NFL HELL: Owners/TV networks face mounting losses as Trump called boycotts spread

[helmuth_hubener]

Anyway, I want to see where you're going with this (hopefully someplace awesome!) so here's a simple, straightforward answer:

Let's get a little more real: Which tastes better? A can of FDR beans or a can of Stalin beans?

First off, taste doesn't really matter in the long run, or even the short run. Only in the super-short, pleasure-obsessed run. So let's make it which one *is* better? And let's assume you meant "a can of beans produced in America under FDR's presidency" and "a can of beans produced in the Soviet Republics under the Stalin Secretaracy." Since I don't know what else you'd mean.

Most likely, the can of beans produced in America will be better. Both are quite old, long past their expiration date, but the American beans canned during that time period would have been less likely to be initially poisonous or defective somehow, statistically-speaking, based on the relative prosperity and food safety levels of the nations.

So I'd sooner eat the American beans, all else equal.

Of course, all is not equal, and were I in reality presented with both of these cans of beans -- we're keepin' it real, right? -- I would have at my disposal other useful factors which I'd take into account more heavily than their provenance. I would, for example, smell them.

 

[otherone]

Is it also part of your ideology that the political leadership of a country exerts some sort of magical influence on beans? This is one I am not familiar with. Is there a name for your ideology so I can brush up on it?

Not mine. Ask this guy:

It sure does

For sure, we've all been infected by this horrible and evil brainworm to some degree! That's why it's important to call it out. Once you can see it, including in yourself -- most importantly, of course, in yourself! -- then you can start to coolly analyze its malicious workings.

Of course. But while all of us debate ideologies, those in power operate under the premise of Realpolitik. Where they succeed is knowing how to manipulate those who are guided by principle. Are examples required?

First off, taste doesn't really matter in the long run, or even the short run. Only in the super-short, pleasure-obsessed run. So let's make it which one *is* better? And let's assume you meant "a can of beans produced in America under FDR's presidency" and "a can of beans produced in the Soviet Republics under the Stalin Secretaracy." Since I don't know what else you'd mean.

FDR vs Stalin was pointed. All cans of beans suck, as a general rule. When you are starving, or your children are starving, it doesn't matter who's label is on the damn can. "Reality" is how, YOU, are affected by who wields power. Not how your ideology is affected, or what internet debates you have, or who is stronger, Mighty Mouse or Superman. In the "consumerism" thread, Rev claims the Russian Revolution wouldn't have happened if the Czar threw chickens at the peasants. He's absolutely right. The problem is the Czar had no chickens to throw.

 

[Ender]

I am all about ironies!


It doesn't really matter that it was hypothetical. Another good example of a choice that an ideologue would be incapable of making a judgment on is: who would you rather live under, JFK or Pol Pot? I guess that's still hypothetical because in the past -- make it Hans-Adam II or Mugabe. I mean, pretty simple call, but the Ideologue, lost and blind, would refuse to and be unable to make it. I gave the tax-rate example already, hardly hypothetical. Here's another ideologue circuit-jammer: who was a better President, Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama? Or, how about this fun one: who would be a better President: Donald J. Trump or Hillary Clinton?

Aack! Does not com-pute! Sys-tem melt-down! Systemmeltdown!

Neither! Neither! Neither!

You DO know that Ron Paul said "Neither!" on Trump and Hillary- right?

So, you are in fact calling him an ideologue incapable of making a judgment.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You DO know that Ron Paul said "Neither!" on Trump and Hillary- right?

So, you are in fact calling him an ideologue incapable of making a judgment.

I don't know, am I? You tell me!

Care to have an original thought of your own, or plan to just pathetically try to assume the persona of Ron Paul the rest of your life? What do you do if, despite your shortened life expectancy from obesity you still manage to somehow barely outlive the fit, slim, disciplined Ron Paul? Then how will you know what to think? Who will you use as a cover to assure yourself your ideas are right and righteous?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

But while all of us debate ideologies, those in power operate under the premise of Realpolitik. Where they succeed is knowing how to manipulate those who are guided by principle. Are examples required?

Great post, OtherOne!

We are making the exact same point, but with different memes.

Have you ever read The Righteous Mind, OtherOne? One of the things it mentions is that actually voting and supporting patterns have more to do with the interest of your *group* than just you individually, at least for most people. So it's not just 'what's in it for me' but 'for my group'.

 

[Ender]

I don't know, am I? You tell me!

Care to have an original thought of your own, or plan to just pathetically try to assume the persona of Ron Paul the rest of your life? What do you do if, despite your shortened life expectancy from obesity you still manage to somehow barely outlive the fit, slim, disciplined Ron Paul? Then how will you know what to think? Who will you use as a cover to assure yourself your ideas are right and righteous?

Right, oh basher-of-others. Try talking w/o insults and trying to look better than everyone else, just once- I'm sure you can do it.

