tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post5786150325394225628..comments2023-11-03T00:46:46.649-07:00Comments on Electric City Weblog: Pilot ProgramGeeGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13896054313394692210noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-2406159841475854212007-09-15T06:09:00.000-07:002007-09-15T06:09:00.000-07:00"I don't see that as socialism......"Of course you..."I don't see that as socialism......"<BR/><BR/>Of course you don't. And I'm not surprised. You seem to have your own agenda for one allegedly <I>coming in at the middle of the story...</I><BR/><BR/>For those who seem to <I>come into the middle of the story</I> it becomes prudent to continuously define and discuss what <I>is</I><B><A HREF="http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr05/socmeans.html" REL="nofollow"> is</A></B>. It is the only way to expose those with <A HREF="http://www.worldsocialism.org/index.php" REL="nofollow">histrionic problems</A> or <I>fostering a hidden agenda</I> from gaining excessive power over the <A HREF="http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/1918/xx/marxdp.htm" REL="nofollow">proletariat.</A><BR/><BR/>One's inability to see oneself as socialist does not make one any less socialist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-69330088039665764622007-09-14T23:46:00.000-07:002007-09-14T23:46:00.000-07:00Again, you fail to identify what is "socialistic" ...Again, you fail to identify what is "socialistic" about the people you are refering to. From what I gather from the various posts here and from other articles written by people watching the situation in Great Falls, it is much less socialism and much more fostering a hidden agenda that may or may not stand up to the light of public scrutiny. I don't see that as socialism... I see that as illegal given the Montana Open Meeting and Open Document law. There is also the question of who is getting paid what. The answer to that question may very well make a huge difference between an assumed socialist agenda and one far less... altruistic. <BR/><BR/>I do not see the individuals involved as being overly socialist. I see them at believing that they think they know what they want to accomplish and don't want to be bothered by pesky things like citizen scrutiny. This isn't socialism. It is arrogance.<BR/><BR/>And GeeGuy - I can pretty much agree with your generalization of Liberals with one exception. It is my firm belief that the focus on Environmental issues is a subset of liberals. Not all liberals are environmentalists. Just I like I do not believe that all Conservatives are Christian fundamentalists. This is a subset of Conservatives.<BR/><BR/>There is also a significant difference between "anti-war" and "anti-Iraq war". There are many conservatives that are NOT supportive of the current war in Iraq - if for no other reason than the Multi-Trillion dollar price tag this one has. I, for one, have been against the War in Iraq from the beginning (though I think we should have been a LOT more serious about kicking Osama's butt in Afghanistan). <BR/><BR/>MoorcatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-73613354136933058452007-09-14T21:55:00.000-07:002007-09-14T21:55:00.000-07:00130 credits in Sociology? Good for you. Then ther...130 credits in Sociology? Good for you. <BR/><BR/>Then there is no misunderstanding about what I posted.<BR/><BR/>People promoting socialist agendas should have their doctrine identified appropriately. <BR/><BR/>People embracing socialist policies should hear the word socialist over and over whether or not they are comfortable with it.<BR/><BR/>The issue is socialism vs. a representative republic. So from a social-psychological perspective, it doesn't matter if you label them Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Progressives or koolaid drinkers. Their motivation and end goals will still be the same: <BR/>More power and control to a bureaucratic, centralized government and less in the hands of the people.<BR/><BR/>BTW, with your 130 hours in Sociology, you might already be indoctrinated and not even realize it.<BR/><BR/>Drink up! Cherry or Grape?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-21610281950095144002007-09-14T17:30:00.000-07:002007-09-14T17:30:00.000-07:00Moorcat makes a legitimate point. We do have to be...Moorcat makes a legitimate point. We <I>do</I> have to be careful when we label people online.<BR/><BR/>I am often...well, occasionally...chastised for referring to something that "the left" advocates. Someone from that side of the aisle will invariably come on and say "Wait, I don't believe that. Don't characterize me as 'the left,' that's not fair or accurate." It's a great tactic for blog debates, but it is really just as unfair as the argument it seeks to confront.<BR/><BR/>In other words, are there <I>no</I> widely held liberal beliefs? Can I only debate with one person at a time? Can I only write about one person's viewpoint at a time?<BR/><BR/>To that extent, I guess I disagree with Moorcat. I do not think the problem is over generalizing (most liberals <I>are</I> pro-choice, anti-war, environmentalists.). I think the problem is refusing to engage people on a legitimate basis of their arguments. Case in point: Moorcat's brother and I disagree often. I don't hate him, I like him. I don't refrain from calling him a tree-hugging socialist because I don't think he <I>is</I> one, but because using that loaded language is insulting to him and gets in the way of our ability to really discuss things.GeeGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13896054313394692210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-993102604778314492007-09-14T15:51:00.000-07:002007-09-14T15:51:00.000-07:00Unfortunately, you misunderstand me completely. Yo...Unfortunately, you misunderstand me completely. You see, I have over 130 credits in Sociology and am well aware of what the terms mean (BTW, I don't think they mean what you think they mean and Wiki is a VERY poor source for information...).