Land of Opportunism

[FArchivist]

The only thing that I am not educated on is your POINT. I do not see what you are trying to SAY with this information. I have all the information. I don't get what you're doing with it, so I am trying to educate myself on that by asking you, the person who has made the post, what the post actually SAYS.

If you don't get what I'm saying, then there is no need to concern yourself with it. Just view it as gibberish and get on with your life. You and I are not here to explain ourselves; you either get it or you don't. Posted elsewhere, the meaning has been crystal-clear to others. If it's not clear to you, I can't help you.

When nearly 1/3 of all of your links lead to basic info sites such as Wikipedia or an online dictionary, mostly what it proves is that you are a condescending prat.

Even if your basic idea is sound.

I generally prefer to judge things on their merits than the person saying them.
Of course, when the merits are bad enough, that says a lot about the person saying them.

[Andara Bledin]

When nearly 1/3 of all of your links lead to basic info sites such as Wikipedia or an online dictionary, mostly what it proves is that you are a condescending prat.

Even if your basic idea is sound.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

While I understand, and mostly agree with the OP..basically telling people "You are not bright enough to understand, so this post is not for you." is a bit condescending. Just because people do not agree with you, and your proliferation of links, does not mean they do not understand.

They just have a different view from you, and the internet is not a very unbiased place. You can find links to support just about anything if you look hard enough. Just because there is an article about it, and it is widely believed, does not make it correct. I am sure if somebody looked hard enough the fact that the world was a flat square was at one time very widely believed, and no doubt documented as fact. While the information I personally believe is good, a bunch of links does not prove your point. It obviscates what YOU actually think. Ok, yes I know I am getting way OT, and that this probably coming across wrong, but I do actually think like you.

[bara]

I kinda like the links. By linking to articles that provide information that helps validate his arguement it helps keep anyone from coming into the threat asking for citations. He has already provided them.

[Hyena Dandy]

And again, no, it is not my job. Here's a saying from the social justice community: “It’s not my job to educate you — do your own homework.” The extent of my job is to provide consciousness raising; having done so, my job is done. Educating you is a derailment of the discussion.

Oh, I understand the concepts in your post. I get everything you have said. I don't understand what exactly the post is trying to SAY.

Then I recommend educating yourself.

The only thing that I am not educated on is your POINT. I do not see what you are trying to SAY with this information. I have all the information. I don't get what you're doing with it, so I am trying to educate myself on that by asking you, the person who has made the post, what the post actually SAYS.

[Andara Bledin]

So, we've essentially got a bloated, link-heavy, and condescending OP condemning a bloated, stagnant politico-economic system.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

But it IS your job. You are the OP in this forum. You are putting forward an idea. And people need to discuss that idea.

And again, no, it is not my job. Here's a saying from the social justice community: “It’s not my job to educate you — do your own homework.” The extent of my job is to provide consciousness raising; having done so, my job is done. Educating you is a derailment of the discussion.

You're just saying "If my formatting confused you, then this post is irrelevant to you".

That is correct.

I think it IS relevant to me, but I also want to know exactly what it is so I can comment on it.

Then I recommend educating yourself.

[Hyena Dandy]

Uh, no. It is not my job to explain anything. I provide links because I realize you may not have the time or inclination to go Googling. But explain? That's a whole lotta Not My Job. You either can understand it or don't. If you don't, then there's not much need for you to comment.

But it IS your job. You are the OP in this forum. You are putting forward an idea. And people need to discuss that idea.

I'm trying to help you arrange it so that discussion of the idea is easier. Because clearly this isn't important. You're just saying "If my formatting confused you, then this post is irrelevant to you". I think it IS relevant to me, but I also want to know exactly what it is so I can comment on it.

Your ideas clearly matter to YOU, and while we disagree at times, I've always found your ideas interesting. So I'd like to know what you're saying, because I'm sure we can have an interesting conversation.

You provide all these links so we can discuss it on a same level of knowledge you do. I WANT to discuss it on the same level as you do. But, honestly, the way you formatted this makes it harder for me to.

