"4 Million Conservatives Stayed Home in 2012 Election"

[BugI02]

I honestly couldn't tell you. I was being serious with my suggestion.

I would not wish to be a member of any party that would have me

 

[Cerberus]

Was wondering because college and university education seems to be frowned upon here.

I don't know of anyone here that frowns upon college or university education. Most of us want our children to go to college. What we all should frown upon is the very established fact that 97% of the college professoriate is politically to the left of Mao. That is what you call a one way information cul de sac.

 

[BugI02]

We want colleges that teach our children how to think and not what to think.

 

[jamil]

Was wondering because college and university education seems to be frowned upon here.

I've never really gotten that impression. There are many educated INGOers. But there have been threads advocating for more emphasis on vocational training rather than college. I tend to agree with that. Everyone is told they must have a college degree to get anywhere and so many kids graduate with degrees in worthless programs. Employers of skilled trades are having problems finding qualified people to do those jobs. An unemployed Anthropology major can't just walk into a skilled trade job.

Where are the American electricians? My house was wired by Mexicans. Not that I'm against other cultures, I'd prefer that they're here legally. It is very important to me that I can communicate with them. I talked to the foreman to tell him what I wanted, and he just nodded. I had no idea if he understood me nor not. Turns out, he didn't.

Not really. I just want to level the playing field a bit. I'm all for people pursing their interests and trying to better themselves. I'm not for such an uneven playing field. They haven't "taken America" they've just gamed the system to their betterment and with the "drown gov't in a bathtub" crowd, the regulatory agencies that are tasked with keeping them in check are undercut. One of the reasons cited for corporations being prosecuted by individuals not is the cost and the lack of resources for such prosecutions.

As far as the government telling us how to live...examples? Aren't pretty much all laws telling us how to live? Even "Thou shall not kill" is prescribing how people should live, like "not as murderers".

Murder is a pretty absurd example of government prescribing how people may live. Laws that punish people for harming people are not what I had in mind.

What I had in mind are laws that don't really have a legitimate need in society, or otherwise attempt to mitigate potential harm by prohibiting otherwise harmless behavior. For example, you mentioned two dudes marrying each other. Yeah, it's icky. Not mine nor the government's business though. The crazy gun laws don't really attempt to stop harm, but serve as a deterrent to behavior that the law makers don't like.

I could go on and on to list laws that fall into what I called prescribing behavior from banning incandescent light bulbs to Mrs. Obama's silly rules for school lunches. But I will say this, if we solved the lobbying problem, many of the ways government prescribes our behavior wouldn't exist. For example, Indiana's Sunday booze law. There's nothing particularly more dangerous about being able to buy booze on Sunday, and it's not like you can't buy it at all if you go to places that lobby every year to keep the law. Banning incandescent light bulbs, is another regulation of behavior that wouldn't exist if it weren't for lobbying.

 

[Lowe0]

I've never really gotten that impression. There are many educated INGOers. But there have been threads advocating for more emphasis on vocational training rather than college. I tend to agree with that. Everyone is told they must have a college degree to get anywhere and so many kids graduate with degrees in worthless programs. Employers of skilled trades are having problems finding qualified people to do those jobs. An unemployed Anthropology major can't just walk into a skilled trade job.

Where are the American electricians? My house was wired by Mexicans. Not that I'm against other cultures, I'd prefer that they're here legally. It is very important to me that I can communicate with them. I talked to the foreman to tell him what I wanted, and he just nodded. I had no idea if he understood me nor not. Turns out, he didn't.



Murder is a pretty absurd example of government prescribing how people may live. Laws that punish people for harming people are not what I had in mind.

What I had in mind are laws that don't really have a legitimate need in society, or otherwise attempt to mitigate potential harm by prohibiting otherwise harmless behavior. For example, you mentioned two dudes marrying each other. Yeah, it's icky. Not mine nor the government's business though. The crazy gun laws don't really attempt to stop harm, but serve as a deterrent to behavior that the law makers don't like.

