Letters to a Fellow Conservative

[Perianne]

These are a few PMs between Sir Drummond and me. I have his permission to post these.
Drummond

Before anyone responds, please give me a few minutes to post them all.

[Perianne]

(From Perianne to Drummond)


Hello, sir. I hope you had a good Christmas. Again, I am very happy that you are back and posting with us.

I wanted to (jointly) start a thread with you about when big government is appropriate and in the best interest of all. If you are interested, perhaps we could sling some thoughts back and forth until we can start a good thread.

Peri

[Perianne]

(From Drummond to Perianne)

Hi Peri ... yes, mine was a good Christmas .. nice & peaceful, just as I like it. Hope and trust that yours was good, and enjoyable, too.

You've chosen an interesting thread subject, not least because [someone] insists that I'm pro-Big Government. Happy to follow through as you suggest in a new thread, though also happy to tell you, right now, what my thoughts are (maybe in preparation for postings ?).

[Someone]- but of course - tries to demonise me with the 'fan of Big Government' accusation. It's ironic .. because my thoughts mirror Margaret Thatcher's own, and as a so-called 'supporter' of hers, [someone] should see eye-to-eye with both her, and me, on this. But of course, since [someone's] really a fraud, nothing of the kind actually happens.

I support Big Government, only to the extent that necessity demands. No more than that. There'll be emergency situations, such as a 9/11, or 'natural disaster' situations (hurricane Katrina, say, or chronic flooding, as parts of the UK has been suffering for weeks) .. where only the big Government machine can hope to be effective. In the US, border control / immigration control would be another legitimate application. Homeland Security ... another one.

I do NOT support any NEEDLESS State interventions. One discussed here is State freedom to monitor all communications, be it email, Internet activity, telephone conversations. Another, just made law in Wales, is the 'Presumed Consent' law, entitling the State to take whatever organs it chooses to from dead bodies, UNLESS proof is available showing that the dead person would've wished to resist that. (It's the Donor Card principle, but completely reversed, by legal mandate).

People should be as self-reliant as possible .. from this springs the enterprise spirit, and dynamism within any country. Surely it's what made America great !! You strive to better yourself, your family .. through trade and other good works, you better your community, by choosing to, as a free person. Under State control, you're just the tool of an authority you might want to fundamentally oppose. You'd do as ordered, you'd dance to the puppeteer's whims. The greater the State interference, the less you order your own life as you see fit.

That's my thinking. I'll do my best to represent it in any thread you have in mind. And watch [someone] use it for an excuse at demonisation / sniping !

I'll look out for your creation of such a thread, and participate once I see it appear.

Drummond

[Perianne]

(From Perianne to Drummond)

What is your view on agencies such as government oversights on food safety, safety in medications, Centers for Disease Control, etc? Do you view those as necessary?

[Perianne]

(From Drummond to Perianne)

Interesting questions !

Machinery has to be in place to tackle difficulties in this area, so I have to give you a basic 'yes' answer to those. I'll also deal with them individually.

For starters ... I may need to consider that your Governmental setup is different from mine. You have States which for the most part are 'country-sized' by my standards, so it could be argued that State level, rather than Central Government, should shoulder responsibilities (if/as needed). It's different here .. we may have local councils, or county councils, but covering far smaller areas and smaller populations, so a more Central Government application makes sense here, everything devolving from just the one authority. My whole thinking will be geared to that reality ...

.. so to the individual cases ...

Food safety.

Naturally, food needs to be safe. But not over-regulated, since the basis for that regulation could be misplaced. Genetically modified foods, for example ... in the UK, we're far more 'against' them than the US is, and outright bans are in force, the fear being that genetic modification could create a mutation effect we can't plan for, or correct. BUT, what if those fears are unfounded ? Do we forego any advantage from GM foods needlessly ? Do businesses capable of making great profits, and at benefit to the community, just go out of business on a Governmental whim ?

The answer would be to have sufficient 'overseeing foresight' in place to test out and determine what is or is not 'safe'. You need a measure of control over the situation to manage it, which you wouldn't get by Government just stepping back and not 'interfering'. If the Government didn't exercise influence, and serious harm DID come from GM foods, the harm may never be correctable and could be severe in unforeseen ways.

An agency would need to exist to plan for, and act, in answer to all of this. It needs regulatory powers, and the means to apply a standard of competency which can be relied upon. Anything less could be useless.

Safety in medications.

I have a hard time arguing against 'Government oversight' in this, but I'd be more inclined to devolve it down to State level and avoid overly 'BIG' Government involvement. This comes from experience in my part of the world, where controls, supposedly 'for the good of the patient', REALLY come down to COST. Here, we have a nationwide State healthcare system, and it's a simple fact that lifesaving drugs have been denied to patients purely on grounds of cost. People have literally died, even YEARS before they needed to, because the State was unwilling to fund the proper medication to keep them alive.

So, such controls can be, and HAVE been, abused. I could never welcome duplication of this anywhere.

I'd suggest, for the US, devolvement to State level ... so that people subject to bad decisions have at least a chance of seeking better help elsewhere. Besides which ... judgements on medications CAN be wrong, based on false understandings of what's involved .. the chemistry of the medication, the biological mechanism for correction could rest on an incorrect assumption .. that sort of thing. Here, if such a thing happened, it'd maybe take our NHS years to re-jig cost programmes to correct the error ...

Our NHS can be a good thing, BUT, it can so easily become a tyranny that's harmful and cannot be escaped.

Here. there's an added dimension to this and other matters -- European Union legislation. We may make decisions which are then overruled by the EU Parliament. The EU has greater power (usually) so we may need to defer to it. Correctly .. or, INcorrectly ? It's highly arguable at best.

Around 15 years ago, I visited Germany. I bought a can of drink there (probably Coca cola, or similar). I looked at the label .. and found cyclamate sweetener was added. In the UK, cyclamates had been banned and regarded as carcinogenic ... but, NO such determination of its being harmful had been made in Europe, so, cyclamates were added, considered safe by the Germans, but considered dangerous by me, an alarmed Brit ...

http://www.cyclamate.org/

I finished my can of drink, then avoided the brand for the rest of my stay. Germans I discussed this with basically thought I was crazy to have such fears, I was treated as a nutcase, frankly .. they had unshakeable faith in their own health authority. BUT, was I right or wrong ? A victim of needless bureaucracy, OR, more likely to stay healthy than they were ?

In such a situation, healthcare interference at worst wouldn't have been harmful .. and MIGHT have been a lifesaver ....

Centers for Disease Control

I'm immediately reminded of bird flu. Or a flu pandemic. Or other diseases that might spread and not respect territorial boundaries. Or AIDS. Or any dangerous, communicable disease. We know of some, of course. We won't, yet, know of future diseases, new or mutated ones, BUT, we have to be prepared if or when they break out in the population.

I think that in this case I'd say YES', a Big Government approach is basically necessary ... though ... it depends on circumstances. You might have a disease that really is contained within State borders, therefore, requiring only State control.

Then again ... what if such centres do research on diseases, and an outbreak is caused BY those efforts, as a result of containment failure ? Then, it'd be the control centre that would've CREATED the problem !!

Summarising ... I think I'd have to say that the CAPACITY for big Government oversight and control has to be in place, as and when needed. Care has to be considered as to just how readily it swings into action, though, and it shouldn't be considered an immutable or inviolable 'standard'. It's by no means impossible to view Governmental controls as needlessly and avoidably harmful, as my NHS example illustrates !

Hope this helps, Peri .. ?

[Perianne]

(From Perianne to Drummond)

Indeed it does...to some extent. What you are doing is making me think even harder about this question. And that is a good thing.

Do you know what I would like to do? I would like to post this discussion we are having in the debate section. I can see this going on for a while. I have lots of thoughts. Would you be okay with that? I would set it up with Jim. Just the two of us could talk until we decide to open it up for discussion with everyone else.

This discussion we are having reminds me of a wonderful book called "Letters to a Young Conservative", by Dinesh D'Souza.

[Perianne]

(From Drummond to Perianne)

I'm happy with whatever you decide. My thinking is that you could post what I've already sent you and just leave it open to anybody to then chip in (although this'd probably invite some trolling....).

But decide to do this as you prefer ... I trust your judgement. Just let me know what you've done, and how you prefer to continue. If you stick to your present thinking - I'm fine with it.

[Perianne]

(So, I have posted the PMs between Drummond and me. Our discussion is now open to others.)

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287), you and I have serious conservative minds. Both of us see the need for big government at times. The problem with big government is that big government can become too big and too controlling.

Perhaps you are familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency. I state there is a need for it...with controls. An agency should not be able to form regulations at its desire. All regulations should have to be approved by Congress.

Your thoughts?

[Kathianne]

What a unique way to begin a thread, over the course of several days or more pm's and ideas go back and forth between like minds. Editing and deleting can be done, without any pesky input from others.

Put together a number of posts and then 'open it up' afterwards.

I never thought of using pm's in such a way, thanks for the idea.

[Drummond]

(So, I have posted the PMs between Drummond and me. Our discussion is now open to others.)

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287), you and I have serious conservative minds. Both of us see the need for big government at times. The problem with big government is that big government can become too big and too controlling.

Perhaps you are familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency. I state there is a need for it...with controls. An agency should not be able to form regulations at its desire. All regulations should have to be approved by Congress.

Your thoughts?

No major ones to offer. I basically agree with you .. the agency you mention certainly shouldn't be any form of law unto itself, it should be completely answerable.

... See this, though ....

In our own case of our National Health Service, we have an outfit called the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, or (I kid you not) ... 'N.I.C.E' ... they run healthcare standards in the NHS.

You may judge from this the level of autonomy they enjoy .....

https://www.nice.org.uk/about/who-we-are


In April 2013 we were established in primary legislation, becoming a Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB) and placing us on a solid statutory footing as set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. At this time we took on responsibility for developing guidance and quality standards in social care, and our name changed once more to reflect these new responsibilities.

As an NDPB, we are accountable to our sponsor department, the Department of Health, but operationally we are independent of government. Our guidance and other recommendations are made by independent committees. The NICE Board sets our strategic priorities and policies, but the day to day decision-making is the responsibility of our Senior Management Team (SMT).

The way NICE was established in legislation means that our guidance is officially England-only. However, we have agreements to provide certain NICE products and services to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Decisions on how our guidance applies in these countries are made by the devolved administrations, who are often involved and consulted with in the development of NICE guidance.

