Episode-876- Listener Calls for 4-9-12
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (21.7MB)
Expert Council Member Darby Simpson's Chicken Tractor
So we preempted the Friday call in show last week so we will make up for it today and move the email feedback show to Tuesday. Today I take your calls on investing, martial law, pastured poultry, the Keystone pipeline, libertarian ideals, making jerky, gold and silver and more.
Remember to be on a show like this one just pick up your phone and call 866-65-THINK. The best way to improve your chances of being on the air is ask your question or make your point up front, then provide details.
Also please do your best to call from a quite area with a good connection and speak up so you can be well heard. I can’t put all calls on the air but I do my best to get most of them on.
Join Us Today as we Discuss…
- Increasing your investing knowledge
- Stocking density for pastured poultry
- What might martial law be like and what might cause it
- The Keystone Pipeline and what happens if we don’t complete it
- How I now describe a vote, “my endorsement as a citizen”
- Dealing with ground that has been infected with toxic chemicals
- Banks are still lending here is what to do if you’re turned down on a mortgage
- Jerky is it safe with out cooking or sodium nitrate/nitrite
- A common collapse myth about gold and or silver
- Thoughts on a libertarian view of zoning laws and deprogramming
Additional Resources for Today’s Show
- Members Support Brigade
- TSP Gear Shop
- Join Our Forum
- Harvest Eating – (sponsor of the day)
- Western Botanicals – (sponsor of the day)
- My Videos on Biltong – Part One and Part Two
- China’s Oil Grab – Carson is Right
- Darby’s Links for Pastured Chickens
- Darby’s Chicken Tractors – (there are several hover at the top to see forward and back arrows)
- Hoop House Plans that Darby Modified into a Chicken Tractor – PDF
- Another Type of Chicken Tractor
- More on Pastured Poultry and Chicken Tractoring – PDF
Remember to comment, chime in and tell us your thoughts, this podcast is one man’s opinion, not a lecture or sermon. Also please enter our listener appreciation contest and help spread the word about our show. Also remember you can call in your questions and comments to 866-65-THINK and you might hear yourself on the air.
Hooah! Love these listener call shows, especially since you added the Expert Panel.
@Jack,
Your choice to view your vote as an endorsement explains a lot of what you’ve said. However, I don’t see it that way at all–for me.
Perhaps I have a more radical view, but government is something to be tolerated from step one. As a free human (in principle) my need to tolerate government is dumping true principle in the first place. Government itself is a necessary evil, and every participant in it, no matter how “good” they are is still a participant in a necessary evil.
As such EVERY vote for someone given power over me (which is what government inherently does–even the ideal version of our Constitution) is a compromise (choosing the lesser of two evils). The ONLY good, which is unfortunately not realistic, is to NOT have government over me at all.
So, I have a different view–I am not providing ANY politician my personal endorsement, and I don’t anticipate I ever would. Not one of them has ever earned it. If any of them ever did, I suppose I would offer it, but I doubt it will ever happen.
So, I suppose “principles” is all based on where we draw those lines. On PURE principle, ALL government is a compromise, and a surrender of these pure principles. Reality is that it is necessary, and everything else that derives from that is a compromise.
@KAM
Why is government a necessary ‘evil’? (I’ll take this into the forums before getting into it too much, but..)
Why are we propogandized into believing that the best we can hope for from a government is ‘less evil’? Why shoot for something other than what we want? Good government.
I would consider a government that keeps the strong from oppressing/enslaving the weak, and administered a just court system to be good. I would happily support such a government.
By harboring and promoting the idea that the best you can hope for is ‘a little less’ injustice, theft, and oppression, you’re virtually guaranteeing the growth of those very things.
When someone oppressing you says you’re ‘being unreasonable to expect better’. Its not time to agree, and accept, as a compromise, (to show your ‘reasonableness’) a slight loosening of your chains. Its time to become downright unreasonable.
@Insidious,
First, most of your post is not really relating to what I was saying (or trying to). My point was that having ANY government is in itself a compromise from my perspective. It just happens to be one that is extremely practical, and thus I accept it, but that doesn’t mean I will pretend that it is ideal, or that it matches my ideal principles.
Let me be clear, NECESSARY in my view means that it is better than the alternative–on a practical, realistic level. Perhaps the term “Necessary EVIL” is a bit overstated. Perhaps “Necessary, lack-of-ideal” would be closer.
My point is that MY principles say that ideally people should not need government to get along, but because we are flawed, we do. I guess another way of saying that is that OUR evil necessitates government existing.
Even a beneficial (you could say “good”) government is a compromise of the ideal principle in my view. It is just the BETTER of the options available.
So, that’s why all this talk about voting isn’t really striking a chord with me. Having the practical need to participate in government of any type is already operating in a state of compromise.
Again, please note, I am not denying the practical need for government in any of this, but practical and principled are not always the same thing.
Some people think that Voting for Ron Paul is adhering to some principle but voting for Romney or whoever isn’t. I say, you’ve already set the bar too low, if that’s your line of principle. But that’s really up to each individual.
For me, voting isn’t about me making a statement or making myself feeling better in regards to my “principles.” It’s a practical matter plain and simple, and it sure isn’t my personal endorsement. Like anything involving government it is a necessary ‘evil’ (or compromise, whatever you want to call it).
@KAM
My post wasn’t a direct response to what you were saying, it was a reaction to the stock phrase about government. I also realize that you were directing a question/statement to Jack (which most people are doing in these notes).. in the future I’ll try and restrain myself from ‘answering his mail’.
I would like to address your response however. ‘Ideally people should not need government..because we are flawed we do.. government is a compromise of the ideal principle in my view..practical and principled are not only the same thing’
My objection to this line of thinking is this: your ‘principles’ exist only in an imaginary, ‘ideal’ world. A world where the people, unlike those in ‘reality’, have no need of government due to their superior characters. With all of your idealism, safely off in an imaginary world, this one, the real one, the one we’re all living in, is left with only your ‘practicality’ in choosing between ‘necessary evils’.
The propaganda here?
‘This world is flawed and evil. Idealism and principles are for a better place, a different place.. for heaven, for utopia (literally ‘no place’). In this world you need to be ‘practical’. To ‘compromise’. What good are your fine principles if they cost you your survival?’
I reject this thinking. I’m not rejecting the speaker, I don’t think the speaker believes these things.
I think there is just a lot of people repeating what they’ve heard or read.. who, when asked ‘Why?’ can only answer ‘Because! Everyone Knows X!’ Without any rational explanation as to why THEY believe it.
Our principles are needed in THIS world, the real world, the one we’re all inhabiting. Not in some imaginary ‘ideal’ fantasy world.
We need to stand for our principles here, in the now.
Not send them off to a utopia (no place), leaving us with nothing to stand on, awash in a sea of compromise.
@Insidious,
First, I’m sorry for the wonky replies here, with the apparently limited threading.
I think you are misunderstanding me pretty much across the board.
I am not saying principles are for some imaginary world. I’m saying that principles and reality come into conflict.
You’re also mistaken if you think I’m saying that I’m packaging up my principles and saying “The hell with it” by some sort of willful choice. I’m not–I’m merely dealing with reality, which doesn’t give a damn about my principles or ideal views on anything.
My principles do exist–in this world, in me, and I’m stating them here. However, those principles are compromised by reality (not by independent desire).
As to your last paragraph, if you are intending to accuse me of lacking rational explanation for what I believe, then you’ve overstepped your bounds, given you have very little to base this on (essentially only what is here–a less than ideal format). Don’t assume that I don’t know what I believe, and why.
That being said–I trust you are stating all of this in good faith, and with sincerity, so no hard feelings at all, but I think you’re getting a little ahead of yourself and not really understanding what I’m trying to say (which may be my fault for not stating it as well as need be). Again, this format is quite limiting for such topics I think.
