Comment history

Open forum, Feb 23-March 1

"*As far as *I* go; I think Libertarian first and Socialist second. Usually a distant second but I’ve always believed in a government safety net for those who truly need help and other appropriate uses for government at one level or another. I’m highly partisan as to which party I vote for as I’ve come to view the Democrat party as a party of socialism, which I think will eventually come to no good end. While I’m probably more Libertarian than Republican, based on social issues, I’ll wear the label of right-winger gladly over that of leftist." -- kn_dalai — February 23, 2015 at 5:22 p.m.

March 1, 2015 at 5:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Feb 23-March 1

"Thank you knd." -- nailingit — March 1, 2015 at 5:32 p.m.

Always hard for you hard core Leftists to have your little inwardly turned minds rattled. You're quite welcome

March 1, 2015 at 5:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Feb 23-March 1

Hawkman — March 1, 2015 at 5:03 p.m.

Mental notes Hawkman. No big deal. Considering that the C3G2 guy does these analysis, and that it is Manthou that brought up the 715 number, and considering how serious the C3G2ers take their little group there, I think your sarcasm is misplaced.

Translation for nailingit: L.O.L.

March 1, 2015 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Feb 23-March 1

As of October 31, there were 610 C3G2 members. As of today there are 715. A gain of 105 in 4 months, not the 50 to 70 or so gain they had every month, for the first few months. Organizations often have rapid initial growth and then plateau. Same thing often happens when some business has a hot new product. Fast sales growth, which leads to a more saturated market followed by slower growth afterwards. In C3G2’s case, the slowdown is by both percentage and raw numbers. One of their administrators did a profile of the group several months ago, from which I inferred him to believe that the fast growth was going to continue. Nope. It’s why I finally made a mental note of the membership number 4 months ago. This administrator even made a comparison to DM’s FB page “likes”, which was around 1600 to 1800 then, if memory serves. Now stands at 1946. Assuming that this is not a fake number. He also made some comparison of the C3G2 membership total to the numbers of participants in national polls which are used to project outcomes, as if the C3G2 was a random sample of the population. Which it clearly is not. Membership roster is a who’s who of local Leftists and Leftist office holders. With some few exceptions. Very few. The discourse, such as it is, is heavily skewed. C3G2 is largely a watering hole for Democrats, and is not, nor will it be, some political force to be reckoned with. Always interesting to note those whose work has been in government, and the correlation to their political views.

March 1, 2015 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Feb 23-March 1

A couple of years ago, Democrat State Representative Moeller advocated to readers of the FB comments section, that voters vote the straight party line. The reason being that Democrats caucus and vote with Democrats, and Republicans do the same. It’s really not hard to find die hard Democrats or die hard Republicans on the FB side, for just one example.

Considering the infighting of various factions going on within the Republican Party Jacjak, I’d think your phrases about herding cats and nailing down tried and true universal standards, are currently, considerably more apropos of Republicans than of Democrats.

February 28, 2015 at 5:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Feb 23-March 1

About those whackadoo philosophies or opinions Manthou. A bit like thinking IGWT is leading to a theocracy.

There’s a difference between “passive” and “active”.

While placing IGWT in the commissioner’s hearing room may be repugnant to some, and has legitimate constitutional questions, it DOES NOT require any action on one’s part. Government ordered vaccination DOES require compliance through action and is authoritarian. An argument used against the ACA. Direct taxation by the federal government also requires an action by individuals, which individuals have no choice over, and required a constitutional amendment.

Flu is communicable, yet vaccinations are not mandatory. Nor should they be. There is some risk in inoculations. Recall Roger’s recent bout of illness after receiving a flu shot.

Some foreign countries may require vaccinations before being allowed entrance. If one does not want to get inoculations, then don’t travel to those countries. Likewise, if the U.S. federal government requires vaccinations for entry into this country, then either get the shots, or stay out. One’s choice.

Those who receive the vaccine, will not become ill from contagion, or almost no chance anyway. It’s those who do not receive the vaccine that are at risk. So what’s the problem? Seems like another case of government protecting individuals from themselves.

February 28, 2015 at 4:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Feb 23-March 1

"You seem to have that need, it's weird." -- Hawkman — February 24, 2015 at 7:53 p.m.

I’ll tell you what’s weird. It’s going around talking about the politics of Conservatives and Liberals, and not even being able to describe what those terms mean.

Every once in a while, there’s been some LTTE, where the letter writer brings out the dictionary and says the definition of “liberal” is “generous”, and then tries to apply that to “Liberal” in politics, which has nothing to do with anything.

It’s all about what the role of government is seen to be. Should it be to fill in potholes, or provide mental health services? Whatever it is, it’s going to lead to other issues like taxes, for one thing.

There’s the plant above ground, and there’s what you don’t see underground. There’s a common thread that runs through different lines of political thought. If one thinks you can take “this” issue, and think it’s separate from “that” issue, they’re just not seeing what’s going on here.

Given the above, I question just who it is that’s weird. Hawkman.

February 25, 2015 at 6:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Feb 23-March 1

Hawkman — February 24, 2015 at 6:14 p.m.

You're losing me a bit here.

You said "labels". I take it that we can agree on labels being descriptions?

A label in politics, refers to a group who hold some commonality in political thinking. Certainly, there's a difference between Leftists and Right-wingers. Politics is all about those differences and similarities. So yes, I put people in those boxes, as you say, as a description of their politics, not as an invective.

Give me an example of my inappropriate use of labels.

February 24, 2015 at 6:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Feb 23-March 1

Hawkman — February 24, 2015 at 5:04 p.m.

Yes, the term Republican is a descriptive generalization. What labels are you referring to, that I use, that are NOT descriptive generalizations?

February 24, 2015 at 5:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, Feb 23-March 1

Hawkman — February 24, 2015 at 4:22 p.m

And when one refers to Republicans, or in you're case the more disparaging term "Repuiblican'ts", is this not a label?

February 24, 2015 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )