RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more

RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/24/2017 5:09:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 I don't buy this judgment for a second. I don't know a thing in life that cannot ultimately be traced back to differences between left and right. that's not being "blinded by partisanship", that's being true to oneself and a reasoned, developed worldview. Of this, I am sure.

Wayward5oul -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/24/2017 5:13:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: that's not being "blinded by partisanship", that's being true to oneself and a reasoned, developed worldview. Green eggs and ham. Tell it, brother! Yes because a reasoned, developed worldview is one where everyone not on the right is your enemy. Gotcha.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/24/2017 7:07:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Maybe the problem is that you're trumpeting Economic Nationalism, but not really, but there are some good ideas there, but it's also repulsive, and yet you can see how certain situations call for it, and oh by the way the health care system in the UK is failing, and also we need to have tougher immigration policies, oh and also you're not really completely sure what Economic Nationalism is. Or... maybe the problem is that you are choosing a different definition of Economic Nationalism than the one I defined in my posts. One that is repulsive to yourself and likely most people. Perhaps your visceral reaction to your own definition of Economic Nationalism is driving you to constantly falsely imply that I am asserting things, when in fact I am not (and in many cases asserting the opposite). That being said, you soundly reject any possible consideration that immigration, in some cases has led to burdening existing social programs. e.g. (paraphrasing) "Immigration had NOTHING to do with the increased patient load and doctors fleeing. It was austerity and budget cuts. That's the REAL reason!" Why? Because to consider otherwise would be to consider "Economic Nationalism", and "Economic Nationalism" is EVIL!!!! Just an observation.

heavyblinker -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/25/2017 5:38:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 How am I incorrect? I indicated in two separate posts that Economic Nationalism did not automatically mean tariffs. How does Economic Nationalism LEAD to trade wars as I have defined it? I prefer the definition from this link: https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/03/21/economic-nationalism/ Economic nationalism is best defined as an umbrella term for the variety of economic theories and policies that prioritize the economic interests of one nation, and its citizens, above those of another. NOTE: I do NOT endorse the link in its entirety, NOR its endorsement of Trump, or Bannon How does an umbrella term for a variety of economic theories automatically LEAD to trade wars? It seems that you had your own pre-defined definition of the term, and simply took license with attributing your definition to my post and me. Congrats on finding an article in support of Economic Nationalism, but I am convinced you're merely responding to the tone of the article and not actually thinking through what it says. So if the economic policies 'prioritize the economic interests of one nation, and its citizens, above those of another.', how can you possibly not see how this could easily lead to a trade war? Here is just an example of the insanity: quote: Economic nationalism would also make America more powerful relative to its rivals (particularly China)—by cutting them off from America’s market, we would undermine the viability of their economic model. So I guess China is just going to let the US undermine the viability of their economic model, allow America to become more powerful, and be perfectly okay with being cut off from America's market? Still, by saying you don't support the concept in its entirety, and since I don't know what you DO support, it's impossible to argue this... you can just keep denying that what I am saying is what you support quote: False. in many states (e.g. California). (OK... maybe not free, but HIGHLY subsidized) I was talking about GOP values, not blue state policies. Do you think California is opposed to 'unskilled' immigration? quote: 1. What "apocalypse"? I do not know of any UK health care apocalypse. 2. What budget cuts? PLEASE point out the budget cut in the graph in this link: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget There IS a budget cut proposed for next year. Perhaps the Doctor shortage, which has been going on for a few years is caused by a future cut announced in January of this year? Here: https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/jun/02/nhs-no-more-cuts-to-social-care http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/commissioning-news/government-announces-200m-cuts-to-public-health-budget/20010183.fullarticle http://www.parapundit.com/archives/007356.html quote: The poll of health leaders was carried out by Populus for the confederation, which represents bodies both commissioning and providing services. Of 313 respondents, 99% agreed and no one disagreed with the proposition that social care cuts were increasing pressure on the NHS as a whole, while 92% agreed and only 2% disagreed that they were increasing pressure on their own organisation. Can you not just look this stuff up yourself? Or read the articles you post beyond the title? https://www.bing.com/search?q=uk+health+care+budget+cuts&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=890ea729ffbe4ee1a920f78deefd9afa&cc=CA&setlang=en-US&PC=DCTS quote: Shit or not... These services cost money, and there are people who are using these services (either free or highly subsidized) that have little or no potential to contribute significantly to the tax base. Now I notice you're not talking about immigrants anymore. So what about the American deadbeats? Why are they less of a problem than the immigrants, which, btw, you haven't actually proven are doing what you claim they are doing. A few personal anecdotes doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. quote: My agreement with Bannon goes as far as this: 1. His comment about GWB 2. High-level (ready for 60 minutes) theory of Economic Nationalism Beyond that, he is a putz. Kind of a harder-edged Bill O'Reilly So basically you like the version of EN that focuses exclusively on the purported benefits, ignores all the dangers and drawbacks, and makes it seem like America can start doing to the rest of the world what Trump has been doing to his investors since the 80s. So if I told you I had a deal for you where it would make me very rich, increase my power and influence, and do considerably less for you (because doing anything more would be a threat to my 'win'), would you take that deal? I don't know how you can separate what Bannon said on 60 minutes from the rest of it... they are inextricable. There is a difference between making a few less advantageous concessions so that a bigger deal can go through (which happens in current trade deals), and openly declaring that anyone who deals with you is gonna get screwed.