@Insidious,
To your 2nd reply. The principles aren’t gone. Why would I state something that was irrelevant (to me). Clearly, my mind is bent towards those principles, but my mind doesn’t have the power to alter reality.
As free people, we can maintain our principles and work towards them, but reality requires us to make choices–even if that choice is to do nothing.
Jack’s principles tell him that he shouldn’t vote for Romney or Obama, so he won’t. Reality is that one of those two is very likely to be the next (or continue as the current) President. I think he’s drawing a line at that level, because that is what makes sense for him.
I just told you what my principles tell me. They aren’t off in Utopia–they are here being stated to you. Now, that has been accomplished (to some degree at least). Now, what has been accomplished? Very little I’d say.
Of course, there is another principle that I adhere to as well–that is loosely called “dealing with reality.” I believe it is my rightful place in the world to deal with it in a realistic manner. The world is filled with compromise of all sorts–that’s reality.
Surely you understand that the world doesn’t conform to our principles just because we hold them to be valuable.
Voting isn’t an exercise in thought–it is an action, taken in order to exercise power (what little each individual has) over practical situations. I choose to use my vote in order to influence outcomes to the extent that I can.
@Kam – I tend to vote with your principles in mind. I want to move the govt. more toward the center, towards personal freedom and smaller govt. intrusion. So I am voting for the candidate who I think has the best chance of taking out Obama and his henchmen in Congress. It may not be the candidate I completely trust and believe in, but to me it is more important to get the socialists out of Washington. I also do not endorse any politician or political party. I will probably vote for the Republican candidate, most likely it will be Mitt Romney because he has a much better chance to oust Obama than a minor candidate, like Ron Paul (who I do like very much). With great respect for Jack and others who think like him, I don’t think they are going to change the country even a little bit by casting a vote for someone who has no chance of winning.
To help heal the soil mushrooms then follow with worms and as Paul Wheaton says. You might also want to have the chemical tested so you know what you are working with.
http://www.fungi.com/front/stamets/index.html
Paul Stamets has some good books and great videos on mushrooms. The book Mycelium Running How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World Fantastic info. I have used some of these and have helped some contaminated soil I have had. Good Luck
Hey Jack GREAT idea on the HOA. Now I know exactly how to handle it the next time the people on my road try to jack me up for $3000. They can buy me out!
I moved here 18 yrs ago. Now several “city” people have moved here having all their 2 and 5 acres turned into golf course lawns. They started bitching about dust on their cars so decided that if they got 3-5k from each person they could have it paved. I said no. Now because it is paved they want to spend more money on the road for speed bumps because people are driving to fast. I laughed at them. What a bunch of idiots they had free speed bumps with the pot holes in the gravel road. I refuse to pay and now they say they will put a lien on our property. Good luck with that one.
Then they try and say we are just being crappy neighbors. Really who caught your horse when it got out. Who responded to a first aid call we heard on the call box? Who was the first one on scene when you fell a tree through your barn and then helped you rebuild? Who administered first aid to your dog and then returned it safely to you. Who stood up for your wife when she was almost attacked by some drunken idiot? Who will give your kids a lift in the pouring rain so they don’t have to walk 1/2 mile in crappy weather then call and check on them to make sure you got home ok? Who … oh you get the point.
I don’t wish ill on any one. If need be (even though so many have been rude to us) we will still help them. How ever this is the nice thing about this crappy housing market. Some have lost their home and will have to move. Sorry for their loss and suffering but dang I sure will be crossing my fingers to get better neighbors!
@Roundabouts
Have you ever run for a seat on the HOA board? If not than your part of the problem for letting them get away with that stuff.
Years ago when we lived in a condo not only was the HOA board complete dolts but so were our supposed service providers. Nothing productive was getting done and the HOA was pissing people off with little stuff. There is a LONG story here that I will summarize by saying My wife ran for and got elected the the president position. Other like minded neighbors ran for other seats. We fired all the service providers (the builders buddies) and hired new ones with competing bids. We abolished all the stupid rules like no cars can be parked in the drive way at night. We also handled the nut jobs like lady who flung the poop from her three dogs over the fence into a common area creating a sizable toxic mound. Then we went on to manage the replacement of improperly installed siding for the entire property, fix all the home owners resultant rotting problems, and sued the builder to pay for it.
My point being if your subject to HOA’s then don’t let the crazy cat lady and other rejects handle the HOA’s affairs. find some agreeable people and take it over. Its just not that hard, then your in control. You sound like a squared away guy but I just can’t take people complaining about that which they have the power to change or affect.
We still own the property but have not lived there for many years. About once every 3-4 years my wife runs for and wins the presidents seat, cleans up the stupid stuff and hands it off again. Jack talks about the importance of community in general and durring a SHTF event. The HOA is an extension of that community. If we still lived in the city you bet you bippy either my Wife or I would be HOA board members. And frankly after seeing the stupidity of what tightly packed city people are capable of I am not sure I would even consider a place without and HOA.
lastly, if the HOA was foisted on you after you owned the property than you have my Libertarian sympathies. That sucks, and its just not right. In any case get elected and straight them out.
@Mark L.
I totally disagree as Roundabouts didn’t move into an area with an HOA they are creating one around Roundabouts. If Roundabouts ran for the board it would be an acknowledgement and acceptance of the HOA. I would say as long as you don’t sign on and become part of it you have a huge case in non compliance.
Say NO, NEVER PAY DUES, OPPOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY AUTHORITY FROM THE HOA AT ALL TIME and NEVER LEGITIMIZE THE HOA. With that it is very hard to be compelled to sign on and accept their power.
NOW IF YOU CHOOSE to move into an area with an HOA that is a different animal.
@Jack
Totally agree that Roundabout should not be forced to join an HOA if he owned the property prior to the formation of the HOA.
I’ll eat some crow on that, and hopefully my post will inspire others to take over their crappy HOA’s and institute some reason among them.
.
@ Jack
Thanks for the honorable mention.
Great show today. Love the expert panel.
I respect your position, and agree on the basic principles of your decision.
And , I have “hypothetical” a question, because here’s where I’m stuck,
… Isn’t it true that Ron Paul will most likely throw his support behind the final electoral nominee for the “R” …
…. and even if you and I both write Ron Paul in anyway in the general election, we will still be “endorsing” the “R” as well – only “by proxy” ?
… the only difference will be, our 2 votes won’t count ….
…and obama will be up by 2 votes.
If you don’t see any difference between the “nominee and obama”, then I guess I understand your reasoning,
– even if I don’t agree.
And I guess that’s where we differ , I feel obama will be much worse based on what he’s done thus far.
@TrekFanDan, to your questions line by line.
“… Isn’t it true that Ron Paul will most likely throw his support behind the final electoral nominee for the “R” …”
Answer – he didn’t in the last election I highly doubt he will this time around.
“…. and even if you and I both write Ron Paul in anyway in the general election, we will still be “endorsing” the “R” as well – only “by proxy” ?”
Answer – Negative I don’t vote for parties I vote for people. If Paul went over the the D and ran there and had a shot I would vote for him there. If he ran third party I would follow him there, etc. Parties mean nothing to me.
“… the only difference will be, our 2 votes won’t count ….”
Answer – Are you are assuming your vote for Romney or Obama “counts”
“…and obama will be up by 2 votes.”
Answer – I don’t think it matters if we have Assclown and Chief Obama or Assclown and Chief Romney so why would I care even if that was the case? However that being said, again if you live in Ohio or Florida or some other swing state and you REALLY think Romney will be even 1% better (and I personally don’t) go ahead and vote for him. Yet if you live in Mass, TX, GA, etc, etc, etc, etc and you think even the ENTIRE TSP audience voting for one or the other will swing the election you are completely dilousional.
