MVS's Tweets

Discuss Marilyn's column in PARADE magazine.

Moderators: mvs_staff, forum_admin, Marilyn

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby davar55 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:46 pm

Marilyn tweeted:

Everybody loves a foreign accent. If you’re unlucky in love, consider moving 2 another country. Then you’ll be the one with the cool accent.


Other people's accents in spoken English can be endearing, so Marilyn has a point.
Of course, if every citizen with a foreign accent had to be loved as a requirement
for remaining in America, we might lose much linguistic variation among our
otherwise diverse national identity. I mean, sure, if someone is so uncool that
no one loves them and they have to seek the coolness of a colder climate
in some distant cold locale (Antarctica sounds frozen enough) to have a chance,
then maybe her second point is just as valid. But then if their cool accent fits in
in that foreign locale, maybe it won't stand out and won't be cool after all.
davar55
Intellectual
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: New York City

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby davar55 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:34 pm

I don't remember seeing Marilyn tweet about
the problem at Yahoo ! Answers.

Hello.........................................................................................................

Is Yahoo illegally using e-bots?
Is Yahoo committing election fraud?

Yahoo has a problem. Freedom is a right,

I've tried to post the following to Yahoo ! Answers:


The two-party system in America is now and historically a strong force for consensus. We of course allow third and fourth parties -- that's protected by the rights we share -- and the Libertarian Party places personal freedom as its highest joint value to pursue, which we can all agree on . However, if every small group could form a party and thereby get national publicity and automatically get included in the televised presidential debate there would be chaos. Yes? There must be rules, and 15% in the polls is reasonable. If the Libertarians can get that high, they should be included in the public debate. If not, then they should consider why they entered the political forum. If it's to further the cause of liberty, our most cherished right, one that members of the major parties and other independents such as the Libertarians all respect, then the pursuit of this cause should not deflect them from choosing between the now-down-to two major party candidates. If the choice is between the two major party candidates, and you know either the billionaire builder Donald or the former secretary Hillary will win, then the best way to spend your vote is not to vote for a decent candidate who won't win but involve in selecting the candidate who will win.
davar55
Intellectual
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: New York City

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby davar55 » Mon Jul 04, 2016 1:51 am

Well, after I posted the previous post, I tried again at Yahoo ! Answers.
I had no trouble at all.
I posted, posted comments on Yahoo ! News, voted on comments again.
Back to normal.
Must have been just a glitch, an intermittent internet glitch.
No problem now.
davar55
Intellectual
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: New York City

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby robert 46 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:32 pm

Marilyn @ Twitter wrote:Separate countries in the world: some prosperity, some poverty, some wars. Only one country in the world: no prosperity, no poverty, no war.
2016-06-25

This requires explanation.
"Some prosperity" and "some poverty" imply that these are caused by differences in standard of living between countries- that one country gains prosperity from the poverty of another country.

"No prosperity" and "no poverty" imply that a one-world-government would impose on all people the same standard of living. Yet a plutocracy, or fascism/communism/etc. with a party elite would create internal prosperity and poverty stratifications.

"Some wars" implies wars of conquest between countries. "No war" implies there cannot be conflict except between countries. Yet internally, dissatisfaction with the government can lead to a war of revolt/revolution.

So, Marilyn's vague opinion does not actually stand up to even a cursory analysis.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby davar55 » Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:46 pm

This was a Marilyn tweet and a non-tweet response:

robert 46 wrote:
Marilyn @ Twitter wrote:Separate countries in the world: some prosperity, some poverty, some wars. Only one country in the world: no prosperity, no poverty, no war.
2016-06-25

This requires explanation.
"Some prosperity" and "some poverty" imply that these are caused by differences in standard of living between countries- that one country gains prosperity from the poverty of another country.

"No prosperity" and "no poverty" imply that a one-world-government would impose on all people the same standard of living. Yet a plutocracy, or fascism/communism/etc. with a party elite would create internal prosperity and poverty stratifications.

"Some wars" implies wars of conquest between countries. "No war" implies there cannot be conflict except between countries. Yet internally, dissatisfaction with the government can lead to a war of revolt/revolution.

So, Marilyn's vague opinion does not actually stand up to even a cursory analysis.