heavyblinker -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/25/2017 5:51:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini [sm=agree.gif] Thanks for trying, but most here are blinded by partisanship and beyond hope. A few of us are not, but we are in the clear minority. Not supporting one side or the other doesn't automatically mean that your perspective is superior. I have noticed that you are just as dogmatic, if not even MORE dogmatic about your 'compromise' position than the 'partisans' are about theirs. Seriously, if you were offered 3 glasses-- one with pure water, one half full of poison and the other completely full of poison, would it be most logical to drink the middle one? That is how I view your posts.

heavyblinker -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/25/2017 5:52:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Maybe the problem is that you're trumpeting Economic Nationalism, but not really, but there are some good ideas there, but it's also repulsive, and yet you can see how certain situations call for it, and oh by the way the health care system in the UK is failing, and also we need to have tougher immigration policies, oh and also you're not really completely sure what Economic Nationalism is. Or... maybe the problem is that you are choosing a different definition of Economic Nationalism than the one I defined in my posts. One that is repulsive to yourself and likely most people. Perhaps your visceral reaction to your own definition of Economic Nationalism is driving you to constantly falsely imply that I am asserting things, when in fact I am not (and in many cases asserting the opposite). That being said, you soundly reject any possible consideration that immigration, in some cases has led to burdening existing social programs. e.g. (paraphrasing) "Immigration had NOTHING to do with the increased patient load and doctors fleeing. It was austerity and budget cuts. That's the REAL reason!" Why? Because to consider otherwise would be to consider "Economic Nationalism", and "Economic Nationalism" is EVIL!!!! Just an observation. More like you are pretending that what you think you support can be separated from what I am discussing.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/25/2017 7:21:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 How am I incorrect? I indicated in two separate posts that Economic Nationalism did not automatically mean tariffs. How does Economic Nationalism LEAD to trade wars as I have defined it? I prefer the definition from this link: https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/03/21/economic-nationalism/ Economic nationalism is best defined as an umbrella term for the variety of economic theories and policies that prioritize the economic interests of one nation, and its citizens, above those of another. NOTE: I do NOT endorse the link in its entirety, NOR its endorsement of Trump, or Bannon How does an umbrella term for a variety of economic theories automatically LEAD to trade wars? It seems that you had your own pre-defined definition of the term, and simply took license with attributing your definition to my post and me. Congrats on finding an article in support of Economic Nationalism, but I am convinced you're merely responding to the tone of the article and not actually thinking through what it says. Thank you indeed fro the congratulations. Please understand, that I was posting from my own thought. I had no real need for an article at all except for a specific purpose. (And that purpose, you completely missed, as I expected) More below quote: So if the economic policies 'prioritize the economic interests of one nation, and its citizens, above those of another.', how can you possibly not see how this could easily lead to a trade war? Countries develop economic policies all the time to prioritize their economic interests above other nations. That is what nations do all the time!!! I f negotiations occur where one nation's interests are prioritized and met, while, WITHOUT de-prioritizing that nations interest meet another nations prioritized interest, a trade AGREEMENT is reached (and trade war is avoided) The alternative is a Trade WAR which hurts the economic interest of both nations. The result of this is called a TRADE AGREEMENT. It is mind boggling that you fail to understand this. quote: Here is just an example of the insanity: quote: Economic nationalism would also make America more powerful relative to its rivals (particularly China)—by cutting them off from America’s market, we would undermine the viability of their economic model. So I guess China is just going to let the US undermine the viability of their economic model, allow America to become more powerful, and be perfectly okay with being cut off from America's market? Still, by saying you don't support the concept in its entirety, and since I don't know what you DO support, it's impossible to argue this... you can just keep denying that what I am saying is what you support I posted the article for a clearer definition of how I use the term "Economic Nationalism". Nothing more. (An "umbrella" term meaning we need to prioritize our economic interests (particularly in three areas: Our trade agreements, our alliances, and our immigration policies). There are various tactics that ALL nations employ EVERY day in those areas. RE: China, yes we could negotiate (or at least attempt to negotiate) more favorable deals with China, which very well could include restricting their access to our market. As to cutting them off? Doubtful. quote: quote: False. in many states (e.g. California). (OK... maybe not free, but HIGHLY subsidized) I was talking about GOP values, not blue state policies. Do you think California is opposed to 'unskilled' immigration? I hope they are! quote: quote: 1. What "apocalypse"? I do not know of any UK health care apocalypse. 