You can see from this that they were actually GIVEN the power to achieve, and exercise, greater autonomy. It is NICE which decides on spending priorities in the NHS (more directly in England, but they have power to strongly recommend elsewhere). If a drug is procurable that can save life, BUT, it's deemed 'prohibitively expensive' to introduce, then its availability for prescription is halted. Since our NHS has such dominance in our society in health matters, this could literally (and in certain cases, HAS) resulted in lives being shortened from decisions based on cost effectiveness.

'NICE' therefore has the latitude to exercise power making them a 'death panel', in effect. Very NICE ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11340860/25-cancer-drugs-to-be-denied-on-NHS.html


Charities have expressed outrage as the NHS announced plans to stop funding 25 treatments for cancer, including those for breast, prostate and bowel disease.

Eight thousand cancer patients are likely to have their lives cut short following a decision to withdraw NHS funding for 25 treatments. Medication which offers a last chance to patients with cancer a year - including those with breast, prostate and bowel disease - will no longer be funded by the NHS, under plans to scale back spending from April.

Experts said that around two thirds of those who seek NHS treatment for advanced bowel cancer are likely to face an earlier death because of the decision.

Charities accused health officials of taking "a dramatic step backwards" and destroying a lifeline which prolongs the survival of thousands of cancer sufferers.

More than 3,000 patients a year with bowel cancer, and 1,700 patients with breast cancer are among those affected by the decision.

'Are there private clinics, private hospitals, not run as part of the NHS' .. ? Answer .. YES. They are funded from healthcare insurance policies. However, they are few in number, and their remit to treat conditions can ALSO be subject to interference from NICE !!

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health-services/private-insurance/a4520/what-does-private-medical-insurance-not-cover/


Basic private medical insurance policies will only fund treatments that have been approved by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) and are available within the NHS. The reason is cost – NICE tends to reject drugs that are very expensive for the benefits they provide. More comprehensive medical insurance policies will pay for non-NICE approved treatments as long as they are approved for use in Europe or the USA, but the premiums are higher.

There was a period when a Government here tried to outlaw all private medicine in the UK, making the NHS the only legal provider. This, I believe, was back in the 1970's ... unsurprisingly, a Socialist (Labour) Government tried to get the Bill through Parliament.

Happily, they failed. Nonetheless, private healthcare remains a 'tiny backwater' of a service here compared to the NHS.

Governmental controls can be a good thing. Nonetheless, concentration of administrative power of a relatively unanswerable type can turn into a catastrophe, and as NICE illustrates, it needn't be a 'Big Government' phenomenon .. as such.

It only needs to act as though it were, with the power to back up what it dictates.

[Drummond]

What a unique way to begin a thread, over the course of several days or more pm's and ideas go back and forth between like minds. Editing and deleting can be done, without any pesky input from others.

Put together a number of posts and then 'open it up' afterwards.

I never thought of using pm's in such a way, thanks for the idea.

Subject, of course, to all Parties agreeing this to be done. A certain matter of respecting one's fellow would-be poster is involved (as has been the case here).

Your wording seems not to acknowledge this principle .. so I thought it might be a good idea to 'voice' it directly.

[Perianne]

No major ones to offer. I basically agree with you .. the agency you mention certainly shouldn't be any form of law unto itself, it should be completely answerable.

... See this, though ....

In our own case of our National Health Service, we have an outfit called the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, or (I kid you not) ... 'N.I.C.E' ... they run healthcare standards in the NHS.

You may judge from this the level of autonomy they enjoy .....


This is similar to how our EPA (and other agencies) operate. From their website (http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/basics-regulatory-process):


Have you ever wondered how EPA protects the environment? We use a variety of tools and approaches, like partnerships, educational programs, and grants. One of our most significant tools is writing regulations. Regulations are mandatory requirements that can apply to individuals, businesses, state or local governments, non-profit institutions, or others.



Congress passes the laws that govern the United States, but Congress has also authorized EPA and other federal agencies to help put those laws into effect by creating and enforcing regulations.

In normal times maybe this would work. But with tyrants like Obama, the agency can run wild.

While I have no doubt that the EPA is necessary due to runaway thoughtless capitalists, the EPA is now now using its power to control the average American in a manner similar to what one would expect in a Communist nation.

[Drummond]

This is similar to how our EPA (and other agencies) operate. From their website (http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/basics-regulatory-process):


In normal times maybe this would work. But with tyrants like Obama, the agency can run wild.

Completely agree. Agencies might get 'a nod and a wink' from an Obama figure .. or, they may invent their own edicts thinking they mimic the brand of thinking their 'masters' might approve of.


While I have no doubt that the EPA is necessary due to runaway thoughtless capitalists, the EPA is now now using its power to control the average American in a manner similar to what one would expect in a Communist nation.

Disgusting, of course.

But I've a question - can you clarify what's true ?

See, from your Website link ...


Step 1: EPA Proposes a Regulation

The Agency researches the issues and, if necessary, proposes a regulation, also known as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

The proposal is listed in the Federal Register (FR) so that members of the public can consider it and send their comments to us. The proposed rule and supporting documents are also filed in EPA's official docket on Regulations.gov.

Step 2: EPA Considers Your Comments and Issues a Final Rule

Generally, once we consider the comments received when the proposed regulation was issued, we revise the regulation accordingly and issue a final rule. This final rule is also published in the FR and in EPA's official docket on Regulations.gov.

This reads to me like a code of practise which they have to follow .. and written into it, APPEARS to be a mandate that they must consider feedback they get from the general Public.

That can be taken in one of two ways ... either (1) if it appears that no such consideration is present in the decision taken, does THAT open it up to any possibility of further, meaningful challenge ? Or, (2) ... need they only CLAIM such consideration, without its ever really taking place ?

My 'N.I.C.E' example above, so far as I know, is one where such an issue of even apparent accountability is absent. NICE can do whatever they decide to do, without considering anyone else's views on any level of mandate. Sure, decisions can be publicly questioned, and are ... but the power to totally resist it can be, frequently IS, exercised.

[Gunny]

What's the point to a private message if you make it public? I don't agree with this. Just my 2 cents. I rarely send PMs to begin with and when I do, I expect them and/or any info contained therein remain PRIVATE. Otherwise, I just post on the board.

[Drummond]

What's the point to a private message if you make it public? I don't agree with this. Just my 2 cents. I rarely send PMs to begin with and when I do, I expect them and/or any info contained therein remain PRIVATE. Otherwise, I just post on the board.

I agree with the principle you're addressing ... of course. We all should, and that shouldn't even need to be said.

HOWEVER ... your whole premise is actually a false one. I was clear throughout this that Perianne was considering a thread idea, and I gave my full consent for Perianne to do exactly what she did.

Anyone entertaining the notion that a rule has been defied, should think again. I GAVE MY CONSENT TO THIS, and since that's so, I fail to see any problem.

Hope & trust that this lays your objection to rest.

[Kathianne]

Unintended consequences as a result of true corporate abuses or mistakes.

Example:

DDT-mistake in amounts. Result: total ban. Unintended consequences: UN develops total ban world-wide resulting in millions of deaths due to malaria and related illnesses. Due to bureaucracy near impossible to reverse regulations once in place.

FDA-probably one of the best intentioned and arguably one of the ones most effective in keeping food chain and pharmaceuticals safe. Widely acknowledged though that the regulations have led to less R & D on low profit meds, such as antibiotics. Costs to bring new drug to market so high and testing so time consuming that only most expensive drugs are in development-thus a case of chicken and egg.

Abuses by regulators as opposed to corporations:

EPA is the standout. Examples:

Just today a major mining company already in bankruptcy laid off tens of thousands. Stated goal of administration is to kill coal.

When EPA was overseeing mine leak, caused widespread river contamination. They hid it for days-resulting in harm to environment impacting Southwest states, Native American agriculture and tourism. To this day, nearing a year, no punishment.

VA has been in the news for years, providing in too many instances substandard, even dangerous care of those who've served our country. Fraud has also been rampant, with no punishments forthcoming.

DOJ: abuse on who and who not they choose to prosecute depending on factors beyond the crime.

IRS: abuse for political audits has been widely publicizes, yet appears to continue.


Those are just a few that come to mind on the 'benefits' of a well intentioned government agencies. Well the IRS actually appears malicious, but hasn't it always?

Wouldn't it be much more effective to have state agencies that can bring charges against corporations that put profit above public health, with the possibility of felony charges added much like they currently do civil rights wrongs? A good place to start would be punishing by 'huuuugggeee' fines, trying to appeal to some, for those companies hiring undocumented workers. 2nd offense should result in imprisonment of owner(s) for some length of time.

[Kathianne]

What's the point to a private message if you make it public? I don't agree with this. Just my 2 cents. I rarely send PMs to begin with and when I do, I expect them and/or any info contained therein remain PRIVATE. Otherwise, I just post on the board.

I was always under that impression too, but it seems that if all parties agree with pm's going public, it's ok. I too have rarely dealt with topics in pm's, thought they deserved to be on the board.

Brilliant really, especially when editing and refinement can result in a thread like this, with x number of posts all from those conversing for days, leaving out what they choose. Then the others not involved can 'quote' but since one person quoted, it will become impossible to follow later quotes back to the person that actually wrote, not posted. Just one problem I see.

[Drummond]

Unintended consequences as a result of true corporate abuses or mistakes.

Example:

DDT-mistake in amounts. Result: total ban. Unintended consequences: UN develops total ban world-wide resulting in millions of deaths due to malaria and related illnesses. Due to bureaucracy near impossible to reverse regulations once in place.

FDA-probably one of the best intentioned and arguably one of the ones most effective in keeping food chain and pharmaceuticals safe. Widely acknowledged though that the regulations have led to less R & D on low profit meds, such as antibiotics. Costs to bring new drug to market so high and testing so time consuming that only most expensive drugs are in development-thus a case of chicken and egg.

Abuses by regulators as opposed to corporations:

EPA is the standout. Examples:

Just today a major mining company already in bankruptcy laid off tens of thousands. Stated goal of administration is to kill coal.

When EPA was overseeing mine leak, caused widespread river contamination. They hid it for days-resulting in harm to environment impacting Southwest states, Native American agriculture and tourism. To this day, nearing a year, no punishment.

