Other Resources The Political Joe » Anchorman 2 Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2014-01-24 10:04 AM

User image

Elite
4564
200020005002525
Boise
Subject: Anchorman 2
I feel like this has to be a scene right out of the movie.

http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-justin-bieber-breaking-news-ns...


2014-01-24 12:16 PM
in reply to: JoshR

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
I did not see the movie but that is funny.

Actually I think it was Nancy Grace on CNN but I could be wrong saying How bad it was because what if a 5 year old child was walking the streets alone at 4 am and got hit. I guess it bothered me because Bill O'Reilly was saying the same thing about legal pot. Talking about kids smoking and driving and that is why it should be illegal.

I do think nothing will happen to Beiber. He is the poster child for Affluenenza.
2014-01-24 12:20 PM
in reply to: JoshR

User image

Regular
525
50025
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
The sad part is that most Americans are more concerned with Beiber than the fact that their civil liberties are being eroded at an alarming pace. I want to see the former congresswoman's response to that interruption. I wish she would have just blasted Andrea Mitchell. What is wrong with us?
2014-01-24 1:02 PM
in reply to: Its Only Money

User image

Elite
4564
200020005002525
Boise
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
In Anchorman 2, one of the networks is doing a live interview with Ariel Sharon (I think that's who it was) for sweeps week and Ron Burgundy's network decides to cut live to some car chase in Milwaukee or whatever and he just starts making up stuff about what could be going on. His network gets the best ratings and thus the modern decline of news begins.
2014-01-24 1:38 PM
in reply to: JoshR

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by JoshR I feel like this has to be a scene right out of the movie. http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-justin-bieber-breaking-news-ns...

Apparently Fox covered Beiber instead of Obama's Sex Assualt speach.

http://mediamattersforamerica.tumblr.com/post/74297985404/justin-bieber-and-cable-news-priorities 

Working on verifying that. 

2014-01-25 1:34 PM
in reply to: crowny2

User image

Master
3127
2000100010025
Sunny Southern Cal
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by crowny2

Originally posted by JoshR I feel like this has to be a scene right out of the movie. http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-justin-bieber-breaking-news-ns...

Apparently Fox covered Beiber instead of Obama's Sex Assualt speach.

http://mediamattersforamerica.tumblr.com/post/74297985404/justin-bieber-and-cable-news-priorities 

Working on verifying that. 

Did you mean the "Gosh, our ratings are way down in a congressional election year, so let's shift the focus off of the obamacare debacle and try to solidify the women's vote speech?"



2014-01-25 8:21 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by Its Only Money The sad part is that most Americans are more concerned with Beiber than the fact that their civil liberties are being eroded at an alarming pace. I want to see the former congresswoman's response to that interruption. I wish she would have just blasted Andrea Mitchell. What is wrong with us?

I hear this a lot.  I couldn't even tell you one fact about Justin Beiber, so I agree this is pretty ridiculous. 

Back to your comment........tell me how your life has changed because of all of these civil liberties that are apparently being stripped from us.  I'm asking because I hear this all the time but if it's true it has not affected my life, or the life of my family, one bit.  So.....with that being said, I'm trying to figure out if it's even true.  I know it's a popular opinion.....but what is it based on?  Is there something you used to be able to do that you can't do anymore?  Is there some part of your life that has been affected by this "erosion"? 

I'd like to call bullchit on the whole idea, but maybe I'm missing something so I'm keeping an open mind. Help me be worried, because I don't think there is anything "wrong with us" other then the fact that there may be an alarming number of people who give a rats arse about Justin Beiber..



Edited by Left Brain 2014-01-25 8:23 PM
2014-01-26 1:49 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Master
3127
2000100010025
Sunny Southern Cal
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

In the good old days, you might be able to egg Justin Bieber's house and get away with it, but now with all the drones, cctv cameras, cell phone signal tracking, and license plate scanning going on, there's no way you could pull it off.  See, our civil liberties are severely restricted now !!!

