(03-10-2016 03:47 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:19 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 09:52 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20.../81084452/

This was written by my older brother. I'll warn people that he's fairly liberal (much more so than me) but I think he raises some good points.

I like his prose...

I like his willingness to point out the 'fight'.....

I like how he unintentionally and indirectly points out how many don't understand that big gov't is the root cause....

get it?

spoiler: it's that 'socialized view' that generates the end result that enables those that can prey upon the meek....

one has to understand the fight before engaging or it's just another trying to trap the bear argument....

humanitarian arguments are pointless....it's why I stopped buying that paper moon(s) ago

we all are NOT equal....it's called "LIFE"

Big government is not the root cause. If government was smaller we would have at least as much issue with consumer protection, probably more. How much consumer protection was there 150 years ago when government was smaller? A lot less than now.

150 yrs ago I would've just shot your arse and gone on my merry way....

now I have to deal with a keyboard that continually changes....

capiche?

in other words, the numbers that play the field create causation.....

Which doesn't change the fact that there were fewer consumer protections when the government was smaller. Corporations have NO interest in consumer protection, except the absolute minimum they need to not look bad.

(03-10-2016 05:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 03:47 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:19 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 09:52 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20.../81084452/

This was written by my older brother. I'll warn people that he's fairly liberal (much more so than me) but I think he raises some good points.

I like his prose...

I like his willingness to point out the 'fight'.....

I like how he unintentionally and indirectly points out how many don't understand that big gov't is the root cause....

get it?

spoiler: it's that 'socialized view' that generates the end result that enables those that can prey upon the meek....

one has to understand the fight before engaging or it's just another trying to trap the bear argument....

humanitarian arguments are pointless....it's why I stopped buying that paper moon(s) ago

we all are NOT equal....it's called "LIFE"

Big government is not the root cause. If government was smaller we would have at least as much issue with consumer protection, probably more. How much consumer protection was there 150 years ago when government was smaller? A lot less than now.

150 yrs ago I would've just shot your arse and gone on my merry way....

now I have to deal with a keyboard that continually changes....

capiche?

in other words, the numbers that play the field create causation.....

Which doesn't change the fact that there were fewer consumer protections when the government was smaller. Corporations have NO interest in consumer protection, except the absolute minimum they need to not look bad.

wtf are you talking about? you cherry pick an insignificant line and ignore the important part about numbers and how that impacts things today....

you're just a typical socialist...

buh-bye....

Just to be clear, the article claims that republics want to make government bigger and less efficient to protect banks and not the consumer.

(03-11-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just to be clear, the article claims that republics want to make government bigger and less efficient to protect banks and not the consumer.

which would be why it was written from a lib perspective and is an op-ed....

doesn't change the fact that the guy is a good writer....that I respect....something you continually overlook in both theory and prose....you deserve the following at this point....

(03-10-2016 10:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just another example of how the GOP protects banks and sticks it to the average Jose.

Consumer protection.....
Don't buy **** you can't afford. Pretty simple.
Also, gov't shouldn't force financial institutions to "include" everybody regardless of income.

(03-11-2016 10:28 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Consumer protection.....
Don't buy **** you can't afford. Pretty simple.

That SNL skit with Steve Martin was hillarious.

(03-11-2016 10:27 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just another example of how the GOP protects banks and sticks it to the average Jose.

he's starting to embrace it again.....we love 'em all....

(03-11-2016 10:06 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 05:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 03:47 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:19 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  I like his prose...

I like his willingness to point out the 'fight'.....

I like how he unintentionally and indirectly points out how many don't understand that big gov't is the root cause....

get it?

spoiler: it's that 'socialized view' that generates the end result that enables those that can prey upon the meek....

one has to understand the fight before engaging or it's just another trying to trap the bear argument....

humanitarian arguments are pointless....it's why I stopped buying that paper moon(s) ago

we all are NOT equal....it's called "LIFE"

Big government is not the root cause. If government was smaller we would have at least as much issue with consumer protection, probably more. How much consumer protection was there 150 years ago when government was smaller? A lot less than now.

150 yrs ago I would've just shot your arse and gone on my merry way....

now I have to deal with a keyboard that continually changes....

capiche?

in other words, the numbers that play the field create causation.....