VA has been in the news for years, providing in too many instances substandard, even dangerous care of those who've served our country. Fraud has also been rampant, with no punishments forthcoming.

DOJ: abuse on who and who not they choose to prosecute depending on factors beyond the crime.

IRS: abuse for political audits has been widely publicizes, yet appears to continue.


Those are just a few that come to mind on the 'benefits' of a well intentioned government agencies. Well the IRS actually appears malicious, but hasn't it always?

Wouldn't it be much more effective to have state agencies that can bring charges against corporations that put profit above public health, with the possibility of felony charges added much like they currently do civil rights wrongs? A good place to start would be punishing by 'huuuugggeee' fines, trying to appeal to some, for those companies hiring undocumented workers. 2nd offense should result in imprisonment of owner(s) for some length of time.

Most of your material I don't consider myself competent to comment directly on ... with one exception.

I believe there's more to the DDT issue than you stipulate. I have in mind (a) DDT's extreme stability in the environment, and (b) its toxicity.

I recall reading, way back in the 1970's, a report which asserted that trace DDT amounts had been detected in ice found at the North Pole.

As for toxicity .... it's a bit like radiation ... it can accumulate in the body, proving very hard to eliminate.

See ...

http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/DDT


However, DDT is indeed toxic. It has a disastrous effect on a variety of freshwater and marine beings. It was found to cause eggshell thinning in birds, especially eagles and hawks, which caused decreased reproductive rates. Sweden banned DDT in 1970, and the U.S. banned it in 1972, after months of hearings, because of environmental concerns. Though its negative effects on wildlife are axiomatic, its effects on humans are not as clear. DDT is linked with cancer, endocrine disruption, and reproductive and developmental effects. For details of various agencies' evaluations of DDT's chronic toxicity, please visit the Pesticide Action Network's page on DDT.

As for malaria ....


Only small amounts of DDT were used in World War II, but with the experts' blessing and a cheap price, its use was ubiquitous. In the 1960s, 400,000 tons where applied annually worldwide (about 70% was for agricultural use). Malaria was cut from over 8 million cases in Argentina in 1943 to 800 fifteen years later, and in India the number dropped from 10 million cases to around 285,000 in a similar time period. Malaria was entirely eradicated in the southern U.S.

Regarding your last paragraph ... I see problems. State agencies need to be sure of what truly does constitute effective public health safety before they act ... I have in mind the mere THEORY that genetically modified foods could be harmful. Here in the UK, there's a strict crackdown on their introduction. BUT, what if the 'fear' is unfounded, and what if an entire industry might be crippled or destroyed from misinformation and misperception ? An industry which, if unshackled, might help revolutionise food production ??

Besides which, these things can be 'crowd-controlled'. A Government voices concerns on an issue. It does so in a way that carries the Public mood with it. Then, saying 'they're doing the will of the People', they then start with draconian measures which harm their targeted industry, or Company. In appearance, public concerns are addressed. In REALITY, Government masterminds its always-intended harmful intentions towards those it disapproves of .. possibly on purely political grounds.

[Kathianne]

Most of your material I don't consider myself competent to comment directly on ... with one exception.

I believe there's more to the DDT issue than you stipulate. I have in mind (a) DDT's extreme stability in the environment, and (b) its toxicity.

I recall reading, way back in the 1970's, a report which asserted that trace DDT amounts had been detected in ice found at the North Pole.

As for toxicity .... it's a bit like radiation ... it can accumulate in the body, proving very hard to eliminate.

See ...

http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/DDT



As for malaria ....



Regarding your last paragraph ... I see problems. State agencies need to be sure of what truly does constitute effective public health safety before they act ... I have in mind the mere THEORY that genetically modified foods could be harmful. Here in the UK, there's a strict crackdown on their introduction. BUT, what if the 'fear' is unfounded, and what if an entire industry might be crippled or destroyed from misinformation and misperception ? An industry which, if unshackled, might help revolutionise food production ??

Besides which, these things can be 'crowd-controlled'. A Government voices concerns on an issue. It does so in a way that carries the Public mood with it. Then, saying 'they're doing the will of the People', they then start with draconian measures which harm their targeted industry, or Company. In appearance, public concerns are addressed. In REALITY, Government masterminds its always-intended harmful intentions towards those it disapproves of .. possibly on purely political grounds.

Actually the states have the same abilities as the feds within the states, just less budgets. They also have much more likely access to whistleblowers and the chances of repercussions to those doing so are less dangerous than at the federal level.

In most cases, in most crimes-whether blue or white collar, things begin at the state level. We have a federated system.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Merry Christmas Jane..

Merry Christmas Robert.
Would you like to start a thread on Christmas being attacked?

Maybe, but would you care to join me in discussing such a thread?

Yes, I would Robert. Can we use these exchanges to float the idea and its start?

Sure, why not. Its not as if anybody with any honor can say its not being attacked!

Thats true Robert but we both know some will.

To hell with such idgits says I..

Robert, may I post today our pm exchanges as a start to this thread idea?

Sure, why not--everybody already knows I say what the hell I think.. :laugh:

Thanks Robert, lets do this and see how it goes...

Ok Jane but do not expect smooth sailing and paradise ports of call.
Life delights in its many flavors and differences!
And even truth does not prevent disagreeing with its validity.

[Drummond]

I was always under that impression too, but it seems that if all parties agree with pm's going public, it's ok. I too have rarely dealt with topics in pm's, thought they deserved to be on the board.

Brilliant really, especially when editing and refinement can result in a thread like this, with x number of posts all from those conversing for days, leaving out what they choose. Then the others not involved can 'quote' but since one person quoted, it will become impossible to follow later quotes back to the person that actually wrote, not posted. Just one problem I see.

Yes, I wondered if what you really intended was opposition to what had been done.

I think your objections are effectively rendered groundless provided that full agreement is reached, and is clear from the outset. It certainly was in this case. There may be a presumption that PM's are private, but with full and complete agreement that they cease to be in a given instance, on what grounds does any outsider to them then insist they remain private, AGAINST the wishes of everyone directly involved ?

In this case, what the thread shows, is a totally accurate representation of the PM exchanges from inception to conclusion, and total agreement to their public dissemination was given. So there cannot be a problem.

[aboutime]

Sometimes, consenting adults agree on things other adults do not consent, or agree with in this life.

If someone doesn't like what they are reading, or hearing. They have the freedom to move on, and, as many are often told "You have the freedom (RIGHT)to remain (SILENT)quiet!"

Why does it seem some members must always have something they feel a need to argue about here????

Anyone care to offer a reasonable explanation, or should we all JUST TAKE OUR FOOTBALL HOME??

[Perianne]

Yes, I wondered if what you really intended was opposition to what had been done.

I think your objections are effectively rendered groundless provided that full agreement is reached, and is clear from the outset. It certainly was in this case. There may be a presumption that PM's are private, but with full and complete agreement that they cease to be in a given instance, on what grounds does any outsider to them then insist they remain private, AGAINST the wishes of everyone directly involved ?

In this case, what the thread shows, is a totally accurate representation of the PM exchanges from inception to conclusion, and total agreement to their public dissemination was given. So there cannot be a problem.

Absolutely correct. I have never, and would never, make public any message from a PM...unless both parties agreed....which we so obviously did. Drummond and I are friends and we trust each other. The only editing involved was to protect third parties and was clearly marked by [ ].

[Kathianne]

A good example of abuse for privilege at the federal level. It's complicated, the local prosecutor wanted to let the privileged person-note Bill Clinton is mentioned. Investigators went up to federal level, the case got sealed.

Now it's not easy for law enforcement to pick fights with their ADA's or DA's, but they can appeal to the people through the local media. Funny thing, one deal that Trump has shown is that people are real sick of laws applying to them, but not to others.

Not often I agree with Coulter, this is one of those times.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/07/coulter_lambastes_media_over_epstein_rape_case_thi s_is_what_media_thought_uva_rape_case_was.html

[Kathianne]

Absolutely correct. I have never, and would never, make public any message from a PM...unless both parties agreed....which we so obviously did. Drummond and I are friends and we trust each other. The only editing involved was to protect third parties and was clearly marked by [ ].

Can't imagine whom you were 'protecting.' Aw shucks *cough* FJ.

You are both misreading what Gunny and I were discussing regarding this method, but it is what it is.

[Perianne]

Can't imagine whom you were 'protecting.' Aw shucks *cough* FJ.

You are both misreading what Gunny and I were discussing regarding this method, but it is what it is.

Perhaps we are misreading what you and Gunny were saying. I really would like to know how this thread was anything but creative. If I did something wrong, please educate me. Sometimes I do silly things without thinking. I sincerely am interested in your thoughts.

[Kathianne]

Perhaps we are misreading what you and Gunny were saying. I really would like to know how this thread was anything but creative. If I did something wrong, please educate me. Sometimes I do silly things without thinking. I sincerely am interested in your thoughts.
Nothing wrong. Totally ok. You did nothing wrong and it's not my place to educate anyone here.

We, (I can't actually say 'we', as Gunny and I have no agreement to speak for one another), were under the impression this forum was for discussion, open and respondable. That means that occasionally we say things that others may misinterpret or we write badly or just aren't really clear ourselves-and be called out on. One can choose to respond or not. Clarify or not. Etc.

When instead a whole discussion occurs over days or more; the participants choosing which posts, edited or not-no one else has any way of knowing; then dumps them over the course of 7 posts-telling all others not to respond until the person is finished completly c & p, it doesn't quite have the same back and forth some of us have expected over years. Then there's the fact that all the quotes for the originals will lead back to those participating in the pm's, but only to one will the quotes go, the one that posted those 7 posts. Thus, responses to responses will fail to make sense if the thread becomes long.

As I wrote, it's all ok, just not sure it's the type of forum I want to spend my time on.

Some might choose to do the same type of discussions, posting perhaps each individual's pm's or those they choose to agree to make public. Thus more time in pm's than back and forth-again, everyone has to make their own choices.

[Perianne]

But I've a question - can you clarify what's true ?

See, from your Website link ...



This reads to me like a code of practise which they have to follow .. and written into it, APPEARS to be a mandate that they must consider feedback they get from the general Public.

That can be taken in one of two ways ... either (1) if it appears that no such consideration is present in the decision taken, does THAT open it up to any possibility of further, meaningful challenge ? Or, (2) ... need they only CLAIM such consideration, without its ever really taking place ?