[Duelist925]

Farchivist, while this is well written, its poorly structured. As Hyena said, some of the links simply aren't necessary (and if someone isnt going to look up a term, or ask for explanation, they're hardly going to follow the link you give and read over it) and other than that, the rest simply make the whole thing look and feel disorganized.

It makes following the thing as a whole rather difficult, like trying to watch a tv program while constantly flicking to other channels. It breaks the flow too much, when every other sentence I'm opening up another new tab or two.

If you MUST have all these links, using them as footnotes would make for a much neater looking, and much easier to read, whole.

But as Hyena said, many of them are superfluous, since many of the terms are those people here have at least a basic understanding of, and again, if someone is unwilling to do a simple google search, then they are hardly going to follow your links.

[FArchivist]

You're not increasing our knowledge of the subject, you're bombing us with links. You're providing too much knowledge that we don't know which ones are key to illustrating your point and your argument and which ones aren't.

I'll make it simple for you. All of them are key.

You didn't need to link "Tea Party Activists" "Libertarians" and "Objectivists" off to Wikipedia. These are terms that I think everyone in this forum either knows or would take the time to look up.

1) No, I don't think everyone in this forum has a comprehensive grasp of such things.
2) No, I do not think they would take the time to look them up.

Again, we can look up words on our own, putting it like this makes you look scattered, like you don't know what's important to your argument.

No, giving you the links just makes it easy for you. And allows you to discuss the subject at close to the same level of knowledge that I have.

That's something you should be explaining in the text, though unlike the others, at least they were important to your point.

Uh, no. It is not my job to explain anything. I provide links because I realize you may not have the time or inclination to go Googling. But explain? That's a whole lotta Not My Job. You either can understand it or don't. If you don't, then there's not much need for you to comment.

I don't know what exactly you're saying because all of these links have left me confused about what your overall point IS.

Then this post is not for you.

This is really chaotically format and I'm not focusing on discussing your message because, what with all the links, some of which I found a little insulting, I don't know what you were telling me

Again, then this post is not for you.

Some of your links, again, are things that are really important.

No, if you don't understand the totality, none of it should be important to you. Don't worry about it. It doesn't concern you.

[Hyena Dandy]

You're not increasing our knowledge of the subject, you're bombing us with links. You're providing too much knowledge that we don't know which ones are key to illustrating your point and your argument and which ones aren't. You didn't need to link "Tea Party Activists" "Libertarians" and "Objectivists" off to Wikipedia. These are terms that I think everyone in this forum either knows or would take the time to look up. This doesn't illustrate your point. It comes off condescending at best, and at worst like you're just haphazardly throwing links at us. You linked "We The People" to "Pre-amble to the United States Constitution". Knowing what the pre-amble is and does doesn't help us understand your point any better. And most Americans on this forum know what it is, and even most who don't get that "We the People" is very important. Also, linking us to the dictionary definition of "Sociopathic" is even worse. Again, we can look up words on our own, putting it like this makes you look scattered, like you don't know what's important to your argument.

You don't need to link us to "Free Market Principles" That's something you should be explaining in the text, though unlike the others, at least they were important to your point. But by providing the link, you're taking away a chance to solidify this part of your argument, which is REALLY IMPORTANT to what you're saying. I think. I don't know what exactly you're saying because all of these links have left me confused about what your overall point IS.

You provide a link to highlight something important, not just for everything. And if its something you can't summarize. Otherwise, it looks scattered and disorganized, and leaves people, like me, even MORE confused than when we started. Confusion is not at all useful to comprehensive understanding.

This is really chaotically format and I'm not focusing on discussing your message because, what with all the links, some of which I found a little insulting, I don't know what you were telling me. Because I was trying to keep all these links in mind at once while reading your post. Then I go back, and only click and open after sentences they appear in, and that doesn't help me at all, because it breaks up the reading and need to start over from the top every time.

Some of your links, again, are things that are really important. But unless you're providing a link to a news story you're discussing, you should only provide a link off-page if its too complex to explain here.

I want to engage you in this discussion, but first I have to know what you're saying, and the way you formatted this has repeatedly stifled my efforts to do that.

[FArchivist]

Why so many links?

The key to comprehensive understanding is widespread knowledge.

[Hyena Dandy]

Why so many links?

