That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
You're arguing for a precise definition of the word in a political context. Some of us are using it in its secular context of someone who just lashes out at something they dislike without any real plan or goal beyond the act of lashing out. Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:39 pmNone of those things can be labeled as "reactionary".pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:26 pmReactionary:
"We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low."
"In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans."
"I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes."
"I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired"
"I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law."
Reactionary means opposing progress to the degree of wanting to return to a state of affairs status quo ante.
Some presidents, politicians and rich also do a lot of good in this world. We don't live in a cartoon reality full of Snidely Whiplashes. Some of your replies make me believe that you think we do though.Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:04 pm But seriously. Why does most everyone here think my opinions and political views are reactionary, or vindictive? Can presidents and politicans and the rich live by their own rules and do whatever they please forever and never be held to account? Do we go forward without addressing the sheer amount of damage they've done? They just get a pass to drive off and leave us to pick through the wreckage? My generation is largely a "lost" one. Who should be held to account?
What answer do I get? "Sorry, party unity?"
Why do you keep saying what I'm asking for is reactionary. I'm asking for the law to apply to all.hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:26 pmYou're arguing for a precise definition of the word in a political context. Some of us are using it in its secular context of someone who just lashes out at something they dislike without any real plan or goal beyond the act of lashing out. Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:39 pmNone of those things can be labeled as "reactionary".pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:26 pmReactionary:
"We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low."
"In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans."
"I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes."
"I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired"
"I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law."
Reactionary means opposing progress to the degree of wanting to return to a state of affairs status quo ante.
But only this once. Any further replies will be seen as...reactionary.
Thanks for adding that last part. Clarifies a lot for me and even gives me more to think about. Thanks Hep.hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:26 pmYou're arguing for a precise definition of the word in a political context. Some of us are using it in its secular context of someone who just lashes out at something they dislike without any real plan or goal beyond the act of lashing out. Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:39 pmNone of those things can be labeled as "reactionary".pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:26 pmReactionary:
"We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low."
"In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans."
"I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes."
"I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired"
"I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law."
Reactionary means opposing progress to the degree of wanting to return to a state of affairs status quo ante.
But only this once. Any further replies will be seen as...reactionary.
Some presidents, politicians and rich also do a lot of good in this world. We don't live in a cartoon reality full of Snidely Whiplashes. Some of your replies make me believe that you think we do though.Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:04 pm But seriously. Why does most everyone here think my opinions and political views are reactionary, or vindictive? Can presidents and politicans and the rich live by their own rules and do whatever they please forever and never be held to account? Do we go forward without addressing the sheer amount of damage they've done? They just get a pass to drive off and leave us to pick through the wreckage? My generation is largely a "lost" one. Who should be held to account?
What answer do I get? "Sorry, party unity?"
I'm fine with reform, I love reform, I would kiss reform full on the lips and give it a gift basket from Bed, Bath and Beyond every Valentine's day. But I want it organically and when we're able to define exactly what that reform will look like and how to achieve it without victimizing another group in the end. I don't want it pulled from the ashes of a war and then asked to stand on one leg.
Cept in our case the Referee keeps making terrible calls cause of all the bribes accepted, oh and it's not a little league game... It's the world series and the opposing team wants to destroy the stadium barring a few people in the skyboxes and the ref keeps changing the rules of the game to keep us from getting points.hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:50 pm Not asking for anyone to be victimized after a cultural war fought through political means and framed as a reaction (BAM, used it again!) to a litany of perceived injustices that have been blatantly mislabeled as such in some cases, is like asking every parent at a little league baseball game to be nice to the referee. It rarely happens.
You're probabally right. Our citizens are peasants, easily divided, quick to hate the other and seem to have such an appetite for being screwed.
And we'll forgive you for doubling-down on using it incorrectly even after your mistake was pointed out to you
Nope. I've watched from the beginning but parts of the show are *really* hard to understand and I don't think its going to end well. I just hope we get some new producers and perhaps a new director before it gets cancelled.