2014-01-26 7:02 PM
in reply to: SevenZulu

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by SevenZulu

In the good old days, you might be able to egg Justin Bieber's house and get away with it, but now with all the drones, cctv cameras, cell phone signal tracking, and license plate scanning going on, there's no way you could pull it off.  See, our civil liberties are severely restricted now !!!

Oh......so now you have to be a bit creative and because of that our civil liberties are being eroded?   

2014-01-27 8:35 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Its Only Money The sad part is that most Americans are more concerned with Beiber than the fact that their civil liberties are being eroded at an alarming pace. I want to see the former congresswoman's response to that interruption. I wish she would have just blasted Andrea Mitchell. What is wrong with us?

I hear this a lot.  I couldn't even tell you one fact about Justin Beiber, so I agree this is pretty ridiculous. 

Back to your comment........tell me how your life has changed because of all of these civil liberties that are apparently being stripped from us.  I'm asking because I hear this all the time but if it's true it has not affected my life, or the life of my family, one bit.  So.....with that being said, I'm trying to figure out if it's even true.  I know it's a popular opinion.....but what is it based on?  Is there something you used to be able to do that you can't do anymore?  Is there some part of your life that has been affected by this "erosion"? 

I'd like to call bullchit on the whole idea, but maybe I'm missing something so I'm keeping an open mind. Help me be worried, because I don't think there is anything "wrong with us" other then the fact that there may be an alarming number of people who give a rats arse about Justin Beiber..




Fair question.

According to the US debt clock (usdebtclock.org) each and every American born today owes $54k as their portion of the US debt and that number keeps growing. We are obligating future generations time and treasure for our benefit and they have absolutely no choice or voice in the matter.This debt is an absolute erosion of the next generation's civil liberties for our own selfish gains. So yeah, there is a hell of a lot "wrong with us"when we are more concerned about some talentless Canadian's personal life.
2014-01-27 9:19 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Its Only Money The sad part is that most Americans are more concerned with Beiber than the fact that their civil liberties are being eroded at an alarming pace. I want to see the former congresswoman's response to that interruption. I wish she would have just blasted Andrea Mitchell. What is wrong with us?

I hear this a lot.  I couldn't even tell you one fact about Justin Beiber, so I agree this is pretty ridiculous. 

Back to your comment........tell me how your life has changed because of all of these civil liberties that are apparently being stripped from us.  I'm asking because I hear this all the time but if it's true it has not affected my life, or the life of my family, one bit.  So.....with that being said, I'm trying to figure out if it's even true.  I know it's a popular opinion.....but what is it based on?  Is there something you used to be able to do that you can't do anymore?  Is there some part of your life that has been affected by this "erosion"? 

I'd like to call bullchit on the whole idea, but maybe I'm missing something so I'm keeping an open mind. Help me be worried, because I don't think there is anything "wrong with us" other then the fact that there may be an alarming number of people who give a rats arse about Justin Beiber..

Fair question. According to the US debt clock (usdebtclock.org) each and every American born today owes $54k as their portion of the US debt and that number keeps growing. We are obligating future generations time and treasure for our benefit and they have absolutely no choice or voice in the matter.This debt is an absolute erosion of the next generation's civil liberties for our own selfish gains. So yeah, there is a hell of a lot "wrong with us"when we are more concerned about some talentless Canadian's personal life.

Wait, how do you apply National debt to civil liberty erosion?  Again, I hear it alot, but you can't just say it and make it so.  I'm still trying to figure out what I can't do today that I used to be able to do.....some liberty or freedon that I no longer have.  I thihnk it's a fair question as well, but I still don't have an answer.  I do agree that our National debt needs to be worked on.....but it doesn't affect my freedom or civil liberties thatI can tell.



2014-01-27 9:59 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Its Only Money The sad part is that most Americans are more concerned with Beiber than the fact that their civil liberties are being eroded at an alarming pace. I want to see the former congresswoman's response to that interruption. I wish she would have just blasted Andrea Mitchell. What is wrong with us?

I hear this a lot.  I couldn't even tell you one fact about Justin Beiber, so I agree this is pretty ridiculous. 