I could go on and on to list laws that fall into what I called prescribing behavior from banning incandescent light bulbs to Mrs. Obama's silly rules for school lunches. But I will say this, if we solved the lobbying problem, many of the ways government prescribes our behavior wouldn't exist. For example, Indiana's Sunday booze law. There's nothing particularly more dangerous about being able to buy booze on Sunday, and it's not like you can't buy it at all if you go to places that lobby every year to keep the law. Banning incandescent light bulbs, is another regulation of behavior that wouldn't exist if it weren't for lobbying.

Except that the people trying to ban incandescent light bulbs are doing so precisely because they believe that using energy inefficiently does harm others. You may agree or disagree with that, but their underlying motivation is the same as yours.

 

[jamil]

Except that the people trying to ban incandescent light bulbs are doing so precisely because they believe that using energy inefficiently does harm others. You may agree or disagree with that, but their underlying motivation is the same as yours.

Well some folks probably believe that's the reason. Who spent the most money lobbying congress to ban the incandescent bulbs? GE and Phillips. They spent tons developing the swirly florescent bulbs that no one wanted. So ban the bulbs that people want so they can sell the bulbs that have a better margin.

 

[BugI02]

CFLs, Jamil - not SFBs. The undeniable fact is that they use roughly 1/4 the electricity of incandescent.

so 0.75 x [# of lightbulbs in US] x [avg wattage of same bulbs] x [avg number of hours used per day] = a lot

Think of it as kind of like Apple forcing you to migrate to USB-c, superior technology wins out (with a little help)

Maybe next they'll kill off CFLs ( Hg you know) and push us all into LEDs (roughly 1/10 the power useage of a comparable incandescent)

 

[jamil]

CFLs, Jamil - not SFBs. The undeniable fact is that they use roughly 1/4 the electricity of incandescent.

so 0.75 x [# of lightbulbs in US] x [avg wattage of same bulbs] x [avg number of hours used per day] = a lot

Think of it as kind of like Apple forcing you to migrate to USB-c, superior technology wins out (with a little help)

Maybe next they'll kill off CFLs ( Hg you know) and push us all into LEDs (roughly 1/10 the power useage of a comparable incandescent)

It's an example of government deciding for me what is best. I don't care if CFL's use less energy. So my electric bill is a bit higher. I prefer incandescent bulbs. I like the quality of light better. They are also more usable. But if you really want to discuss light bulbs I think there was a thread for that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's an example of government deciding for me what is best. I don't care if CFL's use less energy. So my electric bill is a bit higher. I prefer incandescent bulbs. I like the quality of light better. They are also more usable. But if you really want to discuss light bulbs I think there was a thread for that.

Some ideas are just so wonderful, we must use the government to mandate everybody adopt them.
Some ideas suck so much, we must use the government to ban them.

 

[Lowe0]

It's an example of government deciding for me what is best. I don't care if CFL's use less energy. So my electric bill is a bit higher. I prefer incandescent bulbs. I like the quality of light better. They are also more usable. But if you really want to discuss light bulbs I think there was a thread for that.

Okay, so the government decided what was best for you. In the end, were they wrong? Compare a modern LED bulb to incandescent: we now have a more efficient substitute for the outdated technology, inexpensive and widely available. What's the point of not using it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Okay, so the government decided what was best for you. In the end, were they wrong? Compare a modern LED bulb to incandescent: we now have a more efficient substitute for the outdated technology, inexpensive and widely available. What's the point of not using it?

This provides a bottomless pit of rationale for all sorts of government decisions on what's best for you.

 

[Lowe0]

This provides a bottomless pit of rationale for all sorts of government decisions on what's best for you.

And that bottomless pit has a giant fence around it: we elect our representatives. We trust that they'll use that power sparingly, and if they use it too much (or too little), we replace them.