2. What budget cuts? PLEASE point out the budget cut in the graph in this link: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget There IS a budget cut proposed for next year. Perhaps the Doctor shortage, which has been going on for a few years is caused by a future cut announced in January of this year? Here: https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/jun/02/nhs-no-more-cuts-to-social-care http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/commissioning-news/government-announces-200m-cuts-to-public-health-budget/20010183.fullarticle http://www.parapundit.com/archives/007356.html quote: The poll of health leaders was carried out by Populus for the confederation, which represents bodies both commissioning and providing services. Of 313 respondents, 99% agreed and no one disagreed with the proposition that social care cuts were increasing pressure on the NHS as a whole, while 92% agreed and only 2% disagreed that they were increasing pressure on their own organisation. Can you not just look this stuff up yourself? Or read the articles you post beyond the title? https://www.bing.com/search?q=uk+health+care+budget+cuts&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=890ea729ffbe4ee1a920f78deefd9afa&cc=CA&setlang=en-US&PC=DCTS I will concede the point. I was probably lazy in my research. (I have no GOOD excuse. In reality, I was taking a break from working on my 2018 OpEx budget) HOWEVER: I cannot find (again still lazy) find any ACTUAL evidence of a budget cut. I do see the announcement and the related perception. http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs quote: quote: Shit or not... These services cost money, and there are people who are using these services (either free or highly subsidized) that have little or no potential to contribute significantly to the tax base. Now I notice you're not talking about immigrants anymore. So what about the American deadbeats? Why are they less of a problem than the immigrants, which, btw, you haven't actually proven are doing what you claim they are doing. A few personal anecdotes doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. I hate to tell you this... But EVERY single post of yours is one GIANT strawman. I was responding to a post of yours, and none of the points to which I responded, addressed immigrants. These "deadbeats" as YOU call them, could indeed be a problem. "Deadbeats" (again YOUR word), people who don't contribute to society, and utilize services are a burden to any society. (And NO, that does NOT include Retired Seniors , or Veterans, as were included in Romney's 47% comment) quote: quote: My agreement with Bannon goes as far as this: 1. His comment about GWB 2. High-level (ready for 60 minutes) theory of Economic Nationalism Beyond that, he is a putz. Kind of a harder-edged Bill O'Reilly So basically you like the version of EN that focuses exclusively on the purported benefits, ignores all the dangers and drawbacks, and makes it seem like America can start doing to the rest of the world what Trump has been doing to his investors since the 80s. I like the idea that we should prioritize our Economic interests over other nations. (As all other nations do with their own economic interests. quote: So if I told you I had a deal for you where it would make me very rich, increase my power and influence, and do considerably less for you (because doing anything more would be a threat to my 'win'), would you take that deal? No. Would you? quote: I don't know how you can separate what Bannon said on 60 minutes from the rest of it... DING DING DING!!!!!! That is the HEART, the CRUX... THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!! quote: they are inextricable. Not to a free thinking person, who is free to develop his/her own ideas separate from someone ELSE's defined ideology. quote: There is a difference between making a few less advantageous concessions so that a bigger deal can go through (which happens in current trade deals), and openly declaring that anyone who deals with you is gonna get screwed. Yes!!! That's a start.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/25/2017 8:24:59 AM)
quote: I don't know a thing in life that cannot ultimately be traced back to differences between left and right. How would you know, seeing as you have no fucking clue what either of those terms means.

