Jump to content
Craig234

I'm concerned this forum has 22,000 posts while the 'open' forum has 1,500,000

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Craig234 said:

Is it really that much more useful or fun to talk to right-wing trolls and others?

No and no.  Took me a week or so to realize that this is nothing but a conservative sausagefest with a “warden” who admonished me for being “angry” ... and  told me, “I will win” ... because I said, “Do not ever call me ‘dear’ “.  Love the moderators, but other than that, this is nothing but a place to visit every once in awhile to see how big the fonts that the cons are using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TruroBeth said:

No and no.  Took me a week or so to realize that this is nothing but a conservative sausagefest with a “warden” who admonished me for being “angry” ... and  told me, “I will win” ... because I said, “Do not ever call me ‘dear’ “.  Love the moderators, but other than that, this is nothing but a place to visit every once in awhile to see how big the fonts that the cons are using.

 

I have noticed that the cons love to post more-than-a-page posts of huge colored fonts and meme pictures as if that sort of screaming makes their points better.

 

I've never interacted with 'the warden' - I only just saw his name this evening, in the thread about the moderator change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Craig234 said:

 

I have noticed that the cons love to post more-than-a-page posts of huge colored fonts and meme pictures as if that sort of screaming makes their points better.

 

I've never interacted with 'the warden' - I only just saw his name this evening, in the thread about the moderator change.

Well, you are a guy.  I got, like, a “welcome” thing from him about how I would learn from him or some such nonsense, and that set off a series of useless bullshit.  It really is a stupid waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always good to come in here and wash off :) Talk with the smart people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm concerned that this forum has 22,000 posts while the open forum has 1, 500, 000

 

When the amount of mostly specious or meaningless posts on NHB are subtracted from posts of substance, the result might even be fewer posts than in the 22,000 in the Liberal's Only Room.  Although not always the case, posts, in this room tend, by far, to consist of much more meaningful content.

 

I sometimes post in NHB but find it mostly an exercise in futility.  More power to the Liberals who seem to enjoy battling adolescent, Conservative, delusions of rebelliousness against a mostly imaginary Liberal establishment, which has been implanted in their minds by the well-funded, pervasive Right Wing Noise Machine ...  Huge images, big fonts and impotent messages.  In other words, superficiality without substance.

 

As I understand it, when this forum first started, there were mostly Liberals and debate was at a higher level.  Inevitably, Conservatives joined the forum to mock, jeer and try to taunt Liberals.  There was much unrest and the that's when the Liberal's Only Room was started.  In the beginning, this room was far more active than it is now, consisting of many Liberals, not used to gross Conservative tactics.  Gradually, the old timers dropped out to leave what you see now.

 

The powers that be here, including the owner, David_R and "The Warden",  teacher, feel that NHB, gives LIBERALFORUM its unique character.  Teacher sometimes refers to it (paraphrasing) as the "Wild West Of The Internet".  Personally, I feel, many Liberals are drawn here by the name LIBERALFORUM and then feel deceived, and leave when they see it's true nature.  If it was up to me, it would be otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did an experiment tonight, asking for one right-winger to post one civil, rational post on a topic of their choice. Not one did.

 

I see that as its own important issue - a big part of our society unable to function as rational people yet given the power of democracy and responsibility of self-governance.

 

It's a perverse situation when people see democracy provide not protection from tyranny as the people oppose it, but rather the source of tyranny as 'the mob', manipulated, uses its power for wrong.

 

It puts the liberal in the position of needing to choose some control over the people to prevent harm, and that is too high a price. Not only is it too high, but it's also the road to the plutocrats ending democracy - saying 'see, the people elected trump. Is that a system you want to protect?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Craig234 said:

I did an experiment tonight, asking for one right-winger to post one civil, rational post on a topic of their choice. Not one did.

 

The results you got from your experiment were predictable.  They stem from the   1 - The Right Wing 'Cult Of Ignorance' ...  A movement, already popular among the under-educated, and encouraged and exploited by Right Wing politicians.  And  2  -  An inculcated eagerness to mock and taunt, what they see as arrogant, establishment Liberals, using their own irrationality. 

 

The hate of Liberals has been so widely exploited, for so long, by talking heads such as Rush Limbaugh, that it has become an established tactic among many Conservatives.  You can see it all over the board on NHB.

 

The only way to correct this malignant situation would be to get money out of politics, making it unnecessary for Right Wing politicians to find scapegoats, as a smokescreen for their destructive economic policies.  If Bernie Sanders had been nominated and defeated Trump, we would have seen the start of election and lobby reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Middl3 said:

It is always good to come in here and wash off :) Talk with the smart people.