That said in the end from now on for me, I WILL NEVER VOTE for a fucking traitor to the constitution again even if one traitor is slightly less a traitor then the other. Note the F bomb isn’t for you it is for THEM. I really think if you are even arguing this point with me you truly don’t get how I view these people.
So tell me, if you had a choice between Hitler and Stalin would you still pick the one who is “less evil”?
Not tryin to ‘argue’ the point with you, please don’t take me the wrong way, just tryin to better understand you.
Got it, … it seems you despise most polititions almost as much as I do.
I guess where we differ most is, you see obama and “nominee R” as the same, (i.e. Hitler and Stalin)
I just don’t see our choices as that similar- at least not at this point in time.
@TrekFanDan
Why would Ron Paul’s (or anyone elses) ‘endorsement’ mean anything to you?
An election isn’t a sporting match between ‘our team’ and ‘their team’ with our ‘votes’=’points’. Choices in the real world aren’t binary (either/or).
There is one good reason I can think of to consider ‘Ass Clown B’ as being better than ‘Ass Clown A’ however. ‘Ass Clown B’ will be worrying about getting re-elected. For that reason, they should all (executive and legislative) be thrown out after one term. =)
@ Insidious
It was only a “hypothetical” scenario. 😉
If nominee “R” and Obama”D” are the same evil scum,
Then why would a person vote for Ron Paul if he endorses the final nominee “R” anyway? (For the good of the “R” party)
Not teams – But it “is” about numbers- That’s why Ron Paul is running under the “R”- better odds of success.
You are right about a re-elected obama “not caring” in the next 4 years- that’s what gives me pause.
Term limits! -I wish
To Me , they pretty much all suck.
Until someone shows up that would rather die than disgrace and undermine the Constitution, I could care less about any of them.
…They should be totally willing to put their life on the line-… Do they expect any less of our military personell who they send to die for BS reasons?
” Isn’t it true that Ron Paul will most likely throw his support behind the final electoral nominee for the “R” …”
This is what people don’t get, they just don’t know enough about Paul to understand why his supporters say that won’t happen. You think it’s the same ol same ol – it ain’t. There is a reason he has a passionate following and they’re not all college kids. And his supporters won’t blindly follow anybody , not even him if he did endorse the “R”. People are supporting an idea not a person but you can’t make people understand that in a post. (OT, I had an older man probably in his 80’s point to my RP sticker on my truck and say “that fella right there is the only one that knows whats going on” – that made me smile)
@TrekFanDan
kenny laid it out.. I’d vote for Paul because of HIS integrity.
I’m not playing their game.. MY ‘scoreboard’ doesn’t say ‘R’ v. ‘D’ it says ‘Honorable’ vs. ‘Ass Clown’
=)
Elections in the US = Morton’s Fork
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_Fork
Awesome answer and “How To” materials from Darby Simpson! Thanks for both Jack and Darby Simpson. Your timing is perfect.
Mark,
Sounds like you are about to start on a poultry adventure, good luck with it! One note on my tractors: I’ve since added a shelf to support the water bucket (not shown in the photo). I just attached a 60″ treated 2×4, shelf bracket and 1x6x12 (treated) for the shelf. Then place 2 or 4 eye bolts in the 2×4 above the shelf and strap the bucket down with bungees. Works great. I’m going to add a second bucket to each pen this year. 2 is 1 and 1 is none. Very true with water buckets, they clog! Then chickens die in the heat….
Darby
Thanks for the tips! We have layers currently but the hen house is stationary. I want to fit some nesting boxes into the tractor plan and get them moving in the pasture. We let them free range now durring the day but I am tired of chicken poop on my porch. At some point I’ll gear up for fryers once I learn how to process them.
I value your contributions to the show and I thank you for them.
Here’s another take on Robert Kiyosaki. It’s not very flattering.
http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html
Jack, I think that the author would make a good guest for your show.
http://www.johntreed.com/hyperinflationdepression.html
Regarding the effect of another property shedding “negative” value….
Jack’s response revolves around a social aspect. A good answer but I felt the caller was looking for a more academic/theoretical answer.
From a purely libertarian perspective the “property rights” issue would revolve around the idea that you don’t own “potential” or hypothetical value.
So for example, if someone built a park next to your house and it raised the value of your house, that’s great. But everyone in the world doesn’t owe you a park because of “potential” value. Likewise, if someone lets their grass get high and it “lowers” the value of property, you, similarly, don’t have a right to have someone else behave in a way to guarantee a certain level of value.
You own property, you don’t own theoretical property values. That would be the pure libertarian response in the context of property right theory. There are a lot of practical ways to think of this that I think support the idea.
One case would be: What if you own a store and regularly generate $1,000 of revenue on a weekly basis? Then someone opens a store across the street, and as a direct result you now only get half the customers and consequently generate $500. In that instance, I think most people would agree, you don’t own hypothetical money or value or in this case sales. So other people don’t have to prohibit themselves from acting in a certain way so that you are guaranteed a certain level of income or wealth.
Another example might be, that if someone built a park next to your house and it had a positive effect. In this instance, if you were then able to sell your house for 10% more as a direct result, that additional value doesn’t belong to the other person who caused it. In fact, the value itself doesn’t belong to anyone. Only the houses/property are owned.
I moved here 18 yrs ago out in the country only the 5th house on a 1/2 mile dirt road that the post office won’t even deliver on because the road is private. There never was an HOA! For years we just had an understanding with neighbors that if you ran over a pot hole you didn’t like you just went to the community gravel pile and grabbed a shovel or two and filled it. When the pile got low we just all pitched in to have a load delivered. When the road got to bad someone would take out their tractor and start filling holes. Sooner or later someone would show up with a shovel a rake and some cold beer. No worries or problems. We never signed for or agreed or organized an HOA. It just didn’t exist.
Now that there are 25+ homes on this road. Each one of these people drove down the gravel road to look at their property before they bought it. Each one could tell there were farm animals and farm smells if any. Each one knew they would have to put their own personal drive onto their property before they built (mine is 1/2 mile long and no where near the longest) . Each one proceeded to build huge 3000+ square feet homes with 3 & 4 car garages then put in the golf course lawns . Our home is manufactured 1700 and we have pasture for lawn. Only one of these people built a barn and has animals (sheep) Every single one of the newbies came here to try and change the country back into the city. This is BS!
They hounded me to pay a road maintenance fee of $300 per year. Then they want me to fork over $2-3000 for paving our country road. ( I had told them I would never do) Then come back and say we need to now pay $500 per yr road maintenance & we should have our own personal drive paved (@ our expense) to improve property values.
They have also very strongly suggested that we mow down our 1/2 mile personal drive as that looks better. (even caught one person mowing it! My pasture! feed for my animals on my property) There is NO HOA currently!! NO legal documents no paper work! Yet still threaten that the “retired judge” is going to put a lean on our place if we don’t comply.
They have a small group of them that have meetings and they elect officers but that does not make them an HOA. They are trying to make it happen and trying to enforce their wills on the rest of the people.
Some have caved as not to make waves. I call BS on that!! I will not sign any thing I will not go to their fake little meetings and I will not take any crap from any of them. When they come get in my face I am nice for about 3 min then tell them to shut the hell up and get off my property! I have taken a lot of slack for that even my HUBBY wanted to be one of the ones who caved as to not make waves! I called BS on him too. Now he listens to Jack and backs me up! Damit we live in the country so we didn’t have to put up with this kind of crap.
They can take there HOA beemer loven butts back to inside the city limits where they came from! I drew a line in the dirt and it starts at my driveway.