Which doesn't change the fact that there were fewer consumer protections when the government was smaller. Corporations have NO interest in consumer protection, except the absolute minimum they need to not look bad.

wtf are you talking about? you cherry pick an insignificant line and ignore the important part about numbers and how that impacts things today....

you're just a typical socialist...

buh-bye....

What numbers? You didn't explain anything, except maybe to yourself. Nobody else can figure out what the hell you're talking about.

Fact is, consumer protection has gotten better as government has grown. You can complain about the dire consequences and ramifications of that (and even I agree it gets to be excessive), but it's a fact.

(03-11-2016 10:32 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:27 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just another example of how the GOP protects banks and sticks it to the average Jose.

he's starting to embrace it again.....we love 'em all....

(03-11-2016 10:21 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just to be clear, the article claims that republics want to make government bigger and less efficient to protect banks and not the consumer.

which would be why it was written from a lib perspective and is an op-ed....

doesn't change the fact that the guy is a good writer....that I respect....something you continually overlook in both theory and prose....you deserve the following at this point....

You're going to tell me that I don't know how to write? I don't even think you've ever written a complete sentence.

(03-10-2016 10:19 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:06 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The lesser of two evils.......

....is still EVIL.

I refer to it as the evil of two 'lessers'.


Outstanding article, OO. I'd love to meet your brother. I imagine the 'thanksgiving table conversations' between the two of you were broadening for you both. It's ALWAYS great to have intelligent discourse with people who have different perspectives but share some commonality with you so that their references and inferences make sense, even if you reach different conclusions.

(03-11-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just to be clear, the article claims that republics want to make government bigger and less efficient to protect banks and not the consumer.

Responding to this in conjunction with the above note to OO...
Whether or not your statement (Fit) is true is really irrelevant. It's what we far too often do on here, but it is irrelevant. This is obviously a smart and informed person, but that doesn't mean that he is THE smartest or THE most informed or that a similarly smart and intelligent person can't reach the exact opposite conclusion. Some people (not this one) are great writers with bad arguments. Some people have great arguments but are fundamentally wrong. Some people have good arguments and are right in some ways about some people (on the right or left) but then they paint the right or left in a particular fashion because they don't understand the motivations.... i.e. the article about Trump changing 46,000 'democrat' voters to him. Is that because they love Trump (his side would argue) or because they are actually democrats and are more afraid of Cruz/Rubio than Trum in the general? You don't really know, and both are possible/probable for various people within that 46,000.

The important part isn't that this OO's brother is 'correct', but that he has a well articulated and intelligent argument that can easily lead to a conversation with another similarly articulate and intelligent person with a different perspective, which can lead to understanding and 'change'. Which is why I would like to hear the table debate between these two intelligent and articulate brothers... and why most of the discourse on forums OTHER than the moderated spin room are so weak. Rather than having intelligent and informative debate, we quickly devolve into 'reference' shaming or arguing for 'our team', even when they're wrong and 'we' know it.

While I certainly skew 'right' on many issues, I certainly don't on all of them. I have never voted straight ticket in my life and honestly can't see doing so. I simply find that the general fiscal concepts of 'the right' fit SLIGHTLY better with my beliefs than the left.... and if you fix the fiscal issues, the social issues of the right (that I often disagree with) have no funding.... but if you fund the social issued of the left (even those I agree with) you have to fund everything else as well. I say this because I think an intelligent left leaning person might understand that since I support many of his motivations, I might be able to help him accomplish them if he understands the motivations of more of those on 'the right' (and vice versa)

I understand the motivation of average republicans and I also understand the motivation of politicians. They are not one in the same.

(03-11-2016 11:06 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I understand the motivation of average republicans and I also understand the motivation of politicians. They are not one in the same.

or one and the same.....like you or me....

and I'm not a grammar nazi....

(03-11-2016 10:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:19 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:06 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The lesser of two evils.......

....is still EVIL.

I refer to it as the evil of two 'lessers'.


Outstanding article, OO. I'd love to meet your brother. I imagine the 'thanksgiving table conversations' between the two of you were broadening for you both. It's ALWAYS great to have intelligent discourse with people who have different perspectives but share some commonality with you so that their references and inferences make sense, even if you reach different conclusions.