 

Yeah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bludog said:

by talking heads dicks such as Rush Limbaugh

 

Corrected it for you. :D

3 hours ago, bludog said:

The results you got from your experiment were predictable.  They stem from the   1 - The Right Wing 'Cult Of Ignorance' ...  A movement, already popular among the under-educated, and encouraged and exploited by Right Wing politicians.  And  2  -  An inculcated eagerness to mock and taunt, what they see as arrogant, establishment Liberals, using their own irrationality. 


Hence, Middl3's metaphor about washing off.

The feeling I get is that if you lie down with dirty dogs you might get up with fleas. And yet for some reason I still go back there. Probably because there are a few Liberals posting there.

 

Edit to add: I just had a thought. Since the kinds of posts and attitudes we find there are pretty predictable, it shouldn't be too hard to design a bot to post that way.  Responding might be a little harder.

It seems the dominant insult used on me shitstain ... and in Middl3's case shitstainette.

What a bunch o' maroons. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, laripu said:

Corrected it for you. :D

 

Thanks for the correction.  Had I thought of it I would have said "talking heads, dicks, dickheads.

 

5 minutes ago, laripu said:

Hence, Middl3's metaphor about washing off.

The feeling I get is that if you lie down with dirty dogs you might get up with fleas. And yet for some reason I still go back there. Probably because there are a few Liberals posting there.

 

I go back there partly to get reminded of what they are really like.  And partly to join in with Liberals who seem to enjoy battling with the dunderheads in NHB.   More power to those fighting Liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bludog said:

Thanks for the correction.  Had I thought of it I would have said "talking heads, dicks, dickheads.

 

Even better! Nice. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think about it, the  annoying tactics used in NHB (large fonts, large repetitive pictures, insults) are kind of like what Trump used in the campaign.

 

Trump was repetitive and talking over people instead of about what they said.

Trump dished out insults.

 

It's the same strategy: if you can't answer an intelligent logical argument, insult the person making that argument. Yell at them. Intimidate them. Claim that they're an idiot and that you're smarter.

 

Never mind that it's fundamentally 1) dishonest and 2) anti-intellectual.  Let's add one more: it's immoral bullying.

 

It should offend everyone in the Senate and at least half the House. It offends me in NHB. The use of it indicates a poor upbringing.

 

But since it worked for Trump, I expect to see it happen more and more for the rest of my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should let you know that BAC is talking about you guys.  He loves the taste of bullshit and wants to share his special recipes with you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, ScottMon.

 

BAC is a voyeur.  I am aware of his thread.  He can make a dozen more and it wouldn't mean diddley to me.  Bottom line:---  He is dying to post in this room and the frustration is killing him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2017 at 11:27 PM, Craig234 said:

I did an experiment tonight, asking for one right-winger to post one civil, rational post on a topic of their choice. Not one did.

 

I see that as its own important issue - a big part of our society unable to function as rational people yet given the power of democracy and responsibility of self-governance.

 

It's a perverse situation when people see democracy provide not protection from tyranny as the people oppose it, but rather the source of tyranny as 'the mob', manipulated, uses its power for wrong.

 

It puts the liberal in the position of needing to choose some control over the people to prevent harm, and that is too high a price. Not only is it too high, but it's also the road to the plutocrats ending democracy - saying 'see, the people elected trump. Is that a system you want to protect?'

Has Democracy not become an illusion since ww2 with the rise of global corporatism and the military industrial complex which have insulated themselves from congressional oversight to the point of being beyond the reach of our judiciary and has corrupted our political system to such a point that Democracy has become nothing more than an illusion of tradition which keeps the citizens of our nation in check by giving them a sense of power every four years in choosing nothing more than a puppet of corporatism and the military industrial complex no matter who wins, thus keeping the entity that really controls this nation and it's course anonymous?

 

So Craig who really controls this nation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Whitemajikman said:

Has Democracy not become an illusion since ww2 with the rise of global corporatism and the military industrial complex which have insulated themselves from congressional oversight to the point of being beyond the reach of our judiciary and has corrupted our political system to such a point that Democracy has become nothing more than an illusion of tradition which keeps the citizens of our nation in check by giving them a sense of power every four years in choosing nothing more than a puppet of corporatism and the military industrial complex no matter who wins, thus keeping the entity that really controls this nation and it's course anonymous?

 

So Craig who really controls this nation?