@Roundabouts
I’m sorry for your pain.. but your description of the self-important busy bodies really made me laugh.. =)
Maybe its time to become ‘that crazy lady with the shotgun..old lady roundabouts, don’t go on her property, she’ll get ya!’ 😉
On the bright side, you got a free paved road out of it.. 😉
And watch out for her little dog too. I guess the asphalt road is better for my tiny little suv 4×4. But I do miss the mile long drive down that old country dirt road. At least 1/2 of that mile is my private road and I still have that.
Yes I do have my shot gun I call her Tellie. She will only tell ye once to go away lol. I would love to move but I do feel we are in the best possible place. I would look for something exactly like this location and lay out. Hubby keeps telling me TV land is the only place I will find where people don’t really peeve me off. Guess there is truth to that. Just wish people would live and let live. But perhaps they are just to unhappy with their own lives so they pay more attention to others to avoid looking at themselves. In any case go ahead and laugh I do as soon as the rant is over.
oops ment to post that above @ Jack and Mark L. From now on when we get flack from these idiots I will just say fine then put your money where your mouth is and buy me out $300 k and I’m gone.
My wife and I are in the market to buy a house. In our area, the only nice houses we can afford are 1/4acre lots in a HOA subdivision. My wife doesnt care about the HOAs, I refuse to buy a home that has one. So for now we just agreed to disagree and keep renting until we find a home we can both agree on. That will be tough since everyone in south carolina thinks an HOA is the Bee’s Knee’s. The mother in-law has been on me for a year or so to buy a home with an HOA, and I had finally had enough of it and cursed at her and her husband to leave me alone and Im never buying in an HOA. We havent talked in a few weeks now lol. I really dont understand why people want to put up a bullshit, arbitrary government over them when they already have so much of that. The worst thing about an HOA is that it gives power to your neighbors to run your life and give you shit
@KAM,
The threads are limited because if not the get thinned out by space into the realm of the ridiculous. So I am going to start fresh.
Simple questions KAM
1. If you were part of a Board of Directors responsible to sharholders in a company. And your fellow board members all were choosing between two potential new CEOs that you KNEW were total idiot that would bankrupt the company. If they were tied between idiot A and B, would you in that case with the deciding vote choose which idiot bankrupted your company and forgo your fiduciary responsibility to actively object to anything like that?
Would you abstain from the vote and tell your fellow board members to break their own tie because both candidates were going to ruin the company or would you go ahead and vote for the idiot who was slightly better but still totally unqualified to run your company?
2. Do you really think your vote in your state is going to effect the outcome of the election?
@Jack,
Question 1: I’ll answer that I’d exercise my (relatively great) power as a member of the board of directors to influence my fellow board members not to take either idiot.
Now that I’ve answered this, I’ll tell you why I think the analogy is not particularly good.
1) We’re headed to our financial cliff who wins this election, but that is just ONE problem we’re dealing with, and I don’t know when that will finally happen. I don’t think Ron Paul has much of a chance of heading this one off either. I’m concerned about this, but also the condition we will be in when we reach that cliff. How many other American Institutions will be destroyed when we get there? How much more expanded will the dependency class be? What degree of decline (which will impact the ability to recover) will our industry be in?
Most importantly how prepared will I be? To continue the cliff analogy–I think Obama is pounding that Gas pedal, but Romney is more likely to just gaze at the horizon. The TIME we hit that cliff is VERY important to me, because I’ve got a lot to do.
2) I think the choice in this election is between an “idiot” (Romney), and someone who wants to “fundamentally transform America” into something that I abhor–Because he WANTS it and prefers it. The choice is between someone willfully doing all they can to harm my country and someone who simply isn’t going to fix problems that have existed for 100 years. Maybe you see if different, but I don’t see Romney as hating America, but I think Obama in many ways truly does. You want to force equivalency between the candidates across the board–having stated there is “no difference.” I think you’re wrong. I think on various levels they are differences, even if neither is going to “fix” everything (or anything) to my liking.
I could go on, but it would serve no purpose. Bottom line–I think the differences between Romney and Obama on SOME levels are significant enough for me to care which one is in office, despite the fact that I don’t expect either will “fix” the bigger picture.
2nd Question: Well, I am hoping that my State isn’t in play. It was last time–very close in fact. But why should this matter in terms of principle–by that I mean your stated principles regarding this election.
@KAM another unanswered question. Try answering yes or no questions with a yes or a no and then go ahead and explain your reasoning.
So again do you think your vote in this election in your state will have any effect on the outcome of the presidential election?
Here is one more
Do you think if every single person that read your comment did what ever you do it will influence the outcome of the election?
And finally
Assuming that you can actually answer yes vs. no to the above and assuming you are willing to be honest about the answers with YOURSELF, as in both answers are definitely a no, what do you prove by voting for a guy you don’t want that will win or lose with or with out you other than you continue to cling to a lie?
@Jack,
In regards to the format–yes, I understand, but it does make things difficult to follow sometimes. We’d probably be better in the forums for many of these conversations.
@Jack,
Sorry for the basket of replies.
Another reason I think that analogy doesn’t match. To be equal, we’d have to say that the Company was going bankrupt no matter who was the CEO, and even if a third Candidate was Elected, we’d still have to go through bankruptcy proceedings.
So, when my attempt to get a 3rd CEO who my fellow Board Members won’t support, and won’t elect I’d be Obligated to try and protect the Shareholders as best I could knowing we will become bankrupt.
That means I’d take the “idiot” CEO who is less determined to harm the Company financially.
@KAM I said they would bankrupt the company (verb) just answer the damn question. Seriously you can argue whether it applies all you want BUT what would you do?
@rounabouts given all that I’d play it the same way you are. Thanks for setting me straight. If you have not done so already lookup the regulations governing HOAs for your county and state. There are very specific guidelines for creating, maintaining, and joining HOAs. I suspect you might find a mistake or three among your neighbors HOA attempt. This may give you the leverage you need to get them off your back.
And in general my last point to HOA haters- if you are looking to own something with common walls/roofline you would be crazy not to own in an HOA. A place with lot lines and stand alone buildings? Not so much. Areas with lots measured in acres- hell no.
@Jack,
Sorry Jack, I guess I’m just rejecting the False Dichotomy you’re presenting me in these illustrations.
I told you what I’d do in question 1:
Question 1: I’ll answer that I’d exercise my (relatively great) power as a member of the board of directors to influence my fellow board members not to take either idiot.
Given the two choices you’ve created for your illustration, I’d vote for the candidate I thought would do the least harm, because if I abstain, the shareholders might lose even more than they would with the other guy.
But let’s be clear–you’re demanding a canned response, because it works for the point YOU want to try and make. I reject that, and disagree with your perspective on this.
Question 2: I don’t know for sure–that’s the honest answer, regardless of whether you like it or not. I don’t think my State will be in play, but I thought that last time too, and it went (narrowly) for Obama.
So, yes, my vote may in fact make a difference in my state–at least such that I don’t want to take that chance (today). Come election time, I’ll have a much better prediction.
This is your Blog Jack, but I’ll tell you this–I’m not here to answer ‘yes or no’ if I feel it is misleading or mischaracterizes my views. I’m sorry if that bothers you, but I’m not going to do it.
@KAM so what you are saying is you can’t even be honest with yourself here at this point in your walk, that is what I take from this. There is no false dichotomy, I am asking a hypothetical yes or no and you can’t even use the words yes or no to directly answer the question prior to a diatribe on why the question is the problem.
I think you problem is that you actually think I give a crap who you vote for. I don’t vote for anyone you want, lie to yourself and tell yourself it is going to matter. This is not a debate about who to vote for, again I don’t care it is a debate about the false belief that voting for one criminal vs. another matters or that as an individual in a non swing state that your vote will even matter.
