Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
just after i tried to raise a question about the notion of the "free market"--which you ignored--and which you then follow with a series of empty propositions that echo conservative buzzwords (not more regulation but better regulation--what does that mean? anything?)
and yet, after a post like this, you demand of host that he "add something of substance"???
|
It is very simple roach, I followed a trend.
The topic of free-markets was brought up by both sides, not by me. I merely echoed the fact that this topic came up on more than one occasion and seemed to have some similarities in opinion.
#1 - I am not setting any course, I am just looking for ideas that have real room for discussion.
#2 - I asked for opinions on what I observed--nothing tyrannical here, I wanted input on the trends I thought came from this discussion. If you'll notice how I ended my post you would see that I asked for opinion on my take.
#3 - host was just looking for a thread to post his DeLay comment--I think it is just chance that it ended up here in this thread. Usually he starts a new thread for his comments like this, why he added it here I don't know.
#4 - I have refused nothing, rather I have asked for more input from you that is constructive. I know how you feel roach, I didn't need to see it repeated several times. As I said before, if you view this as flawed, offer up some options. Give us some alternatives that would help you accept the idea more. Asking for your suggestions is the polar opposite of refusing anything, yet you still do not offer anything.
As to some of your other comments:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
just after i tried to raise a question about the notion of the "free market"--which you ignored
|
My first comment was my answer your post, yes it was flippant, but that was my response
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
not more regulation but better regulation--what does that mean? anything?
|
Very simple, enforce the regulation we already have. Why add more regulations that won't be enforced?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
you have no problem with wholly reactionary posts about welfare, that are predicated start to finish on the right's conventional "wisdom" concerning its origin, function and effects. every single element of that "understanding" of the welfare system is historically false, intellectually vacant and politically dangerous. but you are fine with it....as if it is obvious that the problem with the welfare system resides with th poor--which is insane outside the narrow world of rightwing ideology...that this bigger problem can be reduced to some kind of absurd "moral" question (see above)--and that from this it follows that unbelievably draconian, wholly illegal tyeps of searching/screening can be put into place.
you accept this kind of crap as rational.
|
You will notice that issues related to "welfare" came from both sides--not just the "right wingers".
You can call the people who hold such opinions "intellectually vacant", but I think you only hurt yourself by doing that. At this point, I am simply ignoring your "right wing" and "conservative discourse" comments--as mentioned earlier, I have been pleasantly surprised by comments made by people on the other side of the aisle, and I think the opposite is true as well.
I will pose this to you....my final try: You will notice that when I posted my own personal opinions (i.e. the irrational crap) I offered up what I wanted and then I offered up where I was open to negotiation. You will also notice that many other people did the same thing. So, what we did was find areas where the discussion could continue and possible be fruitful, rather than just continue the endless bantering we usually see here. We can sit here and pound on everbody's opinions all day long and get nowhere, but that is not the idea for this thread. So, where are you willing to negotiate? Can you bring anything in that might help us? In order to promote some of your ideas, what would you give up?
And, I missed this when I first read your post:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
just dont pretend that you are or this thread is interested in finding some points of agreement across different political positions. you--and this thread--are about trying to find commanlities amongst political positions that do not have significant ideological differences between them. what is the point of that? you know that there is agreement about basic positions up front.
|
First, several opinions came forth that I didn't expect. Further, I saw wiggle room for discussion that I have not seen before. Many things came out in this thread that were not "basic positions up front". Willravel would be a one example; I saw places where discussion could continue that I wasn't aware of prior to his comments here in this thread.
Judging by comments by others in this thread, I think many disagree with your assessment/dismissal of this thread and the participants in this thread.