 

 

The answer is pretty complicated.

 

We have never really had a democracy close to what it is supposed to be. For just basic issues - for over half our history women couldn't vote, and our country was built on slavery.

 

We've always had a voter base not especially well-informed or picking real representatives, we've always had the powerful as a small ruling class. Until JFK ran the norm, for example,

was for presidential nominees to be picked by party leaders. For over half our history the Senate was not even elected; and now money plays a huge role in who wins.

 

But in important areas, we've never had a more informed electorate with better information available.

 

In my opinion about who controls the nation, it's less a specific who than a class who - that plutocracy is our biggest issue/danger for the people.

 

We have a very broken democracy. Most of the media has a real 'bias' - not a simplistic one, though right-wing media has a simplistic bias for the plutocrats - but a more indirect one that prevents discussion of things like the corruption of our democracy much. And money means the people are not really represented almost at all.

 

And these systems problems have been intentionally locked in by a corrupted Supreme Court, with radicals now holding 5 seats. Best of times, worst of times stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

 

The answer is pretty complicated.

 

We have never really had a democracy close to what it is supposed to be. For just basic issues - for over half our history women couldn't vote, and our country was built on slavery.

 

We've always had a voter base not especially well-informed or picking real representatives, we've always had the powerful as a small ruling class. Until JFK ran the norm, for example,

was for presidential nominees to be picked by party leaders. For over half our history the Senate was not even elected; and now money plays a huge role in who wins.

 

But in important areas, we've never had a more informed electorate with better information available.

 

In my opinion about who controls the nation, it's less a specific who than a class who - that plutocracy is our biggest issue/danger for the people.

 

We have a very broken democracy. Most of the media has a real 'bias' - not a simplistic one, though right-wing media has a simplistic bias for the plutocrats - but a more indirect one that prevents discussion of things like the corruption of our democracy much. And money means the people are not really represented almost at all.

 

And these systems problems have been intentionally locked in by a corrupted Supreme Court, with radicals now holding 5 seats. Best of times, worst of times stuff.

Many of your points are valid when you look upon the problem purely from a political standpoint but in my opinion our political system was totally subverted on 

July 26th, 1947 when Harry S. Truman signed the National security act into law there by creating our national security umbrella which totally neutered our political system and put it in the hands of the military industrial complex which has steered this nation ever since making our political system nothing more than a placebo for the masses.

Truman knew that the National Security act would supercede all future administration's regardless of how our citizens voted in the future thus creating a proverbial shadow government which cannot be Affected by our political system and is above the laws of any future adminstrations that would attempt to dismantle it.

Truman's intentions were to take away the power of our political system and it's constituents and put it into private hands through our national security umbrella which has been doing this since 1947 without the knowledge of "we the people" .

What are your thoughts so far.....good or bad?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Craig234 said:

who controls the nation, it's less a specific who than a class who - that plutocracy is our biggest issue/danger for the people.

 

For those who feel the true greatness of a nation lies in  the "general welfare" of ALL of its citzens,;  And those who have enough self-esteem  to actually care about the quality of life for themselves, their families and their posterity; the rapidly increasing wealth gap between the Plutocrats and the rest of us, is the biggest threat to Representative government in the USA. 

 

The problem of the growing wealth gap and disappearing Middle Class was recognized by only a relative few, until Bernie Sanders ran for the Democratic nomination and publicized the issue.  There were others before Sanders, but none nearly as effective at raising public consciousness about growing wealth inequality.

 

Largely as a result of increasing, legalized bribery and corruption of elected officials, Democracy has become a sham.  Especially since the deliberately misnamed "Citizen's United Decision".  In order to restore power to the electorate again, nothing less will do than separate the Plutocracy from government, ending the stranglehold the Very Rich have on the people, through control of their government. 

 

Plutocrats and their corporations have come far, but the process is not yet complete.  The deeper elected politicians sink into the pockets of the Plutocrats, the harder they will be to oust.  But the cat is out of the bag now and larger numbers of citizens are recognizing the problem.

 

Greed may play a large part as poverty becomes more widespread and the Demand Side collapses for all but necessities, leaving the facilities of production and services idle and unprofitable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Whitemajikman said:

Many of your points are valid when you look upon the problem purely from a political standpoint but in my opinion our political system was totally subverted on 

July 26th, 1947 when Harry S. Truman signed the National security act into law there by creating our national security umbrella which totally neutered our political system and put it in the hands of the military industrial complex which has steered this nation ever since making our political system nothing more than a placebo for the masses.