Your refusal doesn’t bother me but it more than makes my point, TO YOU, not to anyone as an onlooker. This will piss you off, it will roll around in your head, it will make you angry and it won’t go away. Months or perhaps years in the future something will make you think about it and you will be angry again.
You are too smart though and too intelligent (different things) to let that go on for ever. One day we will discuss how it changed your view. I CAN’T wait until that day, because it will make me a very happy man, not because I think it makes me right but because I will get to see one more mind finally totally free of the matrix.
Good luck and God speed with your voting brother.
@Jack,
If I didn’t believe in my heart that your intentions for all of this are good, I’d be a bit insulted, because you’re telling me that I am not being honest with myself. That’s worse than calling me a liar, because someone who isn’t honest with themselves aren’t likely to be honest with others either.
I’m not lying to myself. I simply see things in regards to this differently than you do. We’re going at this from completely different directions, and we apparently cannot come to agreement on even that perspective, let alone the conclusion. That’s ok.
For the record I don’t think you’re concerned with who I vote for. I think you’re talking about principles that you believe in (and that I really don’t disagree with either), and you’re doing what you do with with TSP–trying to reach the people in your community.
I think you see me as a horse led to water who refuses to drink. That’s ok too.
To use the Matrix–I see myself as someone whose mind IS free, but the rest of me isn’t. It isn’t a matter of KNOWING that’s the problem. It’s that I’m still trapped, and subject to what goes on in the matrix.
I hope you’re right however, because where I’m at isn’t a particularly fun place to be, but it’s where I am. Until then, I’m sure you’ll keep doing what you’re doing, and I’ll keep listening.
And you still can’t say
1. – no but ………
2. – yes but ……….
Etc, like I said you are not being honest with yourself and that is not lying in the traditional liar sense. It is a refusal to really self examine because of what the results might be. You are an honest man, I know that or I wouldn’t bother.
I can ask a man to exercise and he can choose not to. To be fair you are doing it just that avoiding moving to fast with hard self examination, no worries you are doing it just at your own pace. It took me a LONG LONG LONG TIME myself. When you wear “the uniform” for a part of your life this stuff is really hard to swallow. In the end the medicine SUCKS but it does the job.
@Jack,
You may have missed the part of my response where I said the following (to question 2):
So, yes, my vote may in fact make a difference in my state…
Your First Question wasn’t a ‘Yes or no” in the first place. It was whether to abstain and let the other board members decide, or cast the deciding vote for two unqualified candidates.
My answer (of the choices you provided) was:
Given the two choices you’ve created for your illustration, I’d vote for the candidate I thought would do the least harm, because if I abstain, the shareholders might lose even more than they would with the other guy.
BUT that is a false choice, because I could propose someone else–as I originally stated.
So, I think I’ve answered both original questions directly.
@KAM
What I’m not saying well (and relating to some of your comments to Jack):
You seem to be saying:
I’m stuck IN the matrix, I don’t want to be, but I am. Seeing as I’m stuck in the matrix, I need to be ‘realistic’ and play by the matrix’s rules to try and make the best of a bad situation. My mind is free, but the rest of me is not.
To restate this:
I am a slave. In my mind I am free, but in reality, my choices are limited by the environment created by my masters. The best I can do is to be ‘realistic’ and make the best of a bad situation.
Are you solving the wrong problem?
NOT trying to put words in your mouth. Said with total love, if I’m wrong or offensive, I apologize.
@Insidious,
Taken with Love. 🙂
Well, I’d be lying if I said I am NOT a slave in many ways. I pay taxes for things that I don’t think I should have to pay for, nor are Constitutional. My government is FAR outside the bounds of what is Constitutionally acceptable in my view.
On second thought…I’m not really a slave–more of a Serf. That being said…I know of few (if any) people who aren’t. Not that Misery loves company makes it any better.
Let’s take what Jack has said: He stated that the Current President is a traitor. Well, Jack is an Oathkeeper. What should be done? IDEALLY, I’m sure he’d like someone else in office who isn’t a traitor. IDEALLY a traitor should not be tolerated, but we’re all sitting here tolerating it. Why? Because we don’t have a practical solution. I don’t know anyone who isn’t making compromises.
Actually, I think I’m being brutally honest here. Can you honestly say that you’re NOT a serf in the same way I am–beholden to the Government in numerous ways? If not, then Good for you. I hope to join you some day.
I AM beholden to the government. The Citizens of this nation are living under a system that is a massive distortion of what our Constitution allows (And as I stated above, even that is a compromise).
Back to the Serf/Slave thing…it really isn’t across the board. I’m an economic serf for sure, and that’s a big deal, but in other ways I avoid being completely “owned” by the government.
While the Matrix thing is a useful tool, it really is more complex. KNOWING isn’t all there is to it. As you recall–Neo had to be physically detatched as well. And when it was all said and done…they all lived in an even bigger lie anyway.
Want to hear something interesting. About 8 years ago, I tried to motivate the people around me (very close to me) to do all the things that Jack talks about in regards to homesteading, and independence. I failed. I’m not lying to myself to acknowledge what my situation is.
As far as what problem I’m solving. Well, I’m not really succeeding at SOLVING much of anything outside of immediate preps and needs. I don’t see a solution on the horizon.
The best anyone can do is deal with reality, while trying to improve that situation in whatever way they can.
I’d be lying to myself to think that voting for Ron Paul (in the general, I am voting for him in the primary) is going to “solve” anything either.
@KAM
What do I do as an Oathkeeper? Great question I refuse to vote for a traitor, I refuse to legitimize his authority with my personal endorsement. Yet my Oath is to the CONSTITUTION, the current assclowns are operating within the limits the sheep are allowing them to.
Unless the day comes where they do start rounding up people because Alex Jones is correct or they don’t let us vote, until said day that no recourse is available other than direct conflict I am bound by my FREELY taken oath to work with the system that the constitution established. I feel equally bound to NOT vote for or in anyway legitimize a traitor.
In the end it is up to the people, that is why I stated and I meant it when I said I would DIE FOR YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. As a guardian of the republic it is my duty to ensure the opportunity of the people to make change what people do with it is their choice. The fact that I feel most of your are squandering your choice doesn’t relieve me of my sworn duty to defend you.
Sadly there are very few people that believe what I just wrote. I am not alone though and I make no apologies for what I am about to say.
You should thank you version of God for us, one day likely you will really need us, I hope it never happens but my oath is my bond and my country my republic and my pledge is to its constitution, not to any man or institution.
Note there is very little “tolerance” in the above. I am not tolerating anything. If I was tolerant there would be no TSP, I would be happily counting money and still working in the corporate world.
@Jack,
I definitely am grateful for Oathkeepers, and those who swear to uphold the Constitution.
That being said, in my opinion, many in office are directly and regularly violating the Constitution.
@KAM,
In response to,
“That being said, in my opinion, many in office are directly and regularly violating the Constitution.”
I have to say I agree to a degree. The FINAL check on the constitution is the people. Unless the people are actually prevented from enforcement of the Constitution the OathKeeper protects the constitution by protecting the people. With out that there is no republic to defend.
Trust me the day they say, “no elections” or “the President has dismissed the congress” the game changes. As long as people can choose and choose to be stupid and squander their freedom I have to protect their right to do so.
“When we vote in an election, we are declaring, by our actions, our support for the process of some people ruling others by coercive means. Our motivations for such participation – even if they be openly expressed as a desire to bring state power to an end – do not mitigate the fact that our energies are being employed on behalf of the destructive principle that liberty and social order can best be fostered through the coercive machinery of the state.” – Butler Schaffer
“Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
@KAM, you stated above,
“Given the two choices you’ve created for your illustration, I’d vote for the candidate I thought would do the least harm, because if I abstain, the shareholders might lose even more than they would with the other guy.