<BR/><BR/>No, my problem isn't with the people you refer to as being Socialists, my problem is with you labeling them Socialists. Far too often today, people are really quick to give (usually derogatory) lables to people without the least understanding of who and what they are labling. <BR/><BR/>Geeguy assumed I was a liberal when we first "discussed" something because I supported a Democratic Candidate and I supported a liberal idea. Yep, it can happen. Fact of the matter is that I am far more conservative than most people know in a lot of ways.<BR/><BR/>If I am going to lable someone (my personal favorite is koolaid drinker - which I have used for both Neocon, Religious fanatic Republicans and over the top leftwing fanatics...), I am going to give specific reasons for labling them that way.<BR/><BR/>Not all Democrats are "tree hugging socialists acting out a communist agenda to weaken our country while taxing the citizens into bankruptcy" and not all Republicans are "gun toating, god fearing, homophobic, redneck, beer drinking, racists that think business can solve everything". Believe or not, there is actually some middle ground in there. GeeGuy is a perfect example. I have actually seen him advocate something that could (gasp) even be considered a Liberal idea (though I promised not to reveal the issue so he could save face).<BR/><BR/>My point here is that it is far more useful to discuss the issue, not the person (or your assumed stereotype of the person)<BR/><BR/>MoorcatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-80012476514123369002007-09-14T06:56:00.000-07:002007-09-14T06:56:00.000-07:00Dear Moorcat:As a partisan here is why I am one wh...Dear Moorcat:<BR/><BR/>As a <I>partisan</I> <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism" REL="nofollow">here</A> is why I am one who gives a <I>rat's behind</I> about apparent socialist philosophy in Great Falls government. The ease with which these seemingly odd alliances are formed is of concern.<BR/><BR/>As a <I>partisan</I>, the differences between <A HREF="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/social+democracy" REL="nofollow">social democrats</A> and those who want a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism" REL="nofollow">representative republic</A> are worth, at least, a <I>rat's behind</I> notation.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed48.htm" REL="nofollow">To quote Madison:</A><BR/><BR/>"It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-63717384021917807372007-09-13T21:02:00.000-07:002007-09-13T21:02:00.000-07:00I really wish people could get past the partisan b...I really wish people could get past the partisan bs and just marvel at the insanity...<BR/><BR/>Who gives a rat's behind if they are "leftist socialists" or not. <BR/><BR/>What they ARE is "strange bedfellows". I have a hard time believing that these are "objective" in any way, shape of form.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for pointing out the obvious to me, GeeGuy. I understand now why you are upset...<BR/><BR/>MoorcatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-83826207512326678512007-09-13T17:47:00.000-07:002007-09-13T17:47:00.000-07:00Yawn. Incestuous business practices among the left...Yawn. Incestuous business practices among the leftwing socialists it appears.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-15878773727122928882007-09-13T16:23:00.000-07:002007-09-13T16:23:00.000-07:00This is all so wrong!This is all so wrong!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-51472639814250632162007-09-13T14:20:00.000-07:002007-09-13T14:20:00.000-07:00Balzarini, Coleen, City of Great Falls Fiscal Serv...Balzarini, <B>Coleen, City of Great Falls Fiscal Services Director, Executive Director, Electric City Power</B><BR/>Source GS<BR/>Ten Hundred<BR/>Patton, <B>Cheryl, City of Great Falls, Assistant City Manager</B><BR/>Stephenson<BR/>Whitman<BR/>Cappis, <B>Martha, Employee, City of Great Falls Fiscal Services Office<BR/></B><BR/>Boysun<BR/>Lawton, <B>John, City of Great Falls, City Manager</B><BR/>First Int<BR/>Bennett Mot<BR/>Cari Yturri<BR/>Lacy & Ebl<BR/>Ebling<BR/>Gray, <B>Randy, Former Mayor, City of Great Falls, Board Member, Electric City Power</B><BR/>Walker<BR/>Golie, <B>George, Former Legislator, Sponsor of Pro-ECP bill, Board Member, Electric City Power</B><BR/>Gregori, <B>Tim, Chairman, Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-73017130589356816972007-09-13T13:39:00.000-07:002007-09-13T13:39:00.000-07:00For those of us coming in at the middle of the sto...For those of us coming in at the middle of the story, who are these people and why is this list suspect?<BR/><BR/>MoorcatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-17563860504045376082007-09-13T13:11:00.000-07:002007-09-13T13:11:00.000-07:00What a big surprise. You got to give them some cr...What a big surprise. You got to give them some credit for having the balls to rub this in our face. <BR/><BR/>Nobody ever said thieves are bright. Does this mean Lawton plans to retire here, since he is getting cheap power subsidized by the tax payers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-69698937781691087912007-09-13T11:33:00.000-07:002007-09-13T11:33:00.000-07:00Why should this surprise anyone? Keep digging - t...Why should this surprise anyone? Keep digging - there's more dirt to turn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11068216.post-42905693530900152482007-09-13T10:54:00.000-07:002007-09-13T10:54:00.000-07:00I bet this test group of people was randomly selec...I bet this test group of people was randomly selected from a group of 20.<BR/><BR/>What?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com