Truman knew that the National Security act would supercede all future administration's regardless of how our citizens voted in the future thus creating a proverbial shadow government which cannot be Affected by our political system and is above the laws of any future adminstrations that would attempt to dismantle it.

Truman's intentions were to take away the power of our political system and it's constituents and put it into private hands through our national security umbrella which has been doing this since 1947 without the knowledge of "we the people" .

What are your thoughts so far.....good or bad?

 

 

Those really weren't Truman's intentions. When you look at the process of creating the CIA, it had a very good reason - we'd just fought a world war with unreliable intelligence and no central agency to collect and process it. The put a lot of safeguards into the act - but not enough.

 

There was one tiny phrase in the act for the CIA to occasionally perform actions at the direction of the NSC - and that loophole gave all an ambitious Alan Dulles needed to turn the agency into a global monster, not serving loyally at times.

 

Eisenhower let this happen because having led WWII, he did not want another 'hot war', and felt we were spending too much on the military, and the CIA was a way to get results 'on the cheap'.

The first real such mission was when Britain came begging for our help when Iran had had enough of being pressured to sell oil to them below market, and had a democracy in place that was putting an end to it.

 

What to do? They couldn't order Iran to sell it cheap and they weren't willing to make a deal to do so. So what to do? Go to war? Hardly. Pay a fair price? Haha.

 

No, they came up with the great plan of overthrowing the stubborn leader and putting a puppet who would do what we wanted in power. What could go wrong? It worked - with no American casualties at low cost.

 

Not long after, all the hard work the Dulles brothers and others had done for the United Fruit Company in Guatemala to take all the land for them and leave the people poor was in danger from, once again, democracy. What to do? Another puppet and overthrow of democracy, of course, and again it worked well.

 

We did this repeatedly, for short-term benefits of keeping puppets in power. Kennedy wasn't as much a fan - the CIA screwed him quite badly, assassinating the key African leader, Patrice Lumumba just as Kennedy was about to be sworn in to prevent his policy, and giving him the Bay of Pigs - but that was a temporary blip, as their Vietnam project progressed.

 

Presidents found it hard to resist getting their way with the CIA as a tool, instead of going to politically unpopular, internationally condemned, expensive wars.

 

In the 1970s some of the worst acts came to light and some limits were put in place. Since then, it's tended to vary by the party in power. Republicans do wrong - Reagan happily supported death squads, Bush did extraordinary rendition and torture - while Democrats are more restrained, but lately drone-happy.

 

I'd point you to some books with a lot of interesting history to this - start with "The Secret Team" by L. Fletcher Prouty which goes into detail how the CIA seized power, and "The Devil's Chessboard" by David Talbot with a pretty shocking biography of Allen Dulles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

For those who feel the true greatness of a nation lies in  the "general welfare" of ALL of its citzens,;  And those who have enough self-esteem  to actually care about the quality of life for themselves, their families and their posterity; the rapidly increasing wealth gap between the Plutocrats and the rest of us, is the biggest threat to Representative government in the USA. 

 

The problem of the growing wealth gap and disappearing Middle Class was recognized by only a relative few, until Bernie Sanders ran for the Democratic nomination and publicized the issue.  There were others before Sanders, but none nearly as effective at raising public consciousness about growing wealth inequality.

 

Largely as a result of increasing, legalized bribery and corruption of elected officials, Democracy has become a sham.  Especially since the deliberately misnamed "Citizen's United Decision".  In order to restore power to the electorate again, nothing less will do than separate the Plutocracy from government, ending the stranglehold the Very Rich have on the people, through control of their government. 

 

Plutocrats and their corporations have come far, but the process is not yet complete.  The deeper elected politicians sink into the pockets of the Plutocrats, the harder they will be to oust.  But the cat is out of the bag now and larger numbers of citizens are recognizing the problem.

 

Greed may play a large part as poverty becomes more widespread and the Demand Side collapses for all but necessities, leaving the facilities of production and services idle and unprofitable.

 

 

Greed is a misnomer for the issue. It's more systemic.


Greed is just an emotion. Lots of people are greedy, the problem is when they're able to hurt the country with it. The solution is not to get the wealthy to not be greedy. It's not going to happen. The solution is for the people to use the democracy they are lucky to have to place limits on what the wealthy can do.

 

I think FDR was right on target when he advocated a 100% tax above a certain income level. We really need to take to heart Louis Brandeis' statement that we can have democracy or great concentration of wealth, but not both.