(03-11-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just to be clear, the article claims that republics want to make government bigger and less efficient to protect banks and not the consumer.

Responding to this in conjunction with the above note to OO...
Whether or not your statement (Fit) is true is really irrelevant. It's what we far too often do on here, but it is irrelevant. This is obviously a smart and informed person, but that doesn't mean that he is THE smartest or THE most informed or that a similarly smart and intelligent person can't reach the exact opposite conclusion. Some people (not this one) are great writers with bad arguments. Some people have great arguments but are fundamentally wrong. Some people have good arguments and are right in some ways about some people (on the right or left) but then they paint the right or left in a particular fashion because they don't understand the motivations.... i.e. the article about Trump changing 46,000 'democrat' voters to him. Is that because they love Trump (his side would argue) or because they are actually democrats and are more afraid of Cruz/Rubio than Trum in the general? You don't really know, and both are possible/probable for various people within that 46,000.

The important part isn't that this OO's brother is 'correct', but that he has a well articulated and intelligent argument that can easily lead to a conversation with another similarly articulate and intelligent person with a different perspective, which can lead to understanding and 'change'. Which is why I would like to hear the table debate between these two intelligent and articulate brothers... and why most of the discourse on forums OTHER than the moderated spin room are so weak. Rather than having intelligent and informative debate, we quickly devolve into 'reference' shaming or arguing for 'our team', even when they're wrong and 'we' know it.

While I certainly skew 'right' on many issues, I certainly don't on all of them. I have never voted straight ticket in my life and honestly can't see doing so. I simply find that the general fiscal concepts of 'the right' fit SLIGHTLY better with my beliefs than the left.... and if you fix the fiscal issues, the social issues of the right (that I often disagree with) have no funding.... but if you fund the social issued of the left (even those I agree with) you have to fund everything else as well. I say this because I think an intelligent left leaning person might understand that since I support many of his motivations, I might be able to help him accomplish them if he understands the motivations of more of those on 'the right' (and vice versa)

a curtsy from a centrist....

(03-11-2016 11:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 11:06 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I understand the motivation of average republicans and I also understand the motivation of politicians. They are not one in the same.

or one and the same.....like you or me....

and I'm not a grammar nazi....

Yes. Perhaps you should master capitalization before you become one.

(03-11-2016 10:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:21 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just to be clear, the article claims that republics want to make government bigger and less efficient to protect banks and not the consumer.

which would be why it was written from a lib perspective and is an op-ed....

doesn't change the fact that the guy is a good writer....that I respect....something you continually overlook in both theory and prose....you deserve the following at this point....

You're going to tell me that I don't know how to write? I don't even think you've ever written a complete sentence.

coming from someone who doesnt know the difference between parenthesis and quotation marks

(03-11-2016 11:14 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:21 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just to be clear, the article claims that republics want to make government bigger and less efficient to protect banks and not the consumer.

which would be why it was written from a lib perspective and is an op-ed....

doesn't change the fact that the guy is a good writer....that I respect....something you continually overlook in both theory and prose....you deserve the following at this point....

You're going to tell me that I don't know how to write? I don't even think you've ever written a complete sentence.

coming from someone who doesnt know the difference between parenthesis and quotation marks

Or promote and provide

(03-11-2016 11:21 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 11:14 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:21 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just to be clear, the article claims that republics want to make government bigger and less efficient to protect banks and not the consumer.

which would be why it was written from a lib perspective and is an op-ed....

doesn't change the fact that the guy is a good writer....that I respect....something you continually overlook in both theory and prose....you deserve the following at this point....

You're going to tell me that I don't know how to write? I don't even think you've ever written a complete sentence.

coming from someone who doesnt know the difference between parenthesis and quotation marks

Or promote and provide

but he is the "educator"

(03-11-2016 11:21 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 11:21 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 11:14 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 10:21 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  which would be why it was written from a lib perspective and is an op-ed....

doesn't change the fact that the guy is a good writer....that I respect....something you continually overlook in both theory and prose....you deserve the following at this point....

You're going to tell me that I don't know how to write? I don't even think you've ever written a complete sentence.

coming from someone who doesnt know the difference between parenthesis and quotation marks

Or promote and provide

but he is the "educator"