And, I said from the beginning of the whole Trump/Hitlery nonsense, that the choice was either cow dung or horse dung, so I was choosing....WAIT FOR IT.....NEITHER! That was long before RP made his stance. Was just reminding you that you were bashing the guy who this forum is named after.

Reading is your friend- try it.

 

[otherone]

Great post, OtherOne!

We are making the exact same point, but with different memes.

Pardon my obtuseness, but what point is that?

Have you ever read The Righteous Mind, OtherOne? One of the things it mentions is that actually voting and supporting patterns have more to do with the interest of your *group* than just you individually, at least for most people. So it's not just 'what's in it for me' but 'for my group'.

Haven't read it. Nothing I've written has anything to do with voting. If the state actually protected individual Rights, it wouldn't matter who you voted for. As it stands, people vote for the guy who promises to throw the most chickens at them, individually, or collectively.

 

[otherone]

I don't know, am I? You tell me!

Care to have an original thought of your own, or plan to just pathetically try to assume the persona of Ron Paul the rest of your life? What do you do if, despite your shortened life expectancy from obesity you still manage to somehow barely outlive the fit, slim, disciplined Ron Paul? Then how will you know what to think? Who will you use as a cover to assure yourself your ideas are right and righteous?

Goodness. That was pointlessly snippy.
It is my hope that RP showed people the value of principle over politics. Frankly; what's his point if we simply choose the lesser of two evils? Couldn't we have done that without him?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Not mine. Ask this guy:






Of course. But while all of us debate ideologies, those in power operate under the premise of Realpolitik. Where they succeed is knowing how to manipulate those who are guided by principle. Are examples required?






FDR vs Stalin was pointed. All cans of beans suck, as a general rule. When you are starving, or your children are starving, it doesn't matter who's label is on the damn can. "Reality" is how, YOU, are affected by who wields power. Not how your ideology is affected, or what internet debates you have, or who is stronger, Mighty Mouse or Superman. In the "consumerism" thread, Rev claims the Russian Revolution wouldn't have happened if the Czar threw chickens at the peasants. He's absolutely right. The problem is the Czar had no chickens to throw.

If you meant an actual "can of beans" then no there is no difference, I thought you were speaking in metaphor, it is also completely irrelevant what actual beans taste like under a given regime.

The fact that you actually asked that question in seriousness and not in metaphor proves you are a fool or a scoundrel.

 

[euphemia]

Some of you people crack me up the way you act like this is an idealogical thing. As if you had a consistent ideology.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You DO know that Ron Paul said "Neither!" on Trump and Hillary- right?

So, you are in fact calling him an ideologue incapable of making a judgment.

There are times for ideological purity and times for practicality, there was no reason to believe Trump would perform as well as he has due to his past history, I did not vote for him, but I might in 2020 if there is no better choice.

Meanwhile you display a marked sympathy for Mandela and Kucinich and an absolute intolerance for others like Molyneux who I dislike but is demonstrably less of a threat to liberty than the other two, THAT is what is being discussed and what you refuse to make a judgement on when directly confronted about it.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Frankly; what's his point if we simply choose the lesser of two evils? Couldn't we have done that without him?

It depends on the choice, is there a better option? Do we get to work with more than one person/faction?

If we can reduce evil or not reduce evil I will choose to reduce evil and then work on reducing it further.

 

[Ender]

There are times for ideological purity and times for practicality, there was no reason to believe Trump would perform as well as he has due to his past history, I did not vote for him, but I might in 2020 if there is no better choice.

Meanwhile you display a marked sympathy for Mandela and Kucinich and an absolute intolerance for others like Molyneux who I dislike but is demonstrably less of a threat to liberty than the other two, THAT is what is being discussed and what you refuse to make a judgement on when directly confronted about it.

Because I correct false history about people or show where someone worked well with Ron Paul, does NOT mean I am displaying a marked sympathy- it means that I have little patience with made-up history or lies told that are just to support one's prejudices.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Pardon my obtuseness, but what point is that?

We're both in the general realm of, as you so excellently put it, "while all of us debate ideologies, those in power operate under the premise of Realpolitik. Where they succeed is knowing how to manipulate those who are guided by principle." I don't know that either of us have a specific point, but we're both talking about the impotence and possible pointlessness of obsessing about ideology in a dead-end manner, and also now, thanks to you, you have brought in the flip side of the coin: the pointfulness and demonstrated potency of dealing with people as they actually behave and think and with reality as it actually is. Also known as: Realpolitick.

Also known as: Winning.

Learning how to win is important. That means thinking realistically and prudently. Some have suggested making allies from, for example, worshippers of dead African communists, and Negro Felon millionaires showing disrespect to the symbols of their host country. Hopefully you can see when I put it so starkly: not the most brilliant tactical plan, is it! Not exactly likely to work. And if it did work, even worse for us! Some allies are mutually exclusive. In this case, the genuflecting Negro Felons have an incompatibility issue with, umm, 65 to 80% of the USA's population, including virtually 100% of the people who have any real alignment with our goals and Amy likelihood of actual productive alliance.