 

And that's just our domestic issue, before we even get into the world picture and the coming dominance of the undemocratic force of China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Greed is a misnomer for the issue. It's more systemic.


Greed is just an emotion

 

 

Point taken.

 

2 hours ago, Craig234 said:

Lots of people are greedy, the problem is when they're able to hurt the country with it. The solution is not to get the wealthy to not be greedy. It's not going to happen. The solution is for the people to use the democracy they are lucky to have to place limits on what the wealthy can do.

 

 

I didn't even remotely imply that the solution is to get the wealthy not to be greedy.  I just implied that, as a loose rule, they are greedy.  As are many others, I might add.  In taking exception to one word, you appear to have missed the point.

 

2 hours ago, Craig234 said:

I think FDR was right on target when he advocated a 100% tax above a certain income level. We really need to take to heart Louis Brandeis' statement that we can have democracy or great concentration of wealth, but not both.

 

Agree.

 

2 hours ago, Craig234 said:

And that's just our domestic issue, before we even get into the world picture and the coming dominance of the undemocratic force of China.

 

IMO, China must pursue its own destiny.  The US need not and cannot permanently dominate the world.  Our goals should include peaceful actions like diplomacy, trade, cooperation and collaboration.  

 

The first order of business for a progressive administration, is to get US armed forces out of other countries.  And close down most of our military bases abroad.

Quote

 

Bases.
For this question, we turned to an official Pentagon accounting of U.S. military bases around the nation and the world, the "Base Structure Report, Fiscal 2010 Baseline." According to this report, the U.S. has 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries, which is a smaller number than the 900 bases Paul cited.
Sep 14, 2011

Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 ...

www.politifact.com/truth-o.../ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/

 

 
Defense has become a euphemism for aggression in the American lexicon.  We should be prepared to defend, almost exclusively.  Instead, we have become an aggressor nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to say you were saying the solution is to get the rich not to be greedy. I was making the point that I hear the 'greed' issue a lot, and I think it's not that productive for that reason that it's not gonna get fixed.

 

China's own destiny is likely to affect us and democracy globally I'd guess. Who's to say we're not going to become more like them to compete? Or that the very wealthy class won't find a way to work with China and the US in a way that protects them while hurting the people?

 

Defense is largely a euphemism for aggression or more often control, but the US seems to be relying more and more on military power as the world catches up in other areas. It's dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Craig234 said:

I didn't mean to say you were saying the solution is to get the rich not to be greedy. I was making the point that I hear the 'greed' issue a lot, and I think it's not that productive for that reason that it's not gonna get fixed.

 

OK. OK.  I get it.

 

Leaving out the word "greed", my point was -  As poverty becomes more widespread and the Demand Side collapses for all but necessities, it will leave the facilities of production and services idle and unprofitable.  That might cause some Plutocrats to reconsider since they would be faced with the reality of their own diminished income.

 

1 hour ago, Craig234 said:

China's own destiny is likely to affect us and democracy globally I'd guess. Who's to say we're not going to become more like them to compete? Or that the very wealthy class won't find a way to work with China and the US in a way that protects them while hurting the people?

 

It will be far more beneficial for all if the world's nations, especially the superpowers, to cooperate, even collaborate than bicker and clash.  We all share this Island Earth and what any superpower does is likely to have worldwide repercussions for better or worse.  We are already becoming more like China as the wealth of the US continues be transferred to the very top.  The US, as a whole, is making a mistake by emulating them.  We need to make internal changes.

 

Domestically, the solution for the US is to adopt Democratic Socialism, the same system advocated by Bernie Sanders and practiced in countries as diverse as The Netherlands and New Zealand.  These nations all have highly progressive tax codes with the very wealthy contributing high percentages of their incomes.  There is strong regulation of industry to prevent abuses.  Some form of single payer medical care.  And extremely generous publicly funded social programs and services with a strong social safety net.  The Democratic Socialist countries have free elections and usually practice free trade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Democratic Socialism is similar to what FDR had in mind with his ideas on taxation and his Economic Bill Of Rights.

 

1 hour ago, Craig234 said:

Defense is largely a euphemism for aggression or more often control, but the US seems to be relying more and more on military power as the world catches up in other areas. It's dangerous.

 

Totally agree.  We need to get out of the World Police business while maintaining a strong defense capability, if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 11:03 PM, Middl3 said:

It is always good to come in here and wash off :) Talk with the smart people.

Yep. Also going to another board I frequent that doesn't tolerate  trolls or right wingers bullshit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×