Back to your comment........tell me how your life has changed because of all of these civil liberties that are apparently being stripped from us.  I'm asking because I hear this all the time but if it's true it has not affected my life, or the life of my family, one bit.  So.....with that being said, I'm trying to figure out if it's even true.  I know it's a popular opinion.....but what is it based on?  Is there something you used to be able to do that you can't do anymore?  Is there some part of your life that has been affected by this "erosion"? 

I'd like to call bullchit on the whole idea, but maybe I'm missing something so I'm keeping an open mind. Help me be worried, because I don't think there is anything "wrong with us" other then the fact that there may be an alarming number of people who give a rats arse about Justin Beiber..

Fair question. According to the US debt clock (usdebtclock.org) each and every American born today owes $54k as their portion of the US debt and that number keeps growing. We are obligating future generations time and treasure for our benefit and they have absolutely no choice or voice in the matter.This debt is an absolute erosion of the next generation's civil liberties for our own selfish gains. So yeah, there is a hell of a lot "wrong with us"when we are more concerned about some talentless Canadian's personal life.

Wait, how do you apply National debt to civil liberty erosion?  Again, I hear it alot, but you can't just say it and make it so.  I'm still trying to figure out what I can't do today that I used to be able to do.....some liberty or freedon that I no longer have.  I thihnk it's a fair question as well, but I still don't have an answer.  I do agree that our National debt needs to be worked on.....but it doesn't affect my freedom or civil liberties thatI can tell.




More time in your life devoted to paying off the obligations set on you by past generations the less time in you life you have for your own free pursuits.

Now, I agree that movement toward the erosion of liberty is creeping and is not revolutionary by any means. The loss of liberty more resembles that frog in a pot metaphor than the Bolshevik Revolution. But as you continue to make a greater portion of an individuals life work the property of the people the natural progression is the loss of individual civil liberties to the needs and welfare of the masses. We are not there yet and may never get there in our lifetime. But, there will be a tipping point where the needs of the masses trumps the rights of the individual.
2014-01-27 10:03 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Its Only Money The sad part is that most Americans are more concerned with Beiber than the fact that their civil liberties are being eroded at an alarming pace. I want to see the former congresswoman's response to that interruption. I wish she would have just blasted Andrea Mitchell. What is wrong with us?

I hear this a lot.  I couldn't even tell you one fact about Justin Beiber, so I agree this is pretty ridiculous. 

Back to your comment........tell me how your life has changed because of all of these civil liberties that are apparently being stripped from us.  I'm asking because I hear this all the time but if it's true it has not affected my life, or the life of my family, one bit.  So.....with that being said, I'm trying to figure out if it's even true.  I know it's a popular opinion.....but what is it based on?  Is there something you used to be able to do that you can't do anymore?  Is there some part of your life that has been affected by this "erosion"? 

I'd like to call bullchit on the whole idea, but maybe I'm missing something so I'm keeping an open mind. Help me be worried, because I don't think there is anything "wrong with us" other then the fact that there may be an alarming number of people who give a rats arse about Justin Beiber..

Fair question. According to the US debt clock (usdebtclock.org) each and every American born today owes $54k as their portion of the US debt and that number keeps growing. We are obligating future generations time and treasure for our benefit and they have absolutely no choice or voice in the matter.This debt is an absolute erosion of the next generation's civil liberties for our own selfish gains. So yeah, there is a hell of a lot "wrong with us"when we are more concerned about some talentless Canadian's personal life.

Wait, how do you apply National debt to civil liberty erosion?  Again, I hear it alot, but you can't just say it and make it so.  I'm still trying to figure out what I can't do today that I used to be able to do.....some liberty or freedon that I no longer have.  I thihnk it's a fair question as well, but I still don't have an answer.  I do agree that our National debt needs to be worked on.....but it doesn't affect my freedom or civil liberties thatI can tell.