heavyblinker -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/25/2017 9:08:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: So if I told you I had a deal for you where it would make me very rich, increase my power and influence, and do considerably less for you (because doing anything more would be a threat to my 'win'), would you take that deal? No. Would you? Then why are you linking to articles about Economic Nationalism, saying you agree with 'some of it', etc.? It seems to me that what you agree with has nothing to do with Economic Nationalism. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: I don't know how you can separate what Bannon said on 60 minutes from the rest of it... DING DING DING!!!!!! That is the HEART, the CRUX... THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!! I probably should have said that you can't do it. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: they are inextricable. Not to a free thinking person, who is free to develop his/her own ideas separate from someone ELSE's defined ideology. 'Free thinking' as in 'changing the meaning of words to mean things that they don't actually mean'? This is probably why this exchange is so confusing. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: There is a difference between making a few less advantageous concessions so that a bigger deal can go through (which happens in current trade deals), and openly declaring that anyone who deals with you is gonna get screwed. Yes!!! That's a start. You do know that Economic Nationalism is the latter, right? The former is just normal trade negotiations. Bannon didn't invent normal trade negotiations. I really don't think that anyone in the history of trade deals has ever said 'well, just tell me what would be best for you, never mind what I want... and I'll agree to it'. Is this what you think has been happening?

JustOneWay -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/25/2017 12:50:15 PM)
Agrees. You are not that bad are you? As for you HB scrape them of your shoe and doggie bag the fuckers. A thought A beautiful Notion If you like

Marini -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/25/2017 3:47:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Marini [sm=agree.gif] Thanks for trying, but most here are blinded by partisanship and beyond hope. A few of us are not, but we are in the clear minority. Not supporting one side or the other doesn't automatically mean that your perspective is superior. I have noticed that you are just as dogmatic, if not even MORE dogmatic about your 'compromise' position than the 'partisans' are about theirs. Seriously, if you were offered 3 glasses-- one with pure water, one half full of poison and the other completely full of poison, would it be most logical to drink the middle one? That is how I view your posts. First, you did not know me when I was a "dedicated" Democrat, which has been the majority of my life. Second, I don't come here to "judge" others, but since you brought the topic up---I think much less of you and what you have to say. I find you a liberal bore, on a good day. I personally don't consider my "perspective" superior at all. I could give a rats ass about you, or what you think of me. :) The few posts I have read by you, are almost always the same. Rant, rave, put others down that don't have your point of view, etc. I am so unimpressed, I rarely read what you have to say. Still pondering WHY you found the NEED to tell me, what you "think" of my posts. I don't think much of many on here, but I have been on message boards for 20 years, and realize it is what it is. Bye Felicia [sm=waves.gif]