BUT that is a false choice, because I could propose someone else–as I originally stated.”
My response is EXACTLY! And even if your choice was voted down you would be doing your job as a member of the board.
You also stated, “So, yes, my vote may in fact make a difference in my state…”
I really doubt in your true inner self you really believe that.
Listening to you talk about the Keystone XL pipeline made me look down at my phone because I thought I had bumped something and landed on the local right wing AM station. The reason we are just now starting to exploit the resources in the tar sands is because it is not easy to extract. The process requires lots of natural gas (that just so happens to be very cheap right now due to overproduction in the US), arguably uses more energy to extract and process than it provides and is only profitable is the price of oil stays high. You mentioned you “don’t care” about climate change but those of us of us who are interested in a somewhat stable climate for our children and theirs are concerned about burning fossil fuel to extract more fossil fuel.
Building a pipeline is a fairly specialized job with a set start and completion date. Once your section of the pipe is done the jobs it created evaporate. It’s no surprise that the pipeline ends at one of the biggest port cities in the US, most of this oil would be put on ships for export.
@Matt sorry you feel that way but
1. No the jobs don’t go away some do some get added. Lines need maintenance and oil must be refined.
2. CANADA IS GOING TO PRODUCE THE OIL ANYWAY, God I do not understand how people fail to comprehend this. You are not going to save polar bears or even have an impact on fossil fuel emissions by not completing the pipeline, it just makes us more dependent on other oil.
@Jack,
I understand that, BUT (here’s where I think it breaks down), an individual voter doesn’t have the power of a much smaller (powerful) board.
Now I have a question for you. What if I did suggest a 3rd party, and cast my vote for him, and as a result the WORST of the two Idiots won? What if that ended up harming the Shareholders MORE than if the lesser idiot won?
Keep in mind–I’m not saying Bankruptcy is avoided, but perhaps the process is less damaging and the company comes out better than it would with the Greater Idiot.
Am I not responsible for doing what is BETTER for the shareholders–even if neither are “Good.”
Would a shareholder be happier that I was able to return 80% of his money instead of 50%? Wouldn’t I have done right by them, even though I failed to accomplish what I would have preferred (the 3rd CEO Candidate)?
As far as the 2nd. Well, naturally few elections come down to ONE vote. If you take that stance then my vote would NEVER mean anything. I’m FULLY aware that one citizen’s vote is very feeble.
What I’m trying to tell you is that my State may be in play–which again is what I said originally. I HOPE it isn’t the case, but I have no idea how close it will be.
I’ve said previously, that I’d likely vote for the Libertarian Candidate if my State wasn’t close–but it isn’t more than me making myself feel better.
@KAM sorry bro you are crapping out on that dice roll! You said,
“I understand that, BUT (here’s where I think it breaks down), an individual voter doesn’t have the power of a much smaller (powerful) board.”
In my example you are clearly out voted, one of the dumbass idiots is getting voted in as CEO, you are suggesting a third and pushing for it even though you will loose in the end, why, as a board member it is your job.
Again do what you want but don’t try to convince me that it is going to matter who you push a button for, in the end we both know it won’t.
Let me put it another way, if you 100% knew who the winner was going to be, I mean KNEW IT, and you know your vote won’t matter. Say we have a Regan v Mondale election coming up. If you thought both sucked would you STILL vote for the lesser of two evils even if God himself told you the results of the election in advance? If so why?
@Jack,
I just said in the post you responded to, that I’d likely vote for the Libertarian Candidate if my State didn’t turn out to be close.
Back to the Question 1 Hypothetical. My duty (as I see it) would be to pursue the 3rd (Better) candidate until it was clear there was no hope–the 3rd Candidate was rejected. My question to you is–then what do you do? In this scenario I’m still the tie-breaking vote.
Do I let the shareholders take a bigger bath and lose more money, or take the next best option?
If who I vote for doesn’t matter, then why bother voting at all? You’re vote for Ron Paul isn’t going to matter either, but you’re planning on doing it.
@KAM I would go down on record of opposing the choice and if I 100% felt both were wrong choices I would vote for a third person I thought could do the job. If they said, fine, I would again say break your own tie.
See I can easily answer such questions because my application of my principals across the board are consistent. As a board member I could never go into a shareholders meeting and say, well in the end I sided with Asshole A even though I knew he would ruin the company because I felt he would ruin it more slowly than Asshole B.
In fact if you put a gun to my head and said I will blow your brains out if you don’t vote for a or b, I would in that case likely vote for the WORSE choice, if so and if the damage came faster it might be more likely that the board and the shareholders would take action more swiftly to correct the mistake.
@Jack,
For the Record–I answered the questions from the first post–you just didn’t like the answers.
My “principles” told me to suggest a 3rd option because it was in my power to do so (as a board member) to which you complained I wasn’t answering right.
When that (hypothetically) was proven non-viable, my next action was to protect the Shareholders to the maximum extent I could.
Nothing inconsistent about any of that.
@KAM
To get back to the actual questions (I’d love to hear your answers):
Does the person occupying the White House make a substantive difference in the operation of government? Examples (evidence, not opinion)?
Do our actions as individuals, or groups of individuals, have any impact upon the world?
Name, with concrete examples (evidence, not opinion), any substantive differences between the current president, and the Republican replacement.
Explain how these differences may result in ‘better’ outcomes for the country and the world.
My own answers are: No, Yes, None & N/A as I have no evidence to the contrary.
@Insidious I don’t speak for KAM but I am pretty sure on three and therefore four he will fall back to what I now call the “Chief Justice Scapegoat”.
Romeny is such a complete big government clone of Obama from a pollicy standpoint the only out people have is, “the supreme court”. Problem is we are now supposed to believe a person that will act like Obama in every other way is going to put true constitutionalists on the bench. Sorry I ain’t buying it.
@Jack,
You’re damn right I’m going to make that argument.
Would you have said the same about Bush being no different? Because we have The Heller Case as a shining example.
You’re not buying that?
Will Romney put True Constitutionalists on the Bench? Probably not to the Degree I’d like, but I assure you Obama will put people on the Bench (and has) to whom the Constitution is a curiosity.
2nd Amendment–might not come up again. What about the next thing?
I have no idea how you justify dismissing the Heller case as if it means nothing–perhaps for decades to come.
Here’s a simple question for you: Would you prefer let’s say 2 More Justices that Obama nominates or two that Romney would nominate? Think it makes no difference?
If you say that it makes no difference, I think you’re off your rocker.
@Insidious,
Does the President make a difference in operation of government. Yes. Where would you like to start? Do you REALLY need examples? How about direction of the entire bureaucracy which has influence on everything from school lunches to energy policy.
We are not pursuing the XL pipeline, because of the dictates of the President. Drilling was halted in the Gulf in violation of court order by the Secretary of the Interior. The HHS secretary is claiming control over large parts of the Healthcare system which directly influences what everyone pays for medical services.
Various cabinet positions control vast amounts of Taxpayer (or borrowed or created money) influencing just about every industry in the Nation and beyond. Where they spend that money on what and to do what has endless effects.
Honestly, I’m staggered by your answer of “no.”
Individuals effects: Yes, most certainly. However, most individuals effects taken alone do not have great sway. Only when the numbers add up can they begin to challenge the sway that ONE bureaucrat wields. That being said–I do believe “The People” do ultimately have more influence.
Republican Replacement? Which one? Romney–the most likely? Also, you’re asking for EVIDENCE of something that hasn’t yet happened? That’s impossible. It can only be prediction/opinion.