Marilyn is not being vague so much as making a comment about world government.
What she is saying is that separate and equal nations on this earth serve a very valid value:
they encourage competition hence capitalism hence prosperity;
they provide a guarantee that some portion of the world will survive and prosper
even if the rest of the world united under one government, a socialist-communist final solution;
and while their existence allows for the occurrence of wars, even world wars,
they are the only means of uniting humanity toward the desired goal of world peace.
-- davar55
davar55
Intellectual
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: New York City

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby robert 46 » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:03 am

Marilyn @ Twitter wrote:Separate countries in the world: some prosperity, some poverty, some wars. Only one country in the world: no prosperity, no poverty, no war.
2016-06-25

The hidden issue is what Marilyn's preference would be. Separate countries implies two negatives (poverty, wars) and one positive (prosperity). One-word-government implies two positives (no poverty, no wars) and one negative (no prosperity). On a simplistic weight-of-the-numbers basis this would favor one-world-government. Yet snap-judgments are often wrong because they have not analyzed the presentation sufficiently, have not confirmed the validity of the premises, and have not factored in other relevant considerations.

I have argued that one-world-government would not prevent prosperity/poverty but would transfer prosperity to those in power, and relative poverty to everyone else. I have also argued that one-world-government would not prevent wars. On the contrary, a self-appointed elite would promote dissatisfaction among the masses and revolt.

With multiple countries a person who dislikes the government can flee to another country, or smuggle in weapons from another country to fuel a revolt. With one-world-government there is no place to flee, and one might think that there is no way to obtain weapons. As to the latter, ambushing armed agents using improvised weapons to take their better weapons is an option [1]; also those employed by the government in an armed capacity may also be opposed to the regime and pilfer weapons.

This changes the equation. The one-world-government would not prevent prosperity, poverty and wars: it would only change the situation to be more reviled and volatile.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know." So one can surmise that Marilyn's preference is actually the status quo with multiple countries.


[1] Recall that the Boston Marathon bombers ambushed an armed university guard just for this purpose. Also that the recent assassination of a British Parliamentarian was accomplished with a home-made firearm and knife.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby davar55 » Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:56 am

Repeating MVS's tweet:
Separate countries in the world: some prosperity, some poverty, some wars. Only one country in the world: no prosperity, no poverty, no war.

It's obvious that Marilyn, like most of use, especially beauty pageant contestants,
want world peace. This may not be obvious in a clever short tweet like this one,
but we know MVS has a way of making us think.

I agree with the tweet, and my earlier comments on it. She is pointing out
what should have been obvious in 1918 after WWI and in 1945 after WWII.

We are a world of nations for good historical reasons. We united in the UN for
the purpose not of one world government but to coordinate our governments
according to democratic principles. Now that we are arresting world terrorism,
via the actions of the US and its allies in the UN, when this monstrosity of terrorism
is exterminated permanently, we can address world peace.

Marilyn is anticipating the future. She and you are correct in maintaining
that we must avoid a single monolithic world government for earth, and
maintain some kind of nation based international structure going forward.

This is conducive to prosperity and decreased poverty, even while not
totally eliminating the possibility of local wars in the future. But a
single government wouldn't solve that issue, since there would be factions.

I think Marilyn uses her tweet character limitation wisely.
davar55
Intellectual
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: New York City

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby davar55 » Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:59 am

Since Marilyn began tweeting into politics, the news has gotten interesting.

If the Donald selects Pence as his veep choice, he adds zero to the ticket.
What he needs is a younger man who could go toe-to-toe with him in a debate.
Trump should take a second look at the Republican senators he trounced in
the debates, perhaps someone who can help him with minorities and women.

The Democrats and DNC made some integrating platform progress on some issues.
But their attempt to integrate the Bernie's socialist agenda with the Hillary's impure pragmatism
is doomed to failure and defeat.
davar55
Intellectual
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: New York City

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby robert 46 » Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:26 am

Marilyn @ Twitter, VirtualMvS wrote:Yes, we need better gun laws,

"Better" gun laws, or more repressive gun laws?
but terrorism is a separate issue. Just one truck can cause more harm than a gun. How do we control trucks?

Register trucks and owners. Require a transfer tax on all transactions. Require truck owners to have the registration information with them at all times. (Wait a minute: government already does this.)