More time in your life devoted to paying off the obligations set on you by past generations the less time in you life you have for your own free pursuits. Now, I agree that movement toward the erosion of liberty is creeping and is not revolutionary by any means. The loss of liberty more resembles that frog in a pot metaphor than the Bolshevik Revolution. But as you continue to make a greater portion of an individuals life work the property of the people the natural progression is the loss of individual civil liberties to the needs and welfare of the masses. We are not there yet and may never get there in our lifetime. But, there will be a tipping point where the needs of the masses trumps the rights of the individual.

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?

2014-01-27 11:39 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
Originally posted by Left Brain

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?




Why would that be? I think I would have to disagree with you that population growth requires the removal of individual right and civil liberties. While it does seem like a fairly consistent human pattern that people who live in urban are more willing to trade individual liberties for collectivism, I don't think is a requirement or a just evolution of our society.

I mean there is no social contract that says I owe you anything because you merely exist.

2014-01-27 12:11 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?

Why would that be? I think I would have to disagree with you that population growth requires the removal of individual right and civil liberties. While it does seem like a fairly consistent human pattern that people who live in urban are more willing to trade individual liberties for collectivism, I don't think is a requirement or a just evolution of our society. I mean there is no social contract that says I owe you anything because you merely exist.

That's right, but at some point there really is "for the good of society" to think about.....at least there is for me.  In my mind,if more people had that attitude there'd be less need for govt. instrusion at all.....but the majority of people are pretty self-centered.

Anyway, nothing you've givenme here has me changing my mind regarding the idea that the "erosion of liberties" is all just a bunchy of made up whatever that doesn't affect my life in the least bit.....and I have to say I don't see it affecting many others either....but it sounds good.

2014-01-27 12:20 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Regular
525
50025
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
You are right that the changes haven't really affected me or even most of us directly. The biggest place where we see this is in air travel and the other feel good safety measures that really don't do a whole lot. I do have a problem with the way the Boston Marathon bomber was apprehended. The end does not justify the means there. Is the maker of 2016: Obama's America being unfairly prosecuted? The arbitrary application of federal law is problematic and a threat to our liberties. Again, it is not affecting me in a way that I am changing how I do things, but we can't deny there is a creep on some of our liberties.


2014-01-27 12:33 PM
in reply to: Its Only Money

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by Its Only Money You are right that the changes haven't really affected me or even most of us directly. The biggest place where we see this is in air travel and the other feel good safety measures that really don't do a whole lot. I do have a problem with the way the Boston Marathon bomber was apprehended. The end does not justify the means there. Is the maker of 2016: Obama's America being unfairly prosecuted? The arbitrary application of federal law is problematic and a threat to our liberties. Again, it is not affecting me in a way that I am changing how I do things, but we can't deny there is a creep on some of our liberties.

Hmmm.....if you think that was an EROSION of liberties you should have seen policing in the 60's when I listened to the stories my dad and granjdpa told....or in the 80's when I started. 

So.....if the "changes have not affected me or even most of us directly" then exactly what are we talking about here?  I would argue that our liberties and freedoms have not been eroded at all, but we've sure been led to believe they have.....I still say it's some made up garbage.

2014-01-27 1:22 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?

Why would that be? I think I would have to disagree with you that population growth requires the removal of individual right and civil liberties. While it does seem like a fairly consistent human pattern that people who live in urban are more willing to trade individual liberties for collectivism, I don't think is a requirement or a just evolution of our society. I mean there is no social contract that says I owe you anything because you merely exist.

That's right, but at some point there really is "for the good of society" to think about.....at least there is for me.  In my mind,if more people had that attitude there'd be less need for govt. instrusion at all.....but the majority of people are pretty self-centered.

Anyway, nothing you've givenme here has me changing my mind regarding the idea that the "erosion of liberties" is all just a bunchy of made up whatever that doesn't affect my life in the least bit.....and I have to say I don't see it affecting many others either....but it sounds good.




What is so bad with everyone looking out for their best interest? I mean isn't that the most efficient way to maximize the "good of society". Millions of people using their own resources to do what is best for them which by no intention of their own improve the general welfare.

"Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

I have no intention of changing your view on this subject. That would be an impossible challenge.

Some people think their political habits have no consequence on their liberty or they don't care as long as the Superbowl commercials are funny so they'll continue to vote for Democrats or big- government Republican. And then there are other folks like me that thinks something will get us well before climate change does and we love to drive our Chevy Tahoes to our weekend ski condos.

We all got our pile of trash that we will leave for others to clean up after we are gone.
2014-01-27 1:31 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?

Why would that be? I think I would have to disagree with you that population growth requires the removal of individual right and civil liberties. While it does seem like a fairly consistent human pattern that people who live in urban are more willing to trade individual liberties for collectivism, I don't think is a requirement or a just evolution of our society. I mean there is no social contract that says I owe you anything because you merely exist.

That's right, but at some point there really is "for the good of society" to think about.....at least there is for me.  In my mind,if more people had that attitude there'd be less need for govt. instrusion at all.....but the majority of people are pretty self-centered.

Anyway, nothing you've givenme here has me changing my mind regarding the idea that the "erosion of liberties" is all just a bunchy of made up whatever that doesn't affect my life in the least bit.....and I have to say I don't see it affecting many others either....but it sounds good.

What is so bad with everyone looking out for their best interest? I mean isn't that the most efficient way to maximize the "good of society". Millions of people using their own resources to do what is best for them which by no intention of their own improve the general welfare. "Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. I have no intention of changing your view on this subject. That would be an impossible challenge. Some people think their political habits have no consequence on their liberty or they don't care as long as the Superbowl commercials are funny so they'll continue to vote for Democrats or big- government Republican. And then there are other folks like me that thinks something will get us well before climate change does and we love to drive our Chevy Tahoes to our weekend ski condos. We all got our pile of trash that we will leave for others to clean up after we are gone.

But....how are my civil liberties being eroded?

2014-01-27 2:13 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?

Why would that be? I think I would have to disagree with you that population growth requires the removal of individual right and civil liberties. While it does seem like a fairly consistent human pattern that people who live in urban are more willing to trade individual liberties for collectivism, I don't think is a requirement or a just evolution of our society. I mean there is no social contract that says I owe you anything because you merely exist.

That's right, but at some point there really is "for the good of society" to think about.....at least there is for me.  In my mind,if more people had that attitude there'd be less need for govt. instrusion at all.....but the majority of people are pretty self-centered.

Anyway, nothing you've givenme here has me changing my mind regarding the idea that the "erosion of liberties" is all just a bunchy of made up whatever that doesn't affect my life in the least bit.....and I have to say I don't see it affecting many others either....but it sounds good.

What is so bad with everyone looking out for their best interest? I mean isn't that the most efficient way to maximize the "good of society". Millions of people using their own resources to do what is best for them which by no intention of their own improve the general welfare. "Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. I have no intention of changing your view on this subject. That would be an impossible challenge. Some people think their political habits have no consequence on their liberty or they don't care as long as the Superbowl commercials are funny so they'll continue to vote for Democrats or big- government Republican. And then there are other folks like me that thinks something will get us well before climate change does and we love to drive our Chevy Tahoes to our weekend ski condos. We all got our pile of trash that we will leave for others to clean up after we are gone.

...ummm because everyone looking out for themselves is generally bad for those around them. I can make a billion dollars mining but it destroys all of the rivers around my mine. Those rivers are fished by men trying to make a living. Now I have destroyed that. How is that the most efficient way to maximize the good of society? In fast, it is the worst way to.

2014-01-27 2:56 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?

Why would that be? I think I would have to disagree with you that population growth requires the removal of individual right and civil liberties. While it does seem like a fairly consistent human pattern that people who live in urban are more willing to trade individual liberties for collectivism, I don't think is a requirement or a just evolution of our society. I mean there is no social contract that says I owe you anything because you merely exist.

That's right, but at some point there really is "for the good of society" to think about.....at least there is for me.  In my mind,if more people had that attitude there'd be less need for govt. instrusion at all.....but the majority of people are pretty self-centered.