My 'N.I.C.E' example above, so far as I know, is one where such an issue of even apparent accountability is absent. NICE can do whatever they decide to do, without considering anyone else's views on any level of mandate. Sure, decisions can be publicly questioned, and are ... but the power to totally resist it can be, frequently IS, exercised.

In a previous position I held, I was involved in HIPAA, which were privacy regulations (among other things). Knowing that I was gonna be involved in writing policies for nurses, I got regulations as they were initially proposed by Health and Human Services. If I recall correctly, the initial printing was about 1,000 pages, which I read and with which I familiarized myself. As per regulations, the new proposed HIPAA regulations were open for feedback. They were under NO obligation to adapt to the feedback. In the end, they did modify the regulations where feedback made sense, but it was clear they would modify the regulations only if they saw the wisdom of it.

So, to answer your question, yes, they are required to post the regulations, but, no, they are not required to do anything about any feedback.

[Gunny]

I agree with the principle you're addressing ... of course. We all should, and that shouldn't even need to be said.

HOWEVER ... your whole premise is actually a false one. I was clear throughout this that Perianne was considering a thread idea, and I gave my full consent for Perianne to do exactly what she did.

Anyone entertaining the notion that a rule has been defied, should think again. I GAVE MY CONSENT TO THIS, and since that's so, I fail to see any problem.

Hope & trust that this lays your objection to rest.

My premise is not false at all. "private" means private. I understand that if you both consent, fine. The board's success lies in the conversations ON THE BOARD, not PM's. If I'd have known at the time there was more traffic going on in PM than on the board I was running, I'd have shut it down. I was trying to build a board, not a secret haven for people afraid to speak out in the open. That's NOT an accusation either. Problem is, there ARE people who abuse the privilege.

Once I found out what was going on you're damned rights I had an issue with it. Seems nobody tells the guy running the show WTF is going on. Not even his own damned mods.

I do understand you gave her permission and I don't have a personal problem with it beyond what I stated. I just don't agree with it. We can agree to disagree.

[Kathianne]

My premise is not false at all. "private" means private. I understand that if you both consent, fine. The board's success lies in the conversations ON THE BOARD, not PM's. If I'd have known at the time there was more traffic going on in PM than on the board I was running, I'd have shut it down. I was trying to build a board, not a secret haven for people afraid to speak out in the open. That's NOT an accusation either. Problem is, there ARE people who abuse the privilege.

Once I found out what was going on you're damned rights I had an issue with it. Seems nobody tells the guy running the show WTF is going on. Not even his own damned mods.

I do understand you gave her permission and I don't have a personal problem with it beyond what I stated. I just don't agree with it. We can agree to disagree.

I have to say, they were totally above board with what transpired here. I did check with the owner and he is fine with it. That is why it's ok, cool, etc.

[Kathianne]

My premise is not false at all. "private" means private. I understand that if you both consent, fine. The board's success lies in the conversations ON THE BOARD, not PM's. If I'd have known at the time there was more traffic going on in PM than on the board I was running, I'd have shut it down. I was trying to build a board, not a secret haven for people afraid to speak out in the open. That's NOT an accusation either. Problem is, there ARE people who abuse the privilege.

Once I found out what was going on you're damned rights I had an issue with it. Seems nobody tells the guy running the show WTF is going on. Not even his own damned mods.

I do understand you gave her permission and I don't have a personal problem with it beyond what I stated. I just don't agree with it. We can agree to disagree.

Yep on the pm action-I've always liked to stay on the board unless there was a staff problem needing to be addressed. I'll converse in pm's, but only with a few for any length of time and not often.

While I have made 'friends' over the years, I've never wanted to just hang with the opinions of those I consider friends. Heck, I've probably disagreed with Jim, Rev, and you more than most on here, yet like you all, lots. ;)

There does seem to have been a growing cliquishness going on here, though it's only a feeling. That's just not my thing.

[Drummond]

In a previous position I held, I was involved in HIPAA, which were privacy regulations (among other things). Knowing that I was gonna be involved in writing policies for nurses, I got regulations as they were initially proposed by Health and Human Services. If I recall correctly, the initial printing was about 1,000 pages, which I read and with which I familiarized myself. As per regulations, the new proposed HIPAA regulations were open for feedback. They were under NO obligation to adapt to the feedback. In the end, they did modify the regulations where feedback made sense, but it was clear they would modify the regulations only if they saw the wisdom of it.

So, to answer your question, yes, they are required to post the regulations, but, no, they are not required to do anything about any feedback.

Many thanks.

And .. I'm not surprised. An autonomous body, in the position of ruling its autonomy. Power available to use, nature abhors a vacuum, opportunity to use that power taken, seized, irrespective of accountability.

[Drummond]

I have to say, they were totally above board with what transpired here. I did check with the owner and he is fine with it. That is why it's ok, cool, etc.

Yes. It is.

[Perianne]

Yep on the pm action-I've always liked to stay on the board unless there was a staff problem needing to be addressed. I'll converse in pm's, but only with a few for any length of time and not often.

While I have made 'friends' over the years, I've never wanted to just hang with the opinions of those I consider friends. Heck, I've probably disagreed with Jim, Rev, and you more than most on here, yet like you all, lots. ;)

There does seem to have been a growing cliquishness going on here, though it's only a feeling. That's just not my thing.

It was in anticipation of that cliquishness that I laid out the argument with Drummond. I can't speak for him, though.

[jimnyc]

What's the point to a private message if you make it public? I don't agree with this. Just my 2 cents. I rarely send PMs to begin with and when I do, I expect them and/or any info contained therein remain PRIVATE. Otherwise, I just post on the board.

Some may talk in private, ask some questions that they had not intended on asking, and then deciding it may be a decent topic to share. It's not private, as they decided to share, and both agreed to it. If there was an expectation of privacy, that's one thing, but Peri and Drummond agreed to post their discussion. Not my way of posting threads, but I still enjoyed reading their back and forth!

[jimnyc]

Nothing wrong. Totally ok. You did nothing wrong and it's not my place to educate anyone here.

We, (I can't actually say 'we', as Gunny and I have no agreement to speak for one another), were under the impression this forum was for discussion, open and respondable. That means that occasionally we say things that others may misinterpret or we write badly or just aren't really clear ourselves-and be called out on. One can choose to respond or not. Clarify or not. Etc.

When instead a whole discussion occurs over days or more; the participants choosing which posts, edited or not-no one else has any way of knowing; then dumps them over the course of 7 posts-telling all others not to respond until the person is finished completly c & p, it doesn't quite have the same back and forth some of us have expected over years. Then there's the fact that all the quotes for the originals will lead back to those participating in the pm's, but only to one will the quotes go, the one that posted those 7 posts. Thus, responses to responses will fail to make sense if the thread becomes long.

As I wrote, it's all ok, just not sure it's the type of forum I want to spend my time on.

Some might choose to do the same type of discussions, posting perhaps each individual's pm's or those they choose to agree to make public. Thus more time in pm's than back and forth-again, everyone has to make their own choices.

And if they chose to keep it private? Would their discussion have been ok? The only bonus here is that they decided to share. Not really sure why folks are upset about this. And if Drummond and Perianne were on the board alone for an hour, posted the same discussion - and then others came online - how would that be any different?

I think if some folks don't like what they did here, they can move onto tons of other topics and ignore this one. 2 folks have a private discussion and post it - one time - and now we're gonna talk about how this may not be a forum for one to spend time on?

[jimnyc]

I do understand you gave her permission and I don't have a personal problem with it beyond what I stated. I just don't agree with it. We can agree to disagree.

And that's fine and all, and you don't need to participate or do so yourself, but I see no reason to mock or put down their choice of posting is all.

[Drummond]

It was in anticipation of that cliquishness that I laid out the argument with Drummond. I can't speak for him, though.

Actually, I think you just did .....

- Another example of our thinking alike.

[fj1200]

Interesting thread. Questionable conservatism though.

[Drummond]

Interesting thread. Questionable conservatism though.

Is that before, or after, you arrived on it ?:rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Some may talk in private, ask some questions that they had not intended on asking, and then deciding it may be a decent topic to share. It's not private, as they decided to share, and both agreed to it. If there was an expectation of privacy, that's one thing, but Peri and Drummond agreed to post their discussion. Not my way of posting threads, but I still enjoyed reading their back and forth!


And that's fine and all, and you don't need to participate or do so yourself, but I see no reason to mock or put down their choice of posting is all.

I'm well aware of what the rules are. Disagreeing with a decision is NOT putting someone down. It's expressing an opinion. A lot of people don't agree with my decisions, as has been stated before. I don't consider it a put down. I sill STILL consider you wrong, but I don't necessarily feel insulted for being disagreed with. I use Pm to clarify something. I've probably got more PMs with you than I've had in 10 years. When I ran USMB, some people, and you know them, wanted to run a sub-board in my PM box. My stance was always "If you want to debate, put it on the board". If you recall, I had about 5 regular members and 30 posts a day -- most of them mine -- when I took over there.

And I just don't get it. Sorry, and no offense to anyone, but I don't. I look at it kind of like I look at fat people stuffing their faces with cake and cookies.

I will also point out that it has on other boards created a subculture of people talking behind everyone else's backs. Is THAT what we have devolved into? I say shit to your face in the open. I feel no need to hide. If I want a private conversation, I spend most of my time with a 6 months old that won't STFU. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

I'm well aware of what the rules are. Disagreeing with a decision is NOT putting someone down. It's expressing an opinion. A lot of people don't agree with my decisions, as has been stated before. I don't consider it a put down. I sill STILL consider you wrong, but I don't necessarily feel insulted for being disagreed with. I use Pm to clarify something. I've probably got more PMs with you than I've had in 10 years. When I ran USMB, some people, and you know them, wanted to run a sub-board in my PM box. My stance was always "If you want to debate, put it on the board". If you recall, I had about 5 regular members and 30 posts a day -- most of them mine -- when I took over there.

And I just don't get it. Sorry, and no offense to anyone, but I don't. I look at it kind of like I look at fat people stuffing their faces with cake and cookies.

I will also point out that it has on other boards created a subculture of people talking behind everyone else's backs. Is THAT what we have devolved into? I say shit to your face in the open. I feel no need to hide. If I want a private conversation, I spend most of my time with a 6 months old that won't STFU. :laugh:

Took you 3 days to find this? :laugh:

No offense, moving forward. No need to debate this one.