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (10/25/2017 6:12:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Then why are you linking to articles about Economic Nationalism, saying you agree with 'some of it', etc.? 1. I quoted the definition from the link which most closely matched my own. 2. I do agree with the high level principles quote: It seems to me that what you agree with has nothing to do with Economic Nationalism. I am aware of that. However, what I agree with is Economic Nationalism as I, and the link has defined it. I agree with this part: Economic nationalism is best defined as an umbrella term for the variety of economic theories and policies that prioritize the economic interests of one nation, and its citizens, above those of another. Examples of economic nationalism range from fairly mild protectionist regimes, such as Canada’s protection of its dairy industry, to the mercantile policies adopted by Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution. Either way, the goal of an economic nationalist is to enrich and empower the nation to the maximum possible degree. This is done by instituting policies, such as tariffs, development subsidies, or infrastructure investment programs, that are designed to create, attract, and retain as much economic activity as possible within the nation’s borders. Basically, economic nationalists want to make the national economy as big as possible. These policies are usually imposed on an ad hoc basis, according to the needs of the time—they vary from place to place and region to region, depending on the type of economy in question. For example, a country with bad roads would get the most bang for its buck improving its roads, whereas a country with decent roads may benefit more from improving its airports—it entirely depends on the local context, there is no one size fits all solution. In this way, economic nationalism is not so much a coherent economic model or theory, as it is as collection of policies that have been passed down over time—it evolved as a body of practical knowledge via historical accident, trial and error— Basically it says that we should focus on maximizing our national economy, and be mindful of this when entering into trade agreements with other countries, as well as our own domestic policies. The policies are imposed on an ad hoc basis, based on the current situation. There are a list of POSSIBLE tactics, but no specific tactic that is automatically Economic Nationalism. (Which completely nullifies your ridiculous (in the truest sense of the word) concept that Economic Nationalism means trade wars and xenophobic bigotry. It is just NONSENSE. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: I don't know how you can separate what Bannon said on 60 minutes from the rest of it... DING DING DING!!!!!! That is the HEART, the CRUX... THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!! I probably should have said that you can't do it. Bullshit. I can do it and have done it. Who are you to tell me, that if I agree with what Steve Bannon said on 60 minutes, that I have to agree with every repulsive thing your strawman posts conjure? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: they are inextricable. Not to a free thinking person, who is free to develop his/her own ideas separate from someone ELSE's defined ideology. 'Free thinking' as in 'changing the meaning of words to mean things that they don't actually mean'? This is probably why this exchange is so confusing. "Changing the meaning"???? From Webster Dictionary... Economic of or relating to economics Nationalism loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups Gee? Sound pretty close to MY definition????? Economic nationalism is best defined as an umbrella term for the variety of economic theories and policies that prioritize the economic interests of one nation, and its citizens, above those of another. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: There is a difference between making a few less advantageous concessions so that a bigger deal can go through (which happens in current trade deals), and openly declaring that anyone who deals with you is gonna get screwed. Yes!!! That's a start. You do know that Economic Nationalism is the latter, right? The former is just normal trade negotiations. Bannon didn't invent normal trade negotiations. I really don't think that anyone in the history of trade deals has ever said 'well, just tell me what would be best for you, never mind what I want... and I'll agree to it'. Is this what you think has been happening? Sorry.... More strawman nonsense.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (11/1/2017 8:48:49 PM)
OMG. First Steve Bannon... Now Mitch McConnell!!!! Mitch McConnell!!! Have you ever HEARD Mitch McConnell???? I actually agree with Mitch McConnell, who said "I would like to move to a merit-based immigration system." I am going to need some R&R... agreeing with these people... Although his comment in response to the charge that Trump shouldn't make judicial appointments while his people are under indictment. He said, the President is duly elected and within his rights to make judicial appointments :) (Except if the President is Obama)

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (11/1/2017 9:30:42 PM)
Dafuq?

Dom4u678ASFAOQ -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (11/2/2017 4:36:06 PM)
I have a limit

Dom4u678ASFAOQ -> RE: I find myself agreeing with Bannon more and more (11/2/2017 4:37:39 PM)
even fucking garbage does not want you - ask around granny

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875