Libertarianism is a movement of the right. The left hates us. Even the left-anarchists hate us. There is an unbridgeable emotional, temperamental, and biological divide between us and the left. There is no such chasm between us and the right. We are *part* of the right. It would be very valuable to us to finally realize that.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Haven't read it. Nothing I've written has anything to do with voting. If the state actually protected individual Rights, it wouldn't matter who you voted for. As it stands, people vote for the guy who promises to throw the most chickens at them, individually, or collectively.

No, but that's why I said 'or supporting'. I should have left out the part about voting, as your bug's immune system zeroed in so thoroughly on that word.

It's just supporting. E.g. failing to launch a revolution, because chickens. The thing I was adding to your true thought was that actually most normal people would be supportive even if they themselves didn't get a chicken, as long as the group(s) with which they identified -- family, religion, ethnic group -- got chickens.

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

We're both in the general realm of, as you so excellently put it, "while all of us debate ideologies, those in power operate under the premise of Realpolitik. Where they succeed is knowing how to manipulate those who are guided by principle." I don't know that either of us have a specific point, but we're both talking about the impotence and possible pointlessness of obsessing about ideology in a dead-end manner, and also now, thanks to you, you have brought in the flip side of the coin: the pointfulness and demonstrated potency of dealing with people as they actually behave and think and with reality as it actually is. Also known as: Realpolitick.

Also known as: Winning.

Learning how to win is important. That means thinking realistically and prudently. Some have suggested making allies from, for example, worshippers of dead African communists, and Negro Felon millionaires showing disrespect to the symbols of their host country. Hopefully you can see when I put it so starkly: not the most brilliant tactical plan, is it! Not exactly likely to work. And if it did work, even worse for us! Some allies are mutually exclusive. In this case, the genuflecting Negro Felons have an incompatibility issue with, umm, 65 to 80% of the USA's population, including virtually 100% of the people who have any real alignment with our goals and Amy likelihood of actual productive alliance.

Libertarianism is a movement of the right. The left hates us. Even the left-anarchists hate us. There is an unbridgeable emotional, temperamental, and biological divide between us and the left. There is no such chasm between us and the right. We are *part* of the right. It would be very valuable to us to finally realize that.

Left and Right are useful terms when using a GPS. When talking politics they are nothing more than sophomoric mind control. Divide and conquer tactics, most likely a creation of CIA/M16/Mossad. When you use them you’ve already lost.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Left and Right are useful terms when using a GPS. When talking politics they are nothing more than sophomoric mind control. Divide and conquer tactics, most likely a creation of CIA/M16/Mossad. When you use them you’ve already lost.

Umm, did the CIA cause the French Revolution?

Or was it Mossad? Or M16?

I can absolutely prove to you these are highly significant heuristic terms. They are, objectively, scientifically useful. You yourself can probably predict with a surprising degree of accuracy someone's political opinions based on very, very tiny amounts of completely unrelated information. Or is it so unrelated? It can't be, since it's so predictive.

Male, drives a Volvo, does yoga, has a housecat. What does he think about abortion?

Male, lifts weights, commercial pilot, eats steak and potatoes three times a week. How does he feel about gun control?

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

Umm, did the CIA cause the French Revolution?

Or was it Mossad? Or M16?

I can absolutely prove to you these are highly significant heuristic terms. They are, objectively, scientifically useful. You yourself can probably predict with a surprising degree of accuracy someone's political opinions based on very, very tiny amounts of completely unrelated information. Or is it so unrelated? It can't be, since it's so predictive.

Male, drives a Volvo, does yoga, has a housecat. What does he think about abortion?

Male, lifts weights, commercial pilot, eats steak and potatoes three times a week. How does he feel about gun control?

Answer these:
The Bill of Rights: Left or Right?
The Antifederalists: Left or Right?
The British Empire: Left or Right?
Monarchs, Industrialists & Bankers inventing limited-liability corporations to shield their personal wealth from lawsuits and hide their identites from the public: Left or Right?
European Bankers buying politicians, creating central banks, printing paper money, fraudulently buying the worlds natural resources and capital, and robbing nations and individuals of their Natural Right to Independence: Left or Right?

 

[otherone]

Answer these:
The Bill of Rights: Left or Right?
The Antifederalists: Left or Right?
The British Empire: Left or Right?
Monarchs, Industrialists & Bankers inventing limited-liability corporations to shield their personal wealth from lawsuits and hide their identites from the public: Left or Right?
European Bankers buying politicians, creating central banks, printing paper money, fraudulently buying the worlds natural resources and capital, and robbing nations and individuals of their Natural Right to Independence: Left or Right?

Depends. Do they do yoga or lift weights?

 

[Ender]

Depends. Do they do yoga or lift weights?

What if they do both?