[Gunny]

Took you 3 days to find this? :laugh:

No offense, moving forward. No need to debate this one.

Yeah. Too much stuff gets buried and I rarely go searching the subforums. If you look, it was in the wee hours of the morning and I couldn't sleep. :)

[fj1200]

Is that before, or after, you arrived on it ?:rolleyes:

Considering I hadn't been involved in the discussion, there would be your answer. :)

[Drummond]

Considering I hadn't been involved in the discussion, there would be your answer. :)

Maybe not the discussion, but you did offer a comment. It was one of questionable judgement.

[fj1200]

Maybe not the discussion, but you did offer a comment. It was one of questionable judgement.

The judgement was spot on. You had to justify your big government views before even commenting on your "conservatism."

[Perianne]

Drummond

I have been thinking about this issue for years, more intensely since I started this thread.

It seems any group with power will eventually abuse it. And while I agree with the view that states should control most issues, sometimes it is only the federal government that can regulate some issues. It is only the federal government that can provide national defense.

It seems to me that the system has broken down. If the Food and Drug Administration does not do due diligence, then lawsuits will come forward from the state courts. My dear Drummond, you don't see the endless commercials on American television about which law firm to call if your family member has been harmed by an abdominal mesh, or if your son has grown breasts after taking XYZ medication. In these cases, the states' courts are working overtime to bring "justice" to families, while the FDA is criticized for allowing XYZ medication to enter the market. So, the FDA is further pressured to crack down on medications that may enter the market, resulting in millions of dollars of costs to the drug companies. Pressure from the bottom up is costing all of us. And in this case, the bottom is local and state courts.

No state could ever create anything like the Centers for Disease Control. No state can issue standards in food comparable to what the federal government has. To think that 50 individual states can come up with a system of control over certain areas of the economy that would benefit all residents in those 50 states....it's just a Utopian dream.

Some things are better handled by a powerful federal government, though most things are better handled by the individual states. There are people who think that it should be illegal to refuse to provide service to a customer of a particular ethnicity. I don't. I think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide. If not the business owner, then by the local government. If not by local government, then by the state. The federal government should be the last to say in most things. Instead, we have the situation backwards where the federal government makes the rules and the states may rule only on issues in which the feds have not made a law yet.

[Drummond]

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287)

I have been thinking about this issue for years, more intensely since I started this thread.

It seems any group with power will eventually abuse it. And while I agree with the view that states should control most issues, sometimes it is only the federal government that can regulate some issues. It is only the federal government that can provide national defense.
Perianne ....

I completely agree. It's a simple fact that there are certain areas where ONLY a fully federal approach can serve. Homeland Security .. how could that ever be less than a federal body, for example ? Practicality dictates the truth of that.


It seems to me that the system has broken down. If the Food and Drug Administration does not do due diligence, then lawsuits will come forward from the state courts. My dear Drummond, you don't see the endless commercials on American television about which law firm to call if your family member has been harmed by an abdominal mesh, or if your son has grown breasts after taking XYZ medication.

We get a little bit of that, but not much. Maybe it's a certain lack of enterprise from our law firms, but I'm guessing that the real reason is that lawyers ('solicitors') find it a very tough proposition to take on our State-run NHS, which, because it has such strong Government backing, makes it, in truth, nearly bullet-proof against claims and actions. Oh, procedures exist, of course .. but don't often achieve anything.


In these cases, the states' courts are working overtime to bring "justice" to families, while the FDA is criticized for allowing XYZ medication to enter the market. So, the FDA is further pressured to crack down on medications that may enter the market, resulting in millions of dollars of costs to the drug companies. Pressure from the bottom up is costing all of us. And in this case, the bottom is local and state courts.

Here, it's simpler. Pressure runs in the opposite direction. 'NICE' dictates ... people protest ... and usually, protest is a waste of time. Not always, because of the power of public perception .. 'NICE' prefers not to have too much negative publicity. But they usually win through.


No state could ever create anything like the Centers for Disease Control. No state can issue standards in food comparable to what the federal government has. To think that 50 individual states can come up with a system of control over certain areas of the economy that would benefit all residents in those 50 states....it's just a Utopian dream.

Exactly.


Some things are better handled by a powerful federal government, though most things are better handled by the individual states. There are people who think that it should be illegal to refuse to provide service to a customer of a particular ethnicity. I don't. I think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide. If not the business owner, then by the local government. If not by local government, then by the state. The federal government should be the last to say in most things. Instead, we have the situation backwards where the federal government makes the rules and the states may rule only on issues in which the feds have not made a law yet.

Totally agree.

Because the UK is so small, it'd be impractical to have an individual 'States' system carrying wide-ranging powers .. we have County Councils, we have local councils .. but their actual powers are limited, with Central Government not only being the chief 'powerhouse', but seen to be. It's sheer geography that skews British thinking in that regard.

[Perianne]

Drummond,

Since you were closer to her than I was, I will ask you this question.

In your opinion, how would Margaret Thatcher respond to this thread? Would she agree with you and me?

[Drummond]

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287),

Since you were closer to her than I was, I will ask you this question.

In your opinion, how would Margaret Thatcher respond to this thread? Would she agree with you and me?

This is actually a little difficult.

Margaret Thatcher wanted reforms in our NHS ... what she wanted was an NHS with greater fiscal accountability ... she favoured 'market forces' within the NHS (some saw it as a form of privatisation of parts of it, through 'stealth'). On those grounds, therefore, it makes sense to suppose that she'd be in favour of a body such as 'NICE'.

Against this is what lay behind the preference ... she wanted to get away from an NHS that was so centralised, so bullet-proof from accountability, that whatever its deficiencies, these would be 'managed' or 'fudged' somehow by Government machinery.

Some guesswork is involved, because 'NICE' didn't even exist on her watch, having been formed the better part of a decade after she lost power.

So I think she'd approve of the existence of 'NICE', and the basis for its operability. She was all for the promotion of fiscal responsibility, which is how 'NICE' defends its decisions. I strongly suggest, though, that she'd be unhappy with what it's brought about. She'd want greater accountability OF a body such as 'NICE'.

She'd not much mind the bureaucracy involved, or 'power being wielded', as such, because such things didn't weigh greatly with her. She would care about the unaccountability of them, though. I feel sure of that.

[Perianne]

This is actually a little difficult.

Margaret Thatcher wanted reforms in our NHS ... what she wanted was an NHS with greater fiscal accountability ... she favoured 'market forces' within the NHS (some saw it as a form of privatisation of parts of it, through 'stealth'). On those grounds, therefore, it makes sense to suppose that she'd be in favour of a body such as 'NICE'.

Against this is what lay behind the preference ... she wanted to get away from an NHS that was so centralised, so bullet-proof from accountability, that whatever its deficiencies, these would be 'managed' or 'fudged' somehow by Government machinery.

Some guesswork is involved, because 'NICE' didn't even exist on her watch, having been formed the better part of a decade after she lost power.

So I think she'd approve of the existence of 'NICE', and the basis for its operability. She was all for the promotion of fiscal responsibility, which is how 'NICE' defends its decisions. I strongly suggest, though, that she'd be unhappy with what it's brought about. She'd want greater accountability OF a body such as 'NICE'.

She'd not much mind the bureaucracy involved, or 'power being wielded', as such, because such things didn't weigh greatly with her. She would care about the unaccountability of them, though. I feel sure of that.

That surprises me that she would approve of NICE. Here in America, the formation of anything even barely resembling NICE has been met with widespread disapproval.

[Kathianne]

I thought that a review of what the Constitution of the US and related US documents considered 'federal powers' and 'state powers retained' might just add to the discussion. Maybe not:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federalism

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I thought that a review of what the Constitution of the US and related US documents considered 'federal powers' and 'state powers retained' might just add to the discussion. Maybe not:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federalism

No president has trampled that deeper and longer than the obama, with his only contender in that area being FDR.
In fact , FDR'S 4 TERMS, may just barely equal obama's two terms in trampling--thus obama leads in that black mark..
We are currently in our nation's fall IMHO.
A sealed Fate if hildabeast is given the crown by the Globalists.
Yes, they have to power to do that, as they did it twice with the traitor obama.

Seems the dismantling of the Republic comes from within and is orchestrated from foreign shores(globalists)-Tyr

[Drummond]

That surprises me that she would approve of NICE. Here in America, the formation of anything even barely resembling NICE has been met with widespread disapproval.

But you see, this is an area where 'friend' FJ makes a fundamental error of judgement (no doubt through his unadmitted-to ignorance of what she truly represented). Margaret Thatcher was definitely NOT someone who was against authoritative bodies wielding that authority, particularly on grounds of cost effectiveness (as NICE says it does). She presided, when in power, over a period where quango creation INCREASED.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t7y3AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=increase+of+quangos+under+thatcher&source=bl&ots=mWAW3xDZ_K&sig=CwHqRhtK4LM23RL0B2-Xc86igwU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSnKyG7pLKAhXJFh4KHYywCEgQ6AEILTAD#v=on epage&q=increase%20of%20quangos%20under%20thatcher&f=false


.. However, the emergence of a 'regulatory state' under Thatcher actually meant that the number and cost of quangos increased.


The effect of successive measures imposed on central Government was to force local councils to base their services on value for money, and radically to reduce their scope for independent political initiative. As a result, by the end of the twentieth century, most councils were more like businesses than political entities.

Margaret Thatcher had no problem whatever with the existence, or creation of, regulatory bodies. Their accountability mattered, however. She was against Big Government just for Big Government's sake, and not much in favour of centralising Government power, BUT, the existence and phenomenon of authorities wielding administrative power didn't bother her as such. She was pragmatic about power-wielding, and didn't flinch from wielding it herself when she considered a cause justified it.

Note the limitation of political initiative from local Councils, by the way, on her watch. To her, Councils needed to be accountable ... but, certainly to a notable degree, accountable to Government !