"The government" isn't some giant faceless entity. It's all of us. We have the Constitution to prevent egregious abuse, but for small stuff like light bulbs, if I'm going to share a country with 300 million people, I'm going to have to accept not having things exactly my way all of the time.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And that bottomless pit has a giant fence around it: we elect our representatives. We trust that they'll use that power sparingly, and if they use it too much (or too little), we replace them.

"The government" isn't some giant faceless entity. It's all of us. We have the Constitution to prevent egregious abuse, but for small stuff like light bulbs, if I'm going to share a country with 300 million people, I'm going to have to accept not having things exactly my way all of the time.

Which part of the Constitution provides the federal government with the authority to decide which light bulbs people may purchase and which may not? The commerce clause? The general welfare clause? The 14th Amendment?

 

[jamil]

And that bottomless pit has a giant fence around it: we elect our representatives. We trust that they'll use that power sparingly, and if they use it too much (or too little), we replace them.

No. We don't. We tune out and watch Neflix.

"The government" isn't some giant faceless entity. It's all of us. We have the Constitution to prevent egregious abuse, but for small stuff like light bulbs, if I'm going to share a country with 300 million people, I'm going to have to accept not having things exactly my way all of the time.

The government is all of us?

You learned that flowery crock of **** in school, didn't you?

So you need government to protect you from my incandescent light bulbs?

So why DID Phillips and GE spend so much money lobbying congress to ban the bulbs? Hmmm? Corporate responsibility. Right.

Which part of the Constitution provides the federal government with the authority to decide which light bulbs people may purchase and which may not? The commerce clause? The general welfare clause? The 14th Amendment?

Not only is the constitution insufficient because it doesn't allow for redistribution of wealth, apparently it also doesn't allow government to protect the masses from my light bulbs.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I would not wish to be a member of any party that would have me

You don't like the way things are but are unwilling to do something about it?

 

[Arthur Dent]

Except that the people trying to ban incandescent light bulbs are doing so precisely because they believe that using energy inefficiently does harm others. You may agree or disagree with that, but their underlying motivation is the same as yours.

Or perhaps the push for florescent and LED lighting was bought and paid for by the companies selling the products?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I've never really gotten that impression. There are many educated INGOers. But there have been threads advocating for more emphasis on vocational training rather than college. I tend to agree with that. Everyone is told they must have a college degree to get anywhere and so many kids graduate with degrees in worthless programs. Employers of skilled trades are having problems finding qualified people to do those jobs. An unemployed Anthropology major can't just walk into a skilled trade job.

Where are the American electricians? My house was wired by Mexicans. Not that I'm against other cultures, I'd prefer that they're here legally. It is very important to me that I can communicate with them. I talked to the foreman to tell him what I wanted, and he just nodded. I had no idea if he understood me nor not. Turns out, he didn't.



Murder is a pretty absurd example of government prescribing how people may live. Laws that punish people for harming people are not what I had in mind.

What I had in mind are laws that don't really have a legitimate need in society, or otherwise attempt to mitigate potential harm by prohibiting otherwise harmless behavior. For example, you mentioned two dudes marrying each other. Yeah, it's icky. Not mine nor the government's business though. The crazy gun laws don't really attempt to stop harm, but serve as a deterrent to behavior that the law makers don't like.

I could go on and on to list laws that fall into what I called prescribing behavior from banning incandescent light bulbs to Mrs. Obama's silly rules for school lunches. But I will say this, if we solved the lobbying problem, many of the ways government prescribes our behavior wouldn't exist. For example, Indiana's Sunday booze law. There's nothing particularly more dangerous about being able to buy booze on Sunday, and it's not like you can't buy it at all if you go to places that lobby every year to keep the law. Banning incandescent light bulbs, is another regulation of behavior that wouldn't exist if it weren't for lobbying.

School lunches are equally absurd. Are you suggesting the government can't set standards for government provided food? Pack a lunch, problem solved.

Sunday booze sales, yeah I'm with you on that. Light bulbs, meh. If your lifestyle is dependent on filament light bulbs perhaps your lifestyle is...boring? I dunno. What about leaded gas? Think the market would have transitioned and are we better or worse off for the change?