I think the energy policy will be different. I mentioned the XL Pipeline. I think it is likely that (if that is still active–depends on Canada), it would be approved. A Romney administration is also less likely to be wielding the EPA as a weapon in a back-door action to regulate CO2.
Romney has SAID (again, predicting) that he favors repeal of Obamacare (despite having a state program that is similar).
Romney will certainly nominate different Supreme court Justices.
Let me take an aside here. Interesting that I’m hearing so much about how it doesn’t matter who is in office, but the Heller case was decided by one vote on the Supreme court. Let’s consider that for a moment. We were one Nomination away from the 2nd Amendment being declared a non-Individual right. That matters to me, because I’d hate to be forced into an earlier exercise of that right to prove them wrong.
I think you’ll not hear the constant drumbeat from the White-House which has as its GOAL, villification of “The rich” and dedicated efforts to divide citizens along those lines. I think the populace won’t be poisoned with the idiocy that because someone else has something, that someone else has the right to take it away.
I speculate that Romney won’t have the GOAL of making as many people dependent on government as we do with Obama for everyday needs–food stamps for example. I think Romney actually wants more jobs beyond providing a number (unemployment rate) that affects an election.
I don’t think Romney is a True Free-Market guy, but I also don’t think he is a dedicated enemy of it, as Obama is.
Should I go on, but I’m just wasting space. You’ve convinced yourself there is no difference, but clearly there is.
Last questions: Better outcomes–well, again, call me crazy, but I don’t think a bunch of non-tax payers whipped up into believing they deserve MORE handouts is a great thing. I don’t think expanding the “Victim Class” is a good thing, and that’s exactly what we’ve seen under President Obama.
Just taking the Damn Microphone away from the Current President would be a pleasant change.
You’re not going to get your “evidence” at this point–its not possible, because we can’t accurately predict the future, but if you’re here in two years and Obama loses, we can revisit this.
@KAM
My question was does the president make a SUBSTANTIVE difference in the operation of government. Not ‘a difference’.
Trading President ‘A’ who favors special interests ‘A’ for Candidate ‘B’ who favors special interests ‘B’ represents no SUBSTANTIAL difference in the operation of government. The faces change, the level of fascism remains the same.
As for the presidents ‘control’ of the bureaucracy, yes, he has the power of ‘appointments’. But he lacks the carrot/stick of the checkbook. Mid-Level bureaucrats have more power/influence over the day-to-day operations of the bureaucracies than the temporary appointees, and are more beholden to either ideologue (state dept.) or money (FDA) than to their temporary boss.
(When I was working for the state dept., the ambassadors, who were careerists, not appointees, told me quite plainly that if they didn’t like the policy of a presidential administration, they would simply ‘wait it out’ i.e. drag their feet, until he was out of office)
And the pipeline, reading Wikipedia leads me to believe that its a political hot potato, so the President wants to shelve it until after the election.
So, SUBSTANTIVE differences between any presidents in the last 20 years?
As for evidence of a difference in a candidate.. if we believe that past behavior, not present words, are possibly indicitive of future behavior. Are there any SUBSTANTIVE difference between Romney and Obama? Has his political or personal life been an example of personal integrity and strong moral character (saying what he believes is right, even when it is unpopular and/or costly)? Has he in any way sacrificied personally or politically to do ‘what is right’?
SUBSTANTIVE differences are NOT.. ‘he SAYS he supports x’, candidates say all sorts of things.
Your statements (I speculate.., I think..) seem to boil down to: I don’t like Obama. I want someone else. Which is fine, and totally ok, as a statement of opinion. Its just not a compelling argument.
@KAM
Please don’t think I’m an Obama supporter.. I watched 3 minutes of a ‘debate’ (ha!) during the last election cycle.. which was all that I could take. Obama’s ‘speech’ amounted to: ‘Elect me and you’ll all get a free magical pony!’
The thing that amazed me, was that anyone believed it.
@Insidious,
Just to be clear what I WANT is a Constitutionalist President who will pull us back from the Brink. I’m not going to get it–at least not this cycle.
Obviously, I am unhappy with the current President. I think he is an adherent and advocate for a DEEPLY flawed (and harmful) philosophy. I think his worldview is diametrically opposed in almost every way to personal liberty and personal responsibility. He is perfectly willing and seemingly eager to encourage people into greater and greater dependency. That’s the opposite of what Modern Survivalists strive for. We want to be independent.
Now to briefly address your “substantive” question. I think those things I mentioned are substantive differences–you disagree. Ok, fine.
As I see it, Jack (and seemingly you) are choosing a narrow perspective to declare “There is no difference”. I don’t think that’s true, because factually, there are differences. The only real question is the relevance of those differences.
Where there really is little difference is in regards to spending. That’s the ‘evidence’ I’ve most often heard to support the “no difference” position. However, much of the debt and deficit increase is due to entitlement programs and baseline budgeting. Even the spending argument is only part of the story, because the Congress is involved.
I think the need or desire to proclaim “there’s no difference” is oversimplifying. I think the desire for certainty is driving this more than “evidence” or “compelling arguments.” Factual differences are being dismissed, or denied under the justification that they aren’t important–but that’s a subjective opinion. Whether or not you care about them is your business, but it doesn’t obliterate the fact that the differences exist.
You fall back to subjective criteria–such as what is “substantive.” You’re not WRONG for doing that, and I’m sure there are a lot of good points to be made in those terms, but again–subjective.
You ask for ‘evidence’ and I give examples and you say “not substantive.” I state what differences I see or expect, and the answer is ‘there is no difference.’ It isn’t possible to have a meaningful exchange under those terms.
Lastly, as I’ve said, I think this particular format is not at all helpful to really debate these sorts of issues. Judging by the responses, it is clear on many occasions that what I’m saying (or at least trying to say) just isn’t coming across. That’s not blaming you or anyone else, but its just not working well.
@Jack, Insidious,
I’m having an increasingly hard time following all of this in the Blog. If there is any reason to continue (and I’m not sure there is) can we transfer this to the forum?
@KAM, I communicate here, I also think I am done with pushing this string.
I’m strongly OCD, but even for me, this horse is mighty dead. From now on, lets talk about IMPORTANT stuff, like chicken tractors instead! 😉
@Insidious,
Here’s a slightly different take on the issue, which I hopefully can keep brief (as to not re-beat this poor dead horse). That take is in regards to “Message.”
I talked a bit about the rhetoric coming out of the Oval Office, which I think is directly contrary to the message of TSP–specifically self-sufficiency and independence. That assumes you agree that this President advocates dependency (maybe you disagree).
If you do agree, do you think it would be valuable to take that platform away from someone who advocates this harmful (my opinion) philosophy? Please note, I’m talking not talking about Silencing an individual’s right to advocate whatever they want–just specifically not providing them the Platform of the Presidency.
How many millions of people are being told (and they believe) that they deserve something from government (read tax payers). That they deserve free college tuition, free healthcare, free food(stamps), free Cell phones (all these frees being in big air quotes), etc.
Isn’t one of the Goals of TSP to teach people and show them that they can be independent? Isn’t the extended goal of that to have that message spread theoretically to everyone?
If so, then isn’t having someone who actively advocates ideas contrary to what I think we all agree is “a better way?”
So, do you think it is helpful or harmful to allow the current President to remain in a position that allows him to spread that message?
@KAM I am bored and I am only going to ask one more question and I PRAY TO GOD YOU CAN ANSWER it with a direct answer as in one or the other.
Which of the two below would make a bigger difference to the future of our nation long term?
1. Romney beats Obama
or
2. The libertarian party receives 5% of the vote and qualifies for Federal Election funds and is able to field candidates in many future elections, specifically at the Congressional level. To wit I submit http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50665
One more then I am done for real.