She disapproved strongly of the direction the GLC (Greater London Council) took, when being led by Ken Livingstone, a hardline Left-winger. Her answer, therefore, and one she never regretted acting on, was to abolish it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Council


Livingstone’s high-spend socialist policies put the GLC into direct conflict with Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. Livingstone soon became a thorn in the side of the sitting Conservative government. He deliberately antagonised Thatcher through a series of actions (including posting a billboard of London’s rising unemployment figures on the side of County Hall, directly opposite Parliament); a Fares Fair policy of reducing Tube and bus fares using government subsidies; meeting Sinn Féin MP Gerry Adams at a time when Adams was banned from entering Britain due to his links with the Provisional IRA; and endorsing a statue of Nelson Mandela.

By 1983, the government argued for the abolition of the GLC, claiming that it was inefficient and unnecessary, and that its functions could be carried out more efficiently by the boroughs. The arguments for this case which were detailed in the White Paper Streamlining the cities. Critics of this position argued that the GLC’s abolition (as with that of the Metropolitan County Councils) was politically motivated, claiming that it had become a powerful vehicle for opposition to Margaret Thatcher’s government. Ken Livingstone and 3 other Labour councillors resigned in protest ...

[Perianne]

My dearest Drummond. I hope you are doing well. I haven't participated in the debate here on DP for a while, having been very busy with my own life.

While I prepare a new recipe of chili, I am listening to a DVRd "Debate on Barring Donald Trump from UK" by the British House of Commons. I see a wide range of ethnicities representing the good people of Great Britain. And it seems they all consider Trump a buffoon, or worse. In the real possibility that Trump become the next president, do your representatives not realize that having called the U.S. President a buffoon will not bring our nations closer together?

I disagree with many of my fellow posters here on DP. I think Trump, though frequently of bombastic rhetoric, is not necessarily pretentious. Trump is a master negotiator; indeed that is how he represents himself almost exclusively. A master of negotiation is precisely what is needed to lead the conservatives forward (see any number of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, in which Democrats routinely win).

I myself only profess to be extremely knowledgeable about my career of Nursing, and to a lesser extent about healthcare in general. There are other subjects in which I am quite versed, much more so than the average Joe. We have members here who are pretentious in that they profess to know everything, and will argue about, every subject, including economics.

What I do know about economics is that the USA is losing the world battle. Decade after decade of failing policies have brought us here. It was the Republicans and Bill Clinton who pushed NAFTA. Republicans have been a strong supporter of Hussein Obama on the Trans-Pacific Partnership while many Democrats were against it. I fear the Republican party listens too closely to business and business leaders like the Chamber of Commerce.

Early this morning I was reading about the fall of the Roman Empire. How our present circumstances mirror theirs before the fall!!!!

I'll look forward to your responses on these subjects.

[Drummond]

My dearest @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287). I hope you are doing well. I haven't participated in the debate here on DP for a while, having been very busy with my own life.

While I prepare a new recipe of chili, I am listening to a DVRd "Debate on Barring Donald Trump from UK" by the British House of Commons. I see a wide range of ethnicities representing the good people of Great Britain. And it seems they all consider Trump a buffoon, or worse. In the real possibility that Trump become the next president, do your representatives not realize that having called the U.S. President a buffoon will not bring our nations closer together?

I disagree with many of my fellow posters here on DP. I think Trump, though frequently of bombastic rhetoric, is not necessarily pretentious. Trump is a master negotiator; indeed that is how he represents himself almost exclusively. A master of negotiation is precisely what is needed to lead the conservatives forward (see any number of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, in which Democrats routinely win).

I myself only profess to be extremely knowledgeable about my career of Nursing, and to a lesser extent about healthcare in general. There are other subjects in which I am quite versed, much more so than the average Joe. We have members here who are pretentious in that they profess to know everything, and will argue about, every subject, including economics.

What I do know about economics is that the USA is losing the world battle. Decade after decade of failing policies have brought us here. It was the Republicans and Bill Clinton who pushed NAFTA. Republicans have been a strong supporter of Hussein Obama on the Trans-Pacific Partnership while many Democrats were against it. I fear the Republican party listens too closely to business and business leaders like the Chamber of Commerce.

Early this morning I was reading about the fall of the Roman Empire. How our present circumstances mirror theirs before the fall!!!!

I'll look forward to your responses on these subjects.

Hi, Perianne.

A petition asking for Trump to be banned from UK territory gained over 500,000 signatures, the last I heard ... way in excess of the number requiring its debate in Parliament by law. So, today, it's being considered.

The real point about perceptions of Trump over here is that his viewpoint is completely against the 'PC' thinking that dominates us. Anyone actually agreeing with Trump, here, will be in a very small minority indeed, and it's far easier, in this climate, to paint Trump as an extremist who may or may not actually be a nutcase ....

Many here just don't believe that Trump can be a serious Presidential candidate, and if in fact he does win the Presidency, it'll be seen as an almighty shock. I don't know of any authoritative figure, be it from politics, the media .. who believes Trump has any more than transitory 'shock' value, and the BBC, in considering what they thought would be the notable events of 2016, in considering the US Presidency, didn't give Trump so much as a mention.

It's against the background of this thinking that the Trump discussion is being held. I don't think anyone will seriously worry about a situation where a President can be banned from the UK, because they'll never believe that a 'Yes, we will ban him' vote will, or could, amount to a President being banned.

Your economy is viewed differently here, in that it's seen as extremely strong compared to our own. No matter how much damage Obama has done, we in the UK will still see the US as having a far more robust economy than we can ever dream of having .. they'll say, 'Who cares what Obama does, their economy can take it'. Sure, we're aware of the Fannie and Freddie situation, also Lehmann Bros, and what all that did to world markets, back in 2008 ... but here, it's seen as simply a sign of how 'into everything' your economy is, how it's way too big to 'fail'. How dominant it is in world affairs. Here, any actual FAILURE of your economy won't ever be believed in .. only how it'll impact on foreign markets and investments. The US sneezes .. we catch a cold ... this is the brand of thinking most of the rest of the world thinks is true. What you can tolerate with ease, other less robust economies cannot.

So nobody, here, will believe you can be compared to an Empire that may one day 'fall', and such talk would be readily dismissed. They're more likely to think that America will be the last country standing, after everyone else has fallen, first .....

On the international scene, they'll be suspicious of deals done with Iran .. but overall are short-sighted enough to enjoy the appearance of progress, and to be happy that Obama arranged it. Where normalisation of relations with Cuba was involved, the likes of the BBC hailed it as 'great progress', that old enmities were fading. Obama is seen as a 'great peacemaker', believe it or not.

Obama gave a 25 minute interview to the BBC, some months ago. The BBC treated it as a major news item ... even the recording of it is billed .. 'Obama interview: a BBC News Special'. This is just because he gave an interview !! Nothing really momentous was said during it.

They see him as a breath of fresh air compared to GW Bush ...

When I come on to this site, I'm cheered to see that so few buy into Obama's rot. But my views are shared, here in the UK, by almost nobody. Some may see him as weaker than Bush, but many actually WELCOME that weakness and see it as a 'good' thing. On gun control, they see Obama as a 'civilising influence' .. you, Peri, had a taste of just how opposed Brits are to gun ownership !!

Ditto on Obamacare ... nobody understands, here, why Americans wouldn't welcome an introduction of an NHS in America. Despite what we know of its failings (some catastrophic ... try checking out the scandal of 'Mid Staffs', for example ..) .. STILL, people think that healthcare 'free at point of use' is the only civilised system any country can have. Again .. Obama's seen as a crusader, fighting 'backwards' thinking ... nobody caring about how monumentally bad our OWN disasters would be, if American equivalents of them were ever seen ...

I hope that Obama will leave Office in disgrace, discredited, and that Trump or someone like him takes over. But if that happens, the British reaction is likely to be one of thinking that America is going backwards .. and Obama, mark my words, will be seen as an even stronger 'latter-day hero' than he is now. You'll doubtless see news reports of rapturous welcomes if/when he visits the UK, or anywhere in Europe, even years after his Presidency is over.

I kid you not.:mad::mad:

[Perianne]

Obama believes the stories of his being a legend. He now wants to run the world.


It seems President Obama has no intention of stepping out of the White House and fading from the limelight. No, he’s got his sights set on the world stage—this time as secretary general of the United Nations, according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/01/10/report-obama-wants-to-become-un-secretary-general-netanyahu-doing-everything-he-can-to-stop-him-n2102416

[Drummond]

Obama believes the stories of his being a legend. He now wants to run the world.



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/01/10/report-obama-wants-to-become-un-secretary-general-netanyahu-doing-everything-he-can-to-stop-him-n2102416

If he goes for it, watch the British reaction. Many will approve !

A lot of people see him as a peacemaking force .. and will interpret his taking up the leading UN role as a positive step in that direction. You probably wouldn't believe how vitriolic some, here, are against Israel .. indeed, at the time of the last confrontation between Israel and Hamas, Ed Miliband (Labour leader, back in those days) publicly asked why David Cameron wasn't castigating ISRAEL'S conduct against Hamas !! He was convinced it was a vote winner ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2703564/Miliband-Israelis-attacks-Gaza-make-things-worse-Labour-leader-says-defend-ground-invasion.html


The Prime Minister has described the conflict as a ‘human tragedy’ and said earlier this week that he had urged Israel to try to minimise civilian casualties.

But Mr Cameron strongly defended Israel’s right to respond to attacks and condemned the refusal of Hamas – which runs Gaza – to end rocket fire and accept offers of a ceasefire brokered by Egypt.

Mr Miliband struck a different note in an interview with the Huffington Post website in Washington, saying: ‘We oppose the Israeli incursion into Gaza. I don’t think it will help win Israel friends. I don’t think this will make the situation better. I fear it will make it worse.’

He had said over the weekend: ‘As a party we oppose the further escalation of violence we have seen with Israel’s invasion of Gaza. I defend Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket attacks.

‘But I cannot explain, justify or defend the horrifying deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, including children and innocent civilians.’

When it suits them, the Left don't even recognise terrorists AS terrorists, at all ...

[aboutime]

Perianne. Perhaps they might want to reconsider their BAN....What IF Trump becomes the CIC of the USA?

If they ban him due to political correctness (which he says he will ignore). God forbid G.B. might need some kind of assistance. Who will they call? OBAMA? Even the U.N. isn't prepared to help them these days. So, where will the Muslim community go in the U.K.? ISIS, HAMAS, AQ????


It's not nice to fool with the hand that might, and could FEED, and PROTECT you G.B. (U.K)

[aboutime]

Obama believes the stories of his being a legend. He now wants to run the world.



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/01/10/report-obama-wants-to-become-un-secretary-general-netanyahu-doing-everything-he-can-to-stop-him-n2102416


Obama is only a legend in his own "Hypocritical, Tiny, NAACP Wasted Mind". Obama was the reason the NAACP had advertising that referred to him....(Remember? A mind is a terrible thing to waste"?? ) It is, but Obama has to have one...in order to waste it.

[Drummond]

Perianne. Perhaps they might want to reconsider their BAN....What IF Trump becomes the CIC of the USA?

If they ban him due to political correctness (which he says he will ignore). God forbid G.B. might need some kind of assistance. Who will they call? OBAMA? Even the U.N. isn't prepared to help them these days. So, where will the Muslim community go in the U.K.? ISIS, HAMAS, AQ????


It's not nice to fool with the hand that might, and could FEED, and PROTECT you G.B. (U.K):clap::clap::clap:

Nicely said .. I approve !

Apart from the stupid, misguided, offensive nature of the proposed ban .. unfortunately, Brits here are so centred on the idea of Trump as an 'extremist', that nobody seriously considers he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Presidency. If they truly felt otherwise, I'm sure this would all be rethought .. & at a rate of knots !!

Us British are victims of our own political correctness - it blinds us to a lot. Just one of the many 'favours' the Left have done us over the years.

[Gunny]

And that's fine and all, and you don't need to participate or do so yourself, but I see no reason to mock or put down their choice of posting is all.

I need to pay better attention. I missed this one (at least I think). I wasn't mocking anyone. I gave an opinion on a practice. I don't see the point to debating in PM, and never have, and I hated when people would try to do that to me. I used PM to contact staff, and/or on the rare occasion I have something to say that doesn't need to be on the board (knowing how PC I am :laugh2: ).

More importantly, I'm not "mocking" someone for disagreeing with and/or questioning them.

PS .. Another opinion .. I HATE when y'all necro threads. I don't like responding to the same thing twice with a disgruntled infant in my ear. :)

[Perianne]

My dear British friend, @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287). I hope you solve the problem with your internet soon. There are several people who are missed greatly when they are not here. You are one of those.

It has been snowing here today, giant snowflakes that were lovely to see.

Over the weekend, I was training a new (to us) nurse. She (the new nurse) had worked for several years in Dialysis, primarily with hemodialysis (this will be important as I explain further). We were working in the ICU section of our hospital. Our patient's arterial blood gas revealed a pH acidic value and high CO2 level. I asked her what she expected the physician to order. She responded that she expected him to order a bicarb drip. While bicarb would have raised the pH of the blood, it was not the correct answer. Had she had more experience in intensive care and had not been pigeonholed in only one area of nursing, she would have recognized that the patient's acidotic state was caused by the respiratory response rather than the metabolic one. In her world of hemodialysis, acidosis is treated by an increase in the bicarb bath. But this was a different world.

Anyway, the situation caused me to reflect on conservatism and conservative values. In the example of the nurse above, she viewed the world of nursing from the only aspect with which she had familiarity. And while her solution was not by itself totally incorrect, it was not correct, either. If we have heartburn we might take an antacid for relief. Maalox, for example, is a bicarbonate. But taking Maalox repetitively for heartburn is not the correct solution. The correct solution is finding out the cause of the heartburn. And so it is with conservatism. People often call themselves "conservative" without seeing the big picture and understanding what conservatism actually means and how it expresses itself. You yourself have mentioned this many times with a known scoundrel (lol)!

As with my nursing story, what sometimes seems to be the conservative solution to a problem (as in government) is only treating the symptoms, and also by electing certain "conservatives" we are only treating the symptoms and not seeking the solution.

Any thoughts?

[Drummond]

My dear British friend, @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287). I hope you solve the problem with your internet soon. There are several people who are missed greatly when they are not here. You are one of those.

It has been snowing here today, giant snowflakes that were lovely to see.

Over the weekend, I was training a new (to us) nurse. She (the new nurse) had worked for several years in Dialysis, primarily with hemodialysis (this will be important as I explain further). We were working in the ICU section of our hospital. Our patient's arterial blood gas revealed a pH acidic value and high CO2 level. I asked her what she expected the physician to order. She responded that she expected him to order a bicarb drip. While bicarb would have raised the pH of the blood, it was not the correct answer. Had she had more experience in intensive care and had not been pigeonholed in only one area of nursing, she would have recognized that the patient's acidotic state was caused by the respiratory response rather than the metabolic one. In her world of hemodialysis, acidosis is treated by an increase in the bicarb bath. But this was a different world.

Anyway, the situation caused me to reflect on conservatism and conservative values. In the example of the nurse above, she viewed the world of nursing from the only aspect with which she had familiarity. And while her solution was not by itself totally incorrect, it was not correct, either. If we have heartburn we might take an antacid for relief. Maalox, for example, is a bicarbonate. But taking Maalox repetitively for heartburn is not the correct solution. The correct solution is finding out the cause of the heartburn. And so it is with conservatism. People often call themselves "conservative" without seeing the big picture and understanding what conservatism actually means and how it expresses itself. You yourself have mentioned this many times with a known scoundrel (lol)!

As with my nursing story, what sometimes seems to be the conservative solution to a problem (as in government) is only treating the symptoms, and also by electing certain "conservatives" we are only treating the symptoms and not seeking the solution.

Any thoughts?

Hello Perianne. Thank you for this ... my Internet problems, though not cured, are much improved. I've been thinking for weeks that my router was the problem .. but, several days ago, my supplier - BT - suffered a major Broadband supply problem, and several areas of the UK were without a service at all for several hours before it was fixed (I was one of those affected). After their repair ... I've known a significantly improved service. It occasionally fails for minutes at a time, but far less frequently ..

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/bt-internet-down-connection-not-working-for-some-uk-users-a6849031.html

Anyway .. I note that you refer to 'a known scoundrel' (.. an excellent description ..). This scoundrel does much to illustrate what I think my answer must be.

Perianne, it's undoubtedly true that there are Conservatives who differ from each other in precisely what they believe, that's to say, not so much in overall belief, but in what they'd emphasise in their own policies to be more or less important in terms of practical application. Some would point to fiscal issues as having greater importance. Some would point to defence as having that greater importance. Some would consider dismantling previous Socialist damage their priority before embarking on other reforms. These differences may depend on a certain 'blinkering' of perspective, much as in the 'specialisation' example you offered us, where the nurse had her partial answer to a problem, but lacked a chance of a greater overview in order to fully tackle her problem.

HOWEVER ... Conservatives, if they're anything, are realists. Yes, they have ideological beliefs, and they'll follow them according to their consciences ... but of course. But, Conservatives have the great strength of adapability, that comes from a realistic overview. What they don't know, or perceive, they are open enough to compensate for, over time. Conservatives' sense of realism means that they deal with real issues, in a realistic way, in 'real time' .. according to the issues' OWN needs.

Our 'known scoundrel', Perianne, doesn't show that adaptability in his thinking, this in accordance with the known weakness of Left-wing thinking. Left-wingers have their dogma, and they stick to it. The Left-wing approach is to make everything fit the dogma, and not to be adaptive AT ALL. The whole world must be seen, and treated, according to their rigid vision of what they require it to be .. no exceptions, no corrective latitude coming into play. Our 'known scoundrel' fits that description perfectly, and thereby proves what's true about him.

George W Bush was an excellent example of the adaptive approach. He intended an 'insular' Presidency .. one concentrating on domestic issues, putting consideration of international affairs on a back-burner to some extent. Then, 9/11 happened .. and everything changed, and radically so. Bush's focus shifted, as it HAD to do, on to understanding that his nation's security depended on a total focus towards fighting a foreign enemy. His Presidency, certainly internationally, is seen in those terms.

I can also point to Margaret Thatcher as an 'adaptive' Conservative. She held strong views about personal liberty, the drive to pursuing self-reliance, and seeing to it that Government wasn't a bureaucratic monster interfering in aspects of peoples' lives, and insisting upon doing so. She hated the 'nanny State' principle with a passion. THAT SAID .. she also understood that our own society had its problems, requiring what some would call a 'Big Government' approach to them. NOT ideal, from her point of view .. but she didn't flinch from her realism, and she DID what HAD TO BE DONE. In our case, that involved cracking down on destructive Unions, passing legislation that restricted their freedoms.

Our 'known scoundrel', as the Left winger he truly is, even knowing all this, STILL has never respected that realism, flexibility of approach, the need to fix a problem according to its own terms, as they apply. He seems, and doubtless is, blind to that. The dogmatic inflexibility of the Leftie, the insistence that dogma rules everything all the time, that nothing must be seen outside of it, is classically Leftie.

So in answer .. I say this. We hear each Conservative candidate expound on what their vision is for how they'll behave when reaching High Office. I've no doubt at all that they mean what they say. Nonetheless, they will grow into the job they seek ... and will do what is best for the country. Bush did it. Margaret Thatcher did it. Threats, emergencies, any pressing problems, will have Conservative solutions applied TAILORED TO THE NEEDS OF THE MOMENT, or or however long is needed to apply that solution. They won't deny the terms of the problem, they won't insist that everyone thinks in their fossilised manner regardless of circumstances. That's not, I suggest, the Conservative way.

The winning Republican candidate will, over time, grow into the job, and the 'specialisation' of individual differences, that we see right now, will adapt - IF that's needed - to the real demands of the job. It's What Conservatives Do. We aren't utterly enslaved to an agenda, an unbending plan .. Soviet-style five year plans, rigidly held to, are the mark of the Communist. No .. we adapt. We refine. We steer a course as any good mariner do, but we ALLOW for 'choppy waters' and don't insist on ignoring that mountainous wave that threatens to sink us all.

And that's my answer. I think that the way to choose the right candidate is to see what truly drives him (or her), and to vote on that basis ... BUT, knowing that although core beliefs will be respected and always represented, there will be someone responsible at the helm, who'll steer a course that allows for 'real time' changes in a decent, responsible manner.

[Jeff]

OK I was going to share my Pm's as well but it seems the ladies on the board don't want me to share, said they are shy or something like that, and I haven't seen Gabby to get get her permission ( and hell hers are the best, pictures and all ) yea y'all know how much Gabs loves me, it's a act to throw everyone off, anyway back to PM to talk with another female poster that will be busy for the next half hour or so. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Perianne]

Dear Drummond,

I have been of heavy heart lately. There are so few strong conservatives remaining nowadays. Political correctness is king, even among those who do not recognize it. I feel I am an island out in the middle of the sea.