That seems a little far afield from telling you how to live.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Government recommended standards for school lunches, when done conscientiously and which make sense, are beneficial. It's when elitist ideologues and corrupt industrial lobbyists get hold of that recommending stick that we wind up with enforcement of what would be a starvation diet if the kids would actually eat it. There are huge quantities of food discarded, black markets for salt etc, and no, in many cases you can't just pack a lunch; it will be subject to search and seizure.

 

[jamil]

School lunches are equally absurd. Are you suggesting the government can't set standards for government provided food? Pack a lunch, problem solved.

Sunday booze sales, yeah I'm with you on that. Light bulbs, meh. If your lifestyle is dependent on filament light bulbs perhaps your lifestyle is...boring? I dunno. What about leaded gas? Think the market would have transitioned and are we better or worse off for the change?

That seems a little far afield from telling you how to live.

Why on earth would anyone's lifestyle be dependent on light bulbs? Mine's not. I'd have thought that ad hominem were beneath you. But you do raise an important point. The technology of light bulbs available on the market is an astonishingly trivial thing for government to weigh in on. So do you think government should have the power to make laws that prescribes any behavior it wants, as long as it's what the 50% + 1 vote for? Is there a line to draw? So you think banning light bulbs is meh, but you think no beer sales on Sunday is overreaching. Where's that line? Is it just okay because it's the people's government?

Government is not the [STRIKE]"it's all of us"[/STRIKE] flowery crock of **** Lowe0 learned about in grade school. It can't be "all of us" because "us" are made up of real individuals with diverse beliefs and desires and goals. The government we get is the government that the most powerful people can convince a simplest majority to vote for. And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-government. But I'm pretty sure I think government needs more restraints than you think it needs.

 

[Twangbanger]

They are out there. Nobody knows how many there are, but they are out there. It could be 1,000,000, it could be 10,000,000. We all know 5, 10 or 20 people that get frustrated and choose not to participate. They buy American, they want the government out of their lives, they are traditional-minded, they are patriotic and they feel screwed with attaching themselves to the victim class.

There was an article just last week, most Americans feel ostracized in America. Big government wants to take away Americans' rights to defend themselves, their families and their property but they want to arm the Iranians with nuclear weapons. There are hungry and homeless Americans, hungry and homeless Veterans, but politicians in WDC want to bring in Syrian "refugees" (to establish a permanent voting class) that do not even fight for their own country and will live on the American taxpayer.

There are millions of Americans that are sick of being called racists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamophobes. They are sick of being castigated for loving America, being patriotic and believing in American Exceptionalism.

It is up to the candidates running to make that appeal to voters that feel disenfranchised. With all of that said, much of the blame for all of this can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the national GOP. They have found a way to intercourse the canine most every opportunity they get. The inability to actually be the party of limited government has turned a lot of people away. However, the way our political system works, a vote for any third party on the national level is a vote for the Democrat Party...a party which will NOT be the party of constitutional and limited government, personal responsibility and strong national defense anytime soon.

I wonder, how do you get those people? (Assuming they really care). Were they the Ross Perot voters? Are any of these people supporting Trump right now? I wonder, if his appeal is not just simplicity of message. Now, that will draw derision from the usual smarties squawking about "simple answers that are wrong." But go back to Reagan: there's no reason that a simple message has to be attached to someone who's vacuous (or has fascist-sounding views). It could in fact be someone who's very intelligent in their policy proposals, but simply knows how to break that down into Cliff Note versions and translate into language ordinary Americans understand. Sort of like a "Break Room" for America; how do you talk about politics, to people who don't want to hear about politics?

The Democrats do a shape-shifting version of this. They can take policy that's music to the ears of their donors, and convert it to language they can "take to the ghetto." Why can't Republicans figure this out? Or do they just not care, because they're so busy trying to fellate lobbyists? Do they simply, totally not give a ratsass about what "Lottery Ticket America" really wants & cares about?