If you pick two above then would it not make sense for the majority of people that are awake to vote Libertarian specifically those in non swing states?
Why don’t you start a forum thread with this, and I’ll answer there. It doesn’t make sense to clog up the show comments every time the election is mentioned. =)
If we make any progress you can shoot Jack an e-mail and try to convince him the forum thread is worth reading..
=p
In various personal discussion with others and via sites such as this, I hear the issue of martial law come up quite a bit and the government response to Hurricane Katrina is often used as an example. But, if you look at that incident, martial law was able to be implemented and enforced due to some specific circumstances. First, there were many people who fled the area either just before, during or just after the storm. I have heard different numbers given, but 50% or more is what I have heard so the number of people having to “protected” was fairly low. 2nd, many people classify it as a “regional” disaster, but in actuality it was more “localized” in the fact it was a certain section of the gulf coast and not the entire gulf coast area. 3rd, since it was more of a localized incident, law enforcement, fire/rescue and National Guard resources could be brought from other areas of the country and were.
It seems to me that many people are worried about the US government establishing and enforcing harsh, draconian martial law for the entire country. While it is possible, I do not see it as being very probable, especially the enforcement side. First, law enforcement personnel numbers have been cut and even before they were cut the numbers have not kept up with the population or the calls for service that we face. Second, in a national disaster type scenario, law enforcement are going to make sure that their families are safe, just like during Hurricane Katrina, before some of them return to duty, just like Hurricane Katrina. Third, IMHO, many police officers actually care about the communities that they serve and live in/around these same communities so getting them to take enforcement action against their neighbors for minor issues, such as searching for guns when no crime has been committed, is going to be nearly impossible. Plus, many of us believe that the more people who can take care of themselves then the fewer we have to.
While localized, or even regionalized, martial law is a legitimate concern I think too much emphasis is placed nationwide martial law. The logistics of it would insurmountable and I believe that there would not be enough people willing to participate from the local and state government/military/LE side of things.
I think back to a previous show where a caller talked about Federal agents were practicing food riot response. I could definitely see military and LE being used to guard FEMA-type camps where most of the occupants are there voluntarily or they have no other viable options and martial law is enforced in such camps. But, IMHO, a national implementation of such a law could not be enforced or maintained.
The bad stuff seams to happen when outside LE resources are brought in from out of town or out of state. I think the powers that be learned long ago the the local sheriff is NOT willing to go door to door to grab guns (or what ever Jack Booted Thuggery is ordered).
This, of course, is my view of the Katrina problems from Oregon, so discount it accordingly.
I forgot to say this in my previous post…As a law enforcement officer, I did NOT support the issuance of martial law during the Hurricane Katrina response, especially the gun grab portion of it.
Officially it was not martial law. The military did not take over, it was still civilian run rule with stricter laws on movement and weapons. (granted tomato and tomato to the normal person)
however “martial law” gets declared all the time. Here in the Northeast Ohio we have county sheriffs who shut down all roads in winter storms. If you’re found driving on them, you can be arrested and if you get in an accident your insurance company does not have to cover the damages.
I’ve always seen fear leading to a hopelessness feeling. That was what I was trying to get across with my comment. The fear that “they are just going to take it away” leads to hopelessness, loss of willingness to keep trying.
Why keep your yard looking nice, they will just throw trash on it and ride their bikes over the flowers. Why fix up the shed in the back, they will just paint their “tags” and break the windows again. Why have a garden, they will just vandalize it and throw the produce at the house. Why fix up the house, they just will vandalize it and break in again. Gosh, this neighborhood has gone down hill.
I think that is what the general “they will just take it away/damage it” fear is and results in.
I appreciated the comment. Our state propaganda machine seems to feed us a steady diet of ‘fear+helplessness’ which leads to ‘hopelessness’ (what’s the use).
Unplugging from the brainwashing feed, and taking some action (like planting a garden).. breaks the spell, until your left with only ‘legitimate’ fears (I might lose my job, the money system is broken..) that you can respond to with.. prepping.
;-p (sry couldn’t resist that last bit)
My life started to change when I realized.. Right, Left, Conservative, Liberal, its ALL propaganda, and listening to it is NOT improving my life or my mental health.
@Jack,
I’m sorry you’re bored. I’m also sorry that you dislike my tendency to elaborate on questions that I find to be multi-faceted and interesting to me such that I want to discuss them.
But, in deference to you, and since this is your blog, I’ll answer just as you’ve requested.
2
LONG TERM being a big factor in this answer.
To answer the secondary question. Yes, I do agree it would be good for “awake” people in States that are sure to go one way or the other to vote Libertarian. I’d love to see that.
Of course, you might have surmised this given that I already stated that I would likely vote for the Libertarian Candidate, if (closer to election day) my State wasn’t looking to be close.
Now, a question for you. How is writing in Ron Paul (isn’t that what you said you’d do?) helping to accomplish this goal (libertarian party funding)? He isn’t the Libertarian Candidate.
@KAM again you didn’t answer the question, it was which is better for the nation. You said it would be good, not which is better, this is what BORES ME.
Not your explanation your non answers.
An answer here would be long term X is better for the country, here is how that applies etc etc etc
I actually would be more likely to read and take in the rest of the stuff if the dang question was answered.
@Jack,
Really? You’ve got to be kidding me. How the hell can you complain about my answering DIRECTLY as can be humanly done.
You asked:
Which of the two below would make a bigger difference to the future of our nation long term?
1. Romney beats Obama
or
2. The libertarian party receives 5% of the vote and qualifies for Federal Election funds and is able to field candidates in many future elections, specifically at the Congressional level. To wit I submit http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50665
I ANSWERED “2”
What is it that you’re not clear on?
Which would be Better? “2” Two, TWO! How much more direct can I possibly be?
You’re accusing me of “non-answers” when I DIRECTLY ANSWER YOU!
The SECOND question you asked was: If you pick two above then would it not make sense for the majority of people that are awake to vote Libertarian specifically those in non swing states?
My answer: Yes, I do agree it would be good for “awake” people in States that are sure to go one way or the other to vote Libertarian. I’d love to see that.
To Review (Paraphrased)
Question 1:
Jack: 1 or 2
KAM: 2
Question 2:
Jack: Would it not make sense…?
KAM: Yes, I agree…
Seems REALLY clear to me.
You know what bores me–being accused of something I haven’t done. Oh wait, it doesn’t bore me, it makes me question why the hell I bother trying to discuss things at all.
@KAM ignore the response that I have already deleted! My deepest apologies are required at this point, you absolutely did say 2, I don’t know how I didn’t see it, the perils of multi tasking I get.
I was completely wrong I am sorry.
Now go ahead and vote for Romney, LOL.
@Jack,
Thank you for the Apology. Happily accepted.
Well, I’m still hoping to be able to vote for Gary Johnson (the libertarian party has been on the ballot in my State), but we’ll see.
@KAM on Ron Paul I said I would write in him before voting for the other two clowns. Never voted in this new location before, don’t know if Libertarian will be an option. If it is of course I do that before a write in.
@Jack,
Thanks for the clarification.
@Insidious,
I created a thread under Show Discussions called ‘Presidential Election Relevance (from Ep 876).
Post there if you’d like, but no hurry.
Holy crap there’s a few forums worth of arguing going on here..
Hey Jack I just wanted to say thanks for taking my question (first caller). I felt like an idiot right after I called cause out of nowhere I remembered another episode wher told another guy to start watching msn money to get started with a better understanding. Even with that though you did offer some other good starting points and made me realize how many details I don’t know about my pension plan. I have better understanding already and have alot of steps to take from here but I at least have a good starting point. Perhaps I’ll ask some more informed and advanced questions 6-12 months from now when I’m further along as far as progress. Thanks again Jack !
-Ben