Anyway, nothing you've givenme here has me changing my mind regarding the idea that the "erosion of liberties" is all just a bunchy of made up whatever that doesn't affect my life in the least bit.....and I have to say I don't see it affecting many others either....but it sounds good.

What is so bad with everyone looking out for their best interest? I mean isn't that the most efficient way to maximize the "good of society". Millions of people using their own resources to do what is best for them which by no intention of their own improve the general welfare. "Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. I have no intention of changing your view on this subject. That would be an impossible challenge. Some people think their political habits have no consequence on their liberty or they don't care as long as the Superbowl commercials are funny so they'll continue to vote for Democrats or big- government Republican. And then there are other folks like me that thinks something will get us well before climate change does and we love to drive our Chevy Tahoes to our weekend ski condos. We all got our pile of trash that we will leave for others to clean up after we are gone.

But....how are my civil liberties being eroded?




Exactly the same as my quality of skiing.


2014-01-27 3:10 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?

Why would that be? I think I would have to disagree with you that population growth requires the removal of individual right and civil liberties. While it does seem like a fairly consistent human pattern that people who live in urban are more willing to trade individual liberties for collectivism, I don't think is a requirement or a just evolution of our society. I mean there is no social contract that says I owe you anything because you merely exist.

That's right, but at some point there really is "for the good of society" to think about.....at least there is for me.  In my mind,if more people had that attitude there'd be less need for govt. instrusion at all.....but the majority of people are pretty self-centered.

Anyway, nothing you've givenme here has me changing my mind regarding the idea that the "erosion of liberties" is all just a bunchy of made up whatever that doesn't affect my life in the least bit.....and I have to say I don't see it affecting many others either....but it sounds good.

What is so bad with everyone looking out for their best interest? I mean isn't that the most efficient way to maximize the "good of society". Millions of people using their own resources to do what is best for them which by no intention of their own improve the general welfare. "Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. I have no intention of changing your view on this subject. That would be an impossible challenge. Some people think their political habits have no consequence on their liberty or they don't care as long as the Superbowl commercials are funny so they'll continue to vote for Democrats or big- government Republican. And then there are other folks like me that thinks something will get us well before climate change does and we love to drive our Chevy Tahoes to our weekend ski condos. We all got our pile of trash that we will leave for others to clean up after we are gone.

But....how are my civil liberties being eroded?

Exactly the same as my quality of skiing.

Global warming my friend.

2014-01-27 4:06 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?

Why would that be? I think I would have to disagree with you that population growth requires the removal of individual right and civil liberties. While it does seem like a fairly consistent human pattern that people who live in urban are more willing to trade individual liberties for collectivism, I don't think is a requirement or a just evolution of our society. I mean there is no social contract that says I owe you anything because you merely exist.

That's right, but at some point there really is "for the good of society" to think about.....at least there is for me.  In my mind,if more people had that attitude there'd be less need for govt. instrusion at all.....but the majority of people are pretty self-centered.

Anyway, nothing you've givenme here has me changing my mind regarding the idea that the "erosion of liberties" is all just a bunchy of made up whatever that doesn't affect my life in the least bit.....and I have to say I don't see it affecting many others either....but it sounds good.

What is so bad with everyone looking out for their best interest? I mean isn't that the most efficient way to maximize the "good of society". Millions of people using their own resources to do what is best for them which by no intention of their own improve the general welfare. "Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. I have no intention of changing your view on this subject. That would be an impossible challenge. Some people think their political habits have no consequence on their liberty or they don't care as long as the Superbowl commercials are funny so they'll continue to vote for Democrats or big- government Republican. And then there are other folks like me that thinks something will get us well before climate change does and we love to drive our Chevy Tahoes to our weekend ski condos. We all got our pile of trash that we will leave for others to clean up after we are gone.

...ummm because everyone looking out for themselves is generally bad for those around them. I can make a billion dollars mining but it destroys all of the rivers around my mine. Those rivers are fished by men trying to make a living. Now I have destroyed that. How is that the most efficient way to maximize the good of society? In fast, it is the worst way to.