Ach. I see the point you're trying to make. Perhaps I am reactionary in the vanilla usage of the word. I need to maybe re read what been said already before I post again.
Someone learned to use google today. And it wasn’t just me, it seems.
I'm not sure that I agree with your equating my calling for the rich to pay their fair share of taxes (even with draconian methods or punishments for evasion) as victimization. You make good points otherwise. I just don't believe we can have a fair society otherwise. We need a sharp correction and soon, otherwise I do beloeve we are lost.hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:56 pmSomeone learned to use google today. And it wasn’t just me, it seems.
In any case, the word I should have used is reactive or reactional, in hindsight. My point remains the same though. I’m not a fan of calls for change that incorporate victimization of entire groups of people who are lumped together simply because they’re seen as authority figures, or they’re rich, and thus someone to be just angry with.
Ah well, at least I didn’t use “class conscious”.
No. You don't get to tell me to be quiet. There is no "secular context" to the word, you should merely concede that you were unaware of the usage and use proper wording in the future.hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:26 pm You're arguing for a precise definition of the word in a political context. Some of us are using it in its secular context of someone who just lashes out at something they dislike without any real plan or goal beyond the act of lashing out. Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.
But only this once. Any further replies will be seen as...reactionary.
Nation 95% Sure Marianne Williamson Is Really Tina Fey Engaged In Epic Troll“There’s no way Marianne Williamson can exist as a person. She’s obviously a skit.“
The smart money is saying that no such human ever existed, and what was seen last night was Tina Fay engaged in a epic trolling of the American political process.
“If that’s the case, she’s got my vote.”
She's an immortal like the Highlander!Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Williamson also officiated one of Elizabeth Taylor's weddings at Neverland Ranch in the early 90s:
She's everywhere!
Because healthcare companies have done such a fantastic job of putting their customers first. I was honestly thinking about voting for her if she came up. Now? Not so much. She seems like a triangulator.Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:59 pm Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance
Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.
Thats a parody website dude.Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:10 pmNation 95% Sure Marianne Williamson Is Really Tina Fey Engaged In Epic Troll“There’s no way Marianne Williamson can exist as a person. She’s obviously a skit.“
The smart money is saying that no such human ever existed, and what was seen last night was Tina Fay engaged in a epic trolling of the American political process.
“If that’s the case, she’s got my vote.”
I'm sure even Bernie sucks on the teat of Big Pharma.Drazzil wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:20 pmBecause healthcare companies have done such a fantastic job of putting their customers first. I was honestly thinking about voting for her if she came up. Now? Not so much. She seems like a triangulator.Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:59 pm Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance
Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.
You're likely right.Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:25 pmI'm sure even Bernie sucks on the teat of Big Pharma.Drazzil wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:20 pmBecause healthcare companies have done such a fantastic job of putting their customers first. I was honestly thinking about voting for her if she came up. Now? Not so much. She seems like a triangulator.Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:59 pm Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance
Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.
If public insurance is introduced (expanded, really), private coverage of the things covered under the public insurance would need to be outlawed in order to prevent fraud (otherwise, unethical companies could try to sell you something that's you're already entitled to as a citizen).Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:59 pm Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance
Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.
I’m sorry, but part of me believes that if we, as a country, fall for this shit again, we deserve what we get. Why is it so hard to understand that social media is NOT a reliable source of information? It wasn’t designed to be so, and it’s clearly not.Defiant wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:45 am Looks like Russia's doing their thing:
BOTS SUSPECTED OF SPREADING TWEET CLAIMING KAMALA HARRIS ISN'T BLACK ENOUGH
It would be an upgrade for everyone but the stockholders and executives. There lies the rub.Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:43 amIf public insurance is introduced (expanded, really), private coverage of the things covered under the public insurance would need to be outlawed in order to prevent fraud (otherwise, unethical companies could try to sell you something that's you're already entitled to as a citizen).Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:59 pm Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance
Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.
I have a difficult time understanding why you would consider this a problem. Unless you're worried that the coverage provided by Medicare (or equivalent) itself would be somehow inferior, the point is moot.
Are recipients of Medicare dissatisfied?