[FArchivist]

Since, it appears I cannot delete the thread entirely, then the post is deleted completely.

*MOD NOTE - Original post restored. If you post it on fratching, then stand behind it.

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes."
-- Republican Congressman Peter Sessions

There has arisen a movement to disassemble the United States government one piece at a time. It appears to be a throwback to Confederate secessionism that focused on states’ rights and an attempt to decentralize the federal government. There are references to state sovereignty even though states are no more sovereign than Canadian territories or Afghan tribal regions. They lack the power to wage war with foreign or domestic governments, sign treaties with foreign powers or issue their own currency.

They call themselves Tea Party activists, libertarians and objectivists. This is done under the premise that the country has progressed in a manner not intended by the Founding Fathers. This is apparently done through some spiritual clairvoyance that allows them to have intimate knowledge of these Founding Fathers’ intentions. Those who advocate this philosophy play upon their own amateur interpretation of the Constitution much like religious zealots play on their own interpretation of the Bible. Their vision of America is fairly sociopathic with little regard for governance or social accountability. Although they oppose government intervention and spending, many attend rallies while being supported by unemployment insurance, social security and socialized Medicare insurance. Their direction is free market and laissez-faire driven.

Although the free market’s claim is that this is an honest pursuit of the American Dream, it has no regard for or protection of the American economy. Exploitation of support systems has gone from a scorned subculture to a way of life. Although the welfare system was overhauled and reduced during the Clinton administration, the free market has been allowed to run roughshod over the American economy. American ingenuity has been has been reduced to an empty catchphrase. Predatory marketing practices have not only become commonplace in America, it has become widely accepted by free market proponents. We have become a culture that only sells and does not excel.

Finance no longer has any allegiance to any borders or nation, even the world economy. American small businesses are suffering from this phenomenon just as much as individual Americans. It’s time to remember whose predatory methods put us into this worldwide recession. It is also time to remember that free market advocates resisted bailouts and government interventions expecting free market solutions to resolve the crisis. These so called solutions didn’t improve the situation since mid 2007 when the recession started.

Anyone who holds allegiance to the ideal that business America is a victim of government is looking in the wrong direction. The GDP was not returning before the government passed its financial regulation program. While everyone is looking to the government to solve our economic problems, we need to look to American industry to lift us out of this mess. The whole worldwide recession is a free market failure that can only be solved by returning to solid free market principles and not by rolling our government back to 1776. The current system has become parasitic upon our nation. America has created a business culture of tax dodging, political influence peddling and legal gamesmanship.

The reason that politicians are blamed so heavily is because they come under public scrutiny that businesses would not be able to withstand. It is now the responsibility of our nation to extract maximum benefit from the businesses that drain our country’s resources and equity. We need to mold business to fit America and not America to fit business.

The American economy is bloated and paper heavy. American corporations are sitting on piles of cash and not investing in America or making an effort towards excellence in their industries. The only industries where we excel are financial paper and war machines.

We need to demand more accountability, allegiance and transparency from them. Considering consumer money drives business, businesses should be as accountable to consumers as the government is to its taxpayers. Private industry has a mission to safeguard credit in this country. American companies are commercial entities that are owned properties, just like cars and homes. This ownership carries the duty to hold the public at large harmless. That is the purpose of regulation. It isn’t the role of government to correct and compensate for free market abuses. Although the task of the nation is to maintain some safeguards for our economy, it must do so without the power to control it. As a result, the free market has been assigned to create, direct and maintain the economy. Why hasn’t the private sector been held culpable for excessive gas and health costs? That is the private sector’s job, not the government’s.

The Constitution was created to protect the people of this country, not the financial interests of a select few. Hence the phrase "We the People". Nonetheless, the Constitution is not an all inclusive document that dictates every situation. It wasn’t intended to be adjudicated by Monday morning arm chair quarterbacks in the legislature. That is what the Judicial branch is for.

We need to quit acting like companies are granting us privilege because they exist. They exist to serve their own purposes and not even in the interest of the free market system overall. They hire to serve their own interests as well and not out of any sense or pretense of benevolence. There is nothing noble about their mission. As broken as the U.S. government may seem, the U.S. free market is worse.