or State constitutional reasons. SO they turn to the national government for funds in every category. The reason this is done is because the nation can deficit spend. The money comes with restrictions. A poison pill. The States, mostly run by big "R" Republicans these days eagerly gobble the carrot, while hollering "States Rights!" You cannot have it both ways you have to decline money with strings or accept the strings. The biggest fail, and it took me until maybe the last 5-6 years to get this, is that our foreign policy is completely anathema to this ideal. If we like local rule and control, why would we dictate to some tribe on the Pakistani/Afghani border how they should be governed? Properly constituted, little "r" republicanism is, in fact, classic liberalism. Des and I were discussing the fact that Americans do not know the actual meaning of liberal.

Next are fans of the concept of democracy. I'll be brief and endeavor to minimize snark, as I am not a fan. I'll leave it to others that support the view to elaborate the positives if they will. Big "D" democrats are of a mind that majority rule tends to give the best results because it involves the collective power of many individual minds looking for the best solutions. Detractors complain (and founders warned) that democracy can devolve to individuals voting themselves benefits at the expense of the others. In an effort to avoid bomb-throwing on that, I will point to cigarette taxes. Once the number of smokers reached minority status it was easy in my state to virtually outlaw smoking inside any public place, and these days within so man feet from an entrance. In addition to that smokers are taxed, not with the consent of the taxed, but despite it. Allegedly that money goes to support our states indigent health care. Smoking does add to that burden, but not all smokers do.

Little "l" libertarianism in its pure form is classic liberalism. Government has no say in my life unless or until I intrude into or commit an act of aggression on another. Most people agree in principle to this ideal for themselves. We mostly intend no harm to our neighbors. Where this inevitably fails is when people want to then turn around and use the government to commit hostile acts on their neighbors for the sake of structure. I think your house color is ugly and it assaults my eyes so of course we need a planning a zoning commission.

There is a very practical reason for blue states having large cities and red states having a lot of elbow room. It is much easier to speak of minding ones own business and having government do so as well when you have room to spread out. I have recently lived where I has only three neighbors within rifle range.

Click to expand...

Que said:

That's why I thought he was you. It was un-zumi like.

I did lose it. that was the point. Anyone wants to troll me endlessly I will lose it on their ass. A barb or two is slings an arrows. Anyone making a career of it will find the cost exorbitant. Wasn't an alt, so much as a satellite, a drone, a decoy. Exactly like those noisemakers subs deploy. I was told it was futile. You will notice, only lil latent robbie persists in calling me queer as an insult. Cowslinger and I have exchanged pleasantly in a music thread, and rob, though, he must show his bravado does not insult my kids.

I agree that in hindsight if you wanted to be an alt, and you definitely did not want it linked you would do so. No one has ever even thought one of my alts is an alt. Like I have no idea who stew is but we all understand he is an alt. None of mine till vader was a cartoon.

I rarely interact in anyway with an alt of mine but I do cross paths with them enough that avoidance is not a tel either. I only have four that are active posters.

There are a couple I set up for actual live people that are not me that I could control, but don't and a handful that would let me borrow them, if needed. Alts are fun from a creative writing perspective. You have to actually be someone else for it to work. Schizophrenia helps.

When my wife and I were active posters, I usually didn't actually do the typing but some of her responses I generated.

Click to expand...