Ban trucks which look menacing, are powerful, have large cargo and fuel tank capacity. Revoke the right of anyone with any kind of trumped-up felony conviction to be in possession of a truck.

This should solve the problem. Yeah, right!
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby robert 46 » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:50 pm

Marilyn @ Twitter, VirtualMvS, Aug 11 wrote:The word "control" makes the gun control issue inflammatory. Imagine the emotions if health care reform were called “health care control.”

What is the difference between "gun control" and "gun reform" compared to 'health care control and "health care reform"? Both are examples of politician meddling for the purpose of a power grab.

However, "the right to be armed" is specifically mentioned in the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was accepted under the proviso that there be a Bill of Rights. The claim was initially made that the Constitution enumerated specific duties and powers of government, and that anything not in that enumeration was not granted. People did not fall for this ploy, and wanted an enumeration of what the politicians could not do. The most important of them, even more so than the right of free speech, was the right to arm oneself against all dangers. Among the dangers was over-reaching politicians who might attempt a power grab. Having recently defeated an English king in armed conflict to gain independence, the citizens well-understood the danger of autocratic government. They wanted the citizenry to be able to overthrow anyone who attempted to impose despotic control. This danger has not gone away because politicians are by nature control-freaks; which goes along with their egomania. No politician wants to be a " public servant"- that is a misleading euphemism- they want to be a ruler. This danger will never go away because it characterizes the mentality of people who go into politics.

Consider the case of Rod Blagojevich, who tried to sell the vacated Senate seat of Barack Obama after Obama was elected President. He was charged with corruption; tried; convicted; and sentenced to 14 years in prison. Prior to this he:
[was] described as a "staunch" supporter of gun control.

During his February 2006 "State of the State" address, Blagojevich said the state should ban semi-automatic firearms.

As a state legislator, Blagojevich proposed raising the price of an Illinois Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card from $5 to $500.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."
Blagojevich vetoed three gun bills in 2005, which would have:
1.Deleted records in gun database after 90 days

If guns and gun owners are registered then it is easy for a despot to have agents go around confiscating the guns. That is what Adolph Hitler did.
2.Eliminated the waiting period for someone wanting to buy a rifle or shotgun, when trading in a previously owned weapon

Maintain nonsensical impediments to gun ownership.
3.Overridden local laws regulating transport of firearms.

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

Maintain a mishmash of gun control laws all over the state so that gun owners do not know whether one is in violation of some local gun law when transporting a firearm.

This is representative of the ploys totalitarians will use; and that there is no difference between the totalitarian mind and the criminal mind- both seek to violate the rights of others.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby robert 46 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:23 am

Marilyn @ Twitter, VirtualMvS wrote:Annoyed to discover my name has been removed from the New York voter rolls because I am supposedly "inactive." This is absolutely untrue.
4 Nov

Perhaps this is part of a nation-wide attempt to rig the election. It would go along with all the propagandizing which has been going on.
The media has damaged its own reputation far more than it has hurt either pres. candidate. It will never recover--and it doesn't deserve to.
2 Nov

Payback to Marilyn by media influence on the election board for this tweet???

***** 2016-11-10

The New York vote for the Presidency was:
Clinton 4,143,541
Trump 2,637,678

New York, along with all but two states, have a winner-take-all electoral vote. Thus we see the irony:
If Marilyn had voted for Clinton, her vote would have been irrelevant to the national electoral count which elected Trump. But if Marilyn had voted for Trump, her vote would have been irrelevant to the state electoral count which was for Clinton.

New York and Florida each have 29 electoral votes, but NY went to Clinton and FL went to Trump; so they cancelled each other out in the vote for President.

I hope Marilyn will delve into the circumstances of how she was removed from the voter list, and report her findings to her readers. It seems to me that if a person shows up at the polls with a voter registration card and photo id that they should not be turned away as this appears to be vote rigging at the election board level- disenfranchise those in the biased-against political party.

However, Marilyn has never, to my knowledge, publicly stated a political party affiliation. She may be a registered Independent- which is hinted at by her not voting in the primaries which are exclusive to Democrat/Republican party members respectively.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby robert 46 » Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:34 pm

VirtualMvS @ Twitter wrote:Please read, Mr. Trump! Put only people with the best minds & the best hearts in your cabinet. This will relieve both doubters & supporters.

Very good advice.