Any thoughts from your land of nearly total political correctness?

[Drummond]

Dear @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287),

I have been of heavy heart lately. There are so few strong conservatives remaining nowadays. Political correctness is king, even among those who do not recognize it. I feel I am an island out in the middle of the sea.

Any thoughts from your land of nearly total political correctness?

Well, one of great sympathy ! But compared with us, strong, hardline Conservatism in America is far more alive than here. Here .. our Conservative PRIME MINISTER is doing his damndest to keep us signed up to the EU ... and his recent talks haven't gone well. He looks desperate these days ... because without the EU playing ball with our new 'demands' (which are remarkably weak ones), the anti-EU lobby is much strengthened. Pro-gay marriage, pro-NHS, pro-Europe ... Cameron would qualify as an American LEFTIE ... !!!!!!!

[Perianne]

Dear Drummond,

Abraham Maslow was an American Psychologist who wanted to understand what motivates people. His "Hierarchy of Needs" has been presented countless times in the study of Psychology.

His pyramid is as follows:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8571&stc=1

His theory is that "One must satisfy lower level basic needs before progressing on to meet higher level growth needs. Once these needs have been reasonably satisfied, one may be able to reach the highest level called self-actualization."

I have been thinking lately of the foundations, or hierarchy, of conservatism. Although not referred to as conservatism, the conservative mode of thinking was what led to the success of western civilization. Conservatism is a set of ideas and principles that have endured the test of generations, even centuries. I propose that the greatest of these is liberty.

I also propose that America, Britain, and the west in general are hanging on to the coattails of the past and will, within a few generations, disintegrate into societies devoid of conservative principles. And like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a successful society cannot be achieved without those principles.

Any thoughts?



http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

[Drummond]

Dear Drummond,

Abraham Maslow was an American Psychologist who wanted to understand what motivates people. His "Hierarchy of Needs" has been presented countless times in the study of Psychology.

His pyramid is as follows:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8571&stc=1

His theory is that "One must satisfy lower level basic needs before progressing on to meet higher level growth needs. Once these needs have been reasonably satisfied, one may be able to reach the highest level called self-actualization."

I have been thinking lately of the foundations, or hierarchy, of conservatism. Although not referred to as conservatism, the conservative mode of thinking was what led to the success of western civilization. Conservatism is a set of ideas and principles that have endured the test of generations, even centuries. I propose that the greatest of these is liberty.

I also propose that America, Britain, and the west in general are hanging on to the coattails of the past and will, within a few generations, disintegrate into societies devoid of conservative principles. And like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a successful society cannot be achieved without those principles.

Any thoughts?



http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

I think that there's truth in the basic premise, Perianne ... though I also think that this level of detail is unnecessary.

I take the view that the only political system, or basis for one, that has a future ... is one that properly interlocks with human nature. That serves it. Those that don't cannot ultimately endure. We saw this in the Soviet system ... with decades, entire generations, of repressions, propaganda initiatives and the like ... STILL, the USSR crumbled and died. Their Communism did not match human aspirations, so, it failed.

Capitalism, and Conservatism, have NOT failed. They've been sidelined by Socialist diversions, but still, they endure. I think that they will continue to. Socialists only make their propaganda stick by making it appealing to people. But ultimately the truth of what it REALLY gives, must win out. When it does, its popularity must fail.

Socialism WILL die out, one day. It can't not do. My concern is - how much damage will it do in the interim ?

And that's my thinking. Conservative principles will win out, because they interlock with human aspirations in the way that's best compatible with human nature. All that's really required is to show people how true that is.

[Perianne]

Well, one of great sympathy ! But compared with us, strong, hardline Conservatism in America is far more alive than here. Here .. our Conservative PRIME MINISTER is doing his damndest to keep us signed up to the EU ... and his recent talks haven't gone well. He looks desperate these days ... because without the EU playing ball with our new 'demands' (which are remarkably weak ones), the anti-EU lobby is much strengthened. Pro-gay marriage, pro-NHS, pro-Europe ... Cameron would qualify as an American LEFTIE ... !!!!!!!

Dearest Drummond,

It has been a long time since I have written to you. I see the state of the EU has significantly changed since we last talked. Congratulations to you and your fellow Brits. I also see our dastardly president has moved you to the back of the line when economic relations need to be discussed.

This American election season has caused people to show their true colors. Some have such bitterness towards Trump that they would rather Hillary should win. I don't understand such thinking. I am trained to do critical thinking and I am very good at it in my field of work.

It has also caused me to reflect upon which groups of people I wish to be identified with. If "conservative" means Paul Ryan, National Review, Charles Krauthammer, and the like, then I will move further to the right to extinguish my identity with them. Our friend Black Diamond once said of all the members on this forum, I - Perianne - am the farthest right of all.

I have since discovered an alternative right, called "alt-right", which with I can identify. I felt I had moved, but I had not really. It's where I have always been. There just wasn't a name for it.

Are you familiar with the alternative right? You can google "alternative right" and find a blogspot that is very good.

[fj1200]

Alt-right? Not exactly conservatism.

[Drummond]

Dearest @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287),

It has been a long time since I have written to you. I see the state of the EU has significantly changed since we last talked. Congratulations to you and your fellow Brits. I also see our dastardly president has moved you to the back of the line when economic relations need to be discussed.

This American election season has caused people to show their true colors. Some have such bitterness towards Trump that they would rather Hillary should win. I don't understand such thinking. I am trained to do critical thinking and I am very good at it in my field of work.

It has also caused me to reflect upon which groups of people I wish to be identified with. If "conservative" means Paul Ryan, National Review, Charles Krauthammer, and the like, then I will move further to the right to extinguish my identity with them. Our friend Black Diamond once said of all the members on this forum, I - Perianne - am the farthest right of all.

I have since discovered an alternative right, called "alt-right", which with I can identify. I felt I had moved, but I had not really. It's where I have always been. There just wasn't a name for it.

Are you familiar with the alternative right? You can google "alternative right" and find a blogspot that is very good.

It has indeed been a long time since you've written to me, Perianne .. too long, in my view !

I've a couple of thoughts to offer.

I seriously doubt that there's anything such as 'too far Right wing'. Right-wing political thought has a laudable grounding to it .. anyone identifying with it adds to their moral stature by doing so. I don't refer to those who SAY they do, of course ... I refer to those who genuinely DO identify with it.

I'm not familiar with the 'alternative right', as I think this is American-rooted ? I've seen a link to it on Google, and skimmed what I've read (very late as I'm typing this !!).

Here's what I'd suggest. It won't be too many more weeks before the next President of the US will be known. Anyone TRULY Right-wing would surely consider that the real and vital task at hand is to kick the Dems out and install their opposition, which we know is headed by Trump. There should be no doubt about that, and no wavering, or equivocation ... the Dems MUST GO.

Trump failing means that they don't go. That, of course, means a continued decline of America's fortunes, mired and poisoned by Left wing political correctness and recklessness, designed to weaken America.

So, TRUMP MUST WIN. And that's all there is to it.

Consideration of the precise 'brand' of Conservatism Conservatives wish to argue for, must surely wait ? Such a debate now only has any effect, possibly a highly deleterious one (depending on how you'd argue it), on the voting base of Trump, with the Dem side remaining unaffected and unharmed ... and strengthened by vote fracturing.

Why would any true Conservative ever hope for any such effect ? Answer .. THEY WOULDN'T.

And Trump has much in his favour. He lends a genuinely patriotic fervour to his policies and vision. I say ... all power to him.

Thanks, Peri, on your congratulations where the EU and 'Brexit' is concerned ... though ... our politicians have slowed the process to a virtual stop. The Conservatives here say they're committed to honouring the Brexit vote, but no progress as yet has been seen to occur. Something called 'Article 50' of the EU's Charter has to be invoked before the process begins. Nobody here has yet moved on that, and it's obvious that it'll be quite some time before they do.

In the meantime, our Left wing are agitating to undermine the Brexit vote for all they're worth .. suggesting further Referenda must be held to ratify steps taken in the pursuit of Brexit. Or, that the Referendum vote be disregarded altogether, since 'voters were misled as to what it would mean to get out of the EU'.

Our Lefties only respect Referendum votes when they go THEIR way, it seems, and when they don't, their true contempt for democracy becomes apparent.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-challenger-owen-smith-to-offer-second-eu-referendum-after-brexit-voters-misled-a3295331.html

Obama .. he threatened us with going 'to the back of the queue' on any new trade deals with America, should we vote to leave the EU, and therefore seek new trade agreements elsewhere. Don't worry, Peri, it was seen as the shabby blackmail attempt that it was, to tell us how we MUST vote ...

... besides which, Obama himself would've been out of power, possibly his Party ditto, by the time new trade agreements would be discussed ! He couldn't possibly have has any means of ensuring his threat could come about, and we all knew it.

[Perianne]

It's always good to hear your viewpoints, Sir Drummond.

It is the alt-right who is Trump's strongest base as he embraces most of the viewpoints of alt-right. Hillary, of course, made a big deal in a speech about how she defends Trump and knows he is not alt-right. National Review praised her for that speech. It is folks of my viewpoint who are supporting Donald Trump. Lefty conservatives (see them on here) are vociferously in opposition to the only chance we have to defeat the Clinton machine, that is, Donald Trump.

[Drummond]

It's always good to hear your viewpoints, Sir Drummond.

Thanks !! :beer:


It is the alt-right who is Trump's strongest base as he embraces most of the viewpoints of alt-right. Hillary, of course, made a big deal in a speech about how she defends Trump and knows he is not alt-right. National Review praised her for that speech. It is folks of my viewpoint who are supporting Donald Trump. Lefty conservatives (see them on here) are vociferously in opposition to the only chance we have to defeat the Clinton machine, that is, Donald Trump.

Anyone preferring a route which will help Clinton be elected, sells out the Conservative cause. That assumes that any such person was ever, genuinely, a Conservative in the first place - something I'm inclined to doubt.

Trump IS the route to defeating Dem ambitions. There, realistically, is no other. Either Trump is supported, or, the Conservative cause is compromised by anyone seeking to weaken Trump's chances of victory.