The fisherman should have thought of that before they decided to become fishermen instead of billionaire mining barons. It's not the responsibility of the mining industry to babysit a bunch of guys who made lousy career choices.
2014-01-28 7:43 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?

Why would that be? I think I would have to disagree with you that population growth requires the removal of individual right and civil liberties. While it does seem like a fairly consistent human pattern that people who live in urban are more willing to trade individual liberties for collectivism, I don't think is a requirement or a just evolution of our society. I mean there is no social contract that says I owe you anything because you merely exist.

That's right, but at some point there really is "for the good of society" to think about.....at least there is for me.  In my mind,if more people had that attitude there'd be less need for govt. instrusion at all.....but the majority of people are pretty self-centered.

Anyway, nothing you've givenme here has me changing my mind regarding the idea that the "erosion of liberties" is all just a bunchy of made up whatever that doesn't affect my life in the least bit.....and I have to say I don't see it affecting many others either....but it sounds good.

What is so bad with everyone looking out for their best interest? I mean isn't that the most efficient way to maximize the "good of society". Millions of people using their own resources to do what is best for them which by no intention of their own improve the general welfare. "Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. I have no intention of changing your view on this subject. That would be an impossible challenge. Some people think their political habits have no consequence on their liberty or they don't care as long as the Superbowl commercials are funny so they'll continue to vote for Democrats or big- government Republican. And then there are other folks like me that thinks something will get us well before climate change does and we love to drive our Chevy Tahoes to our weekend ski condos. We all got our pile of trash that we will leave for others to clean up after we are gone.

...ummm because everyone looking out for themselves is generally bad for those around them. I can make a billion dollars mining but it destroys all of the rivers around my mine. Those rivers are fished by men trying to make a living. Now I have destroyed that. How is that the most efficient way to maximize the good of society? In fast, it is the worst way to.




I don't understand how your example is valid. Dumping toxins in rivers is illegal.
2014-01-28 7:55 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Anchorman 2

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Left Brain

I would probably agree with that.....but wouldn't that be the natural evolution of any society where the population continues to expand?  At least uhntil something happens to lessen the population.....which also has a tipping point, right?

Why would that be? I think I would have to disagree with you that population growth requires the removal of individual right and civil liberties. While it does seem like a fairly consistent human pattern that people who live in urban are more willing to trade individual liberties for collectivism, I don't think is a requirement or a just evolution of our society. I mean there is no social contract that says I owe you anything because you merely exist.

That's right, but at some point there really is "for the good of society" to think about.....at least there is for me.  In my mind,if more people had that attitude there'd be less need for govt. instrusion at all.....but the majority of people are pretty self-centered.

Anyway, nothing you've givenme here has me changing my mind regarding the idea that the "erosion of liberties" is all just a bunchy of made up whatever that doesn't affect my life in the least bit.....and I have to say I don't see it affecting many others either....but it sounds good.

What is so bad with everyone looking out for their best interest? I mean isn't that the most efficient way to maximize the "good of society". Millions of people using their own resources to do what is best for them which by no intention of their own improve the general welfare. "Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. I have no intention of changing your view on this subject. That would be an impossible challenge. Some people think their political habits have no consequence on their liberty or they don't care as long as the Superbowl commercials are funny so they'll continue to vote for Democrats or big- government Republican. And then there are other folks like me that thinks something will get us well before climate change does and we love to drive our Chevy Tahoes to our weekend ski condos. We all got our pile of trash that we will leave for others to clean up after we are gone.

...ummm because everyone looking out for themselves is generally bad for those around them. I can make a billion dollars mining but it destroys all of the rivers around my mine. Those rivers are fished by men trying to make a living. Now I have destroyed that. How is that the most efficient way to maximize the good of society? In fast, it is the worst way to.

I don't understand how your example is valid. Dumping toxins in rivers is illegal.

Which is why we need regulation. If people simply acted in their own best interest it would not be good for society.

So are you advocating more regulation then?

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Anchorman 2 Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3