For people who think the Trump election means the sky is falling, note: The House of Representatives went Democrat in the 2006 mid-term election of G.W. Bush's second term because the voters were tired of Bush policy. They gave him slack in the first term due to the 911 attack.

However, the House went back to Republican in the 2010 mid-term election of Obama's first term. This was consequent to Obama and the Democrats ramming through the "Affordable Health Care" Act, which turned out to be anything but affordable. Because of this, Obama was stymied for the remainder of his time in office.

So take note, Donald Trump: If you attempt radical change from the outset then you may find that the House goes back to Democrat in the 2018 mid-term election, and you will get nothing more accomplished in the remainder of your service.

Thus policy changes must be carefully planned and adequately explained to the public. Fair warning: Do not attempt anything inflammatory- such as repealing Roe v. Wade.
Last edited by robert 46 on Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby JO 753 » Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:27 pm

Your conclusionz dont jibe with reality.

Obamacare had no actual effect on the 2010 electionz kuz it wuznt passed till then and nothing in it took effect till yirz later.

It wuz actually the permanent full speed campane mode the GoP and their propaganda machine went into that swung congressional majority their way.

And Obama wuznt stymied by a reaction to anything he did, it wuz the stated mission uv Mitch McConnell and the GoPs to obstruct absolutely everything.

Worse, they hav been seksesfully blaming Obama for a slow recovery, all the welth going to the top 1% , crumbling infrastructure, etc. - all uv wich wuz their doing.
Tired uv Trump yet? I am:
http://www.7532020.com
JO 753
Intellectual
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: IL NOEEZ

Re: MVS's Tweets

Postby robert 46 » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:07 am

Translated to English:
JO 753 wrote:Your conclusions don't jibe with reality.

Obamacare had no actual effect on the 2010 elections because it wasn't passed till then and nothing in it took effect until years later.

The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (Obamacare) became a law-of-the land on 3/23/2010. The mid-term elections were subsequently held on 11/02/2010.
Wikipedia wrote:Candidates and voters in 2010 focused on national economic conditions and the economic policies of the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats. Attention was paid to public anger over the Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush in late 2008. Voters were also motivated for and against the sweeping reforms of the health care system enacted by Democrats in 2010, as well as concerns over tax rates and record deficits. At the time of the election, unemployment was over 9%, and had not declined significantly since Barack Obama had become President. Further eroding public trust in Congress were a series of scandals....

The fiscally-focused and quasi-libertarian Tea Party movement was a vocal force in mobilizing voters for Republican candidates nationwide. Their widespread exposure in the media contributed to the election's focus on economic, rather than social, issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

There was considerable ire over Obama/Democrat policy.

If someone tells you to go out in the fields and pick cotton or you will be whipped, you would recognize this as slavery. If the government tells you to sign up for Obamacare or you will be punished with a "tax" penalty, you should recognize this as a form of slavery.

It is one thing for legislatures to pass laws which proscribe an activity and subject a person to a penalty if the proscribed activity is engaged in. Under this circumstance, a person can distance oneself from the penalty by not engaging in the proscribed activity- i.e. take no action.

It is another thing entirely for legislatures to pass laws which prescribe an activity and subject a person to a penalty if the prescribed activity is NOT engaged in.

Recall that the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln- the party that freed the slaves. But times change, and President Obama (half-black) and the Democrats have chosen to reinstate slavery in the United States.

The first order of business for President-elect Trump is to nullify the "Individual Mandate" by recognizing it as the reinstitution of slavery: which is antithetical to American society.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Missing post

Postby robert 46 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:37 am

robert 46 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:53 pm

VirtualMvS wrote: Behind the rise of the right may be the concern that multiculturalism causes loss of all cultures as countries lose individual identities.
05 Dec


"Nations" and "nationalism" is based on a perceived monolithic cultural identity. The United States was once the "melting pot" for immigrants who tried to become "Americans". Today, immigrants try to hold onto their previous cultural identity- particularly their native language. This fractionalizes the society. It is particularly noticeable for Spanish- and creole-speaking immigrants.

The U.S. is fast-losing its national spirit. Note sports stars who refuse to honor the flag, national anthem. It may be free speech, but is not good corporate policy. They should be told to do as they are told for the team, or be fired.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Magazine column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron