Well, if no one's going to talk about racist and homophobic writers any more and, instead, talk about liberals vs. conservatives and American party politics, then I'm going to talk about international proletarian socialist revolution.
"Fiscally Responsible" and "Fiscally Conservative" are not synonyms. ;-)
Denying homosexuals equal protection under the law is discrimination, and calling it out as such is not a lack of tolerance.
Kicking OSC's ass for being an asshat would be a lack of tolerance. ;-)
The last Democratic presidential candidate that I was actually excited about was Paul Tsongas. Of course the Republicans haven't exactly had exciting candidates either.
The rules are just a little different when you are the wealthiest nation on the planet. It's no longer as simple as "not spending more than you earn" - not least of all because the word "earn" loses a lot of meaning when talking about how countries generate wealth.To me being fiscally responsable or conservative (however you want to say it) is as simple as not spending more than you earn. Let's not let a party co-opt this term. :P
This is just how I try to live my life. I make most major purchases with cash, live in a modest house that does not make me house poor and I save money for emergencies. To me this is what I think of as living fiscally conservative.
I hear you Scott, this is a personal philosophy. But one can carry over at least some of the philosophy into governing.
For instance: Cutting taxes during a time of war. Probably the worst possible thing one could do. Wars are expensive! Who did they think was going to pay for this? Raise taxes to pay for the war or do not go into it. Pay as you go.
Although, TBH I'm not saying that either. I think we could certainly fielded a stronger candidate to draw independents that swing elections.
"We'd totally have won if we fielded a moderate candidate," but the reality is that political campaigns are more nuanced than that.
I think the idea of a candidate's "strength" is really overstated. It matters, up to a point. You want someone articulate, stable, well-versed, and capable of holding his (or her) own under pressure. But that's about as far as "strength" alone gets you. The rest is largely a matter of policy positions, and to be meaningful they also have to be controversial (in the sense that no matter what you choose, a large portion of the electorate will disagree). So you can field a candidate who is more strongly moderate, but you run the very real risk of causing some of the most conservative Republican voters - normally reliable votes - to become less reliable, to work less energetically for your campaign, and possibly to splinter off to vote for third-party candidates.
Now, mind you, do I think McCain was a particularly strong candidate? Not once we got about a third of the way through the campaign season, no. Did I think his running mate was anything short of a disaster in a red pantsuit? Nope. But I really think it all boiled down to McCain's campaign coming forward in support of unpopular positions, and trying to hit a few solid moderate notes that proved off-putting to normally strong portions of his base. This was certainly offset to some degree by the fact that Republicans are pretty comfortable voting against someone (especially someone like Obama), but it was obvious in the 2008 season that McCain suffered an energy deficit in his base that allowed Obama to make snowballing gains all through the final months of the campaign season.
Sure would be nice to have a worthwhile candidate representing both parties in the next general election...
Sure would be nice to have a worthwhile candidate representing both parties in the next general election...
Ball's in the Republican party's court.
The "strength" of a candidate is his (or her) platform. From a purely gamesmanship standpoint, running on the least radical platform is going to garner the largest number of votes. I'd bet you've read Torquiville's take on why a great man (person) won't be elected president. I think modern political analysis focuses far too much on alienation of the base. You're right in that McCain started drifting further right towards the neoconservatists as the election moved further along, culminating in HER. But really, who else were they going to vote for, Obama?? They may stay home, but more likely they'll vote along party lines like they always do. And as you pointed out, once he started focusing on the far right folks rather than aiming at independents, his numbers started to slip. Appealing to the radical base did not help him win that election.
To me being fiscally responsable or conservative (however you want to say it) is as simple as not spending more than you earn. Let's not let a party co-opt this term. :P
This is just how I try to live my life. I make most major purchases with cash, live in a modest house that does not make me house poor and I save money for emergencies. To me this is how I define living as a fiscall conservative.
So in response to thejeff, I'm not talking about marginal tax rates. This is about personal philosophy.
I have compassion for those in need and I strongly support goverment services for the needy and the poor. But I think if more people lived within their means they would live longer, healthier, and happier lives.
-MD
PS: Wow...this thread has totally derailed. Very interesting and civil conversation though.
PSS: One could make a good case that I can't be a Pathfinder Subscription subscriber and a fiscall conservative...
I agree with more fiscal responsibility. When the economy is going well, the government should focus on paying down it's debt. When times are bad, it should increase spending to help stabilize the economy. It'd be nice to see a 30 year average to be close to zero, with specific years being appropriate to that year's circumstance.
In the short term, it would actually be a bad thing if the government set up a savings plan. Lets say the government pays off all it's debt and sets aside $500 billion a year for economic crisis, until it has $3 trillion set aside. It would have the effect of basically reducing the liquidity available within the economy by $3 trillion. It's money that would disappear until the government had to spend it, effectively slowing the economy down, increasing the likelihood that it would have to be spent almost immediately.
The problem with a populist government is that when times are bad, the best way to get re-elected is to bring government money into your district and give people jobs. When times are good, a good way to get re-elected is to bring in government money into your district and give people jobs.
It's an effective system of fair advocacy, each district gets one representative to bring their share of federal dollars back. The problem is that it only pushes spending higher and taxes down.
The personal finances analogy feels appropriate and apt to us as individuals. It's the life we understand (even if we don't always follow it precisely). The federal government is on a different scale though. It employs millions of workers, who if they were fired, would not be able to spend money on products and services that the economy is built on providing right now, causing a ripple effect where private companies have to lay off employees, reducing government revenue since they're not paying as much in taxes now, meaning the government has to lay off more people.
In the short term, the government needs to provide stability. In the long term, the government needs to ensure it is acting in a sustainable manner.
For the Goblin:
Norman Mailer was married six times and actually stabbed one of his wives.
(And I felt cheated. That was not porn. I expected a Suicide Girl in a Bolshevik hat.)
To me being fiscally responsable or conservative (however you want to say it) is as simple as not spending more than you earn. Let's not let a party co-opt this term. :P
This is just how I try to live my life. I make most major purchases with cash, live in a modest house that does not make me house poor and I save money for emergencies. To me this is how I define living as a fiscall conservative.
So in response to thejeff, I'm not talking about marginal tax rates. This is about personal philosophy.
You're making the same fallacy which many conservative pundits and politicians have made, namely comparing the economy of a household with the economy of a nation. The two are very, very different things and, as thejeff has written too, at times it's necessary to spend more than you "earn" - on a national level.
But to get this a bit back towards OSC and the boycott.
OSC is, along with those who share his views on LGBT people, of course also hypocrites of the highest order. They've called for boycotts themselves on places which have LGBT-friendly policies, like Starbucks, while I haven't seen them threatening to boycott places like Red Lobster, pretty much the whole clothing industry, male hair salons, barbershops, tattoo parlors, women in teaching and power positions etc.
No no, the "gayness" is for some reason the paramount sin to them, despite what their own bibles tell them.
For the Goblin:
Norman Mailer was married six times and actually stabbed one of his wives.
PS: Some of the Brazilian and Russian comrades were pretty hawt.
Scott, Jeff, iron truth and Gentle
I stated several times this is a personal philosophy.
Personal.....as in for me and my household.
Look, the government has so many more ways of gathering money to pay down it's debts than a family does to pay down his or her personal debt. I'm not worried about debt as long as the job numbers continue to rise.
Just thought I should clarify before you send me Paul Krugman links.
As for OSC
I saw this quote in a Washington post article,
If you are only willing to support artists who agree with you, you wind up stuck with a lot of mediocre art. That people hold views you share does not mean they will write better books than people who go home and do horrible things to their house pets. If only there were some correlation. It would be so much easier. But given the choice, I’d rather have despicable artists and great art than creators with sedate, tolerant lives who made things that were dull and ugly. If you believe art changes things, of course that’s what you want. The more good art you have, the better for humanity. It expands and deepens your understanding. It forces you into another perspective. There is a moral element in it — even if it’s not overt. As Wilde wrote, “They will not say ‘We will not war against France because her prose is perfect,’ but because the prose of France is perfect, they will not hate the land…. It will give us the peace that springs from understanding.” Start penalizing beautiful things for coming from an ugly place, and you wind up with a less lovely world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/07/10/why-skippin g-enders-game-because-of-orson-scott-card-is-a-bad-idea/
Not sure if I agree but the article made a compelling argument. I guess my thoughts are that in todays world there is a metric crap ton of "lovely" art to choose from. Probably more than I could ever get to so I can afford to skip this one.
I think Gravity comes out around the same time...that movie looks crazy good!
-MD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I admit that I haven't seen the movie, but anyone else doubt that a film by the dude who made the Wolverine solo flick and Rendition is going to qualify as "great art"?
Scott, Jeff, iron truth and Gentle
I stated several times this is a personal philosophy.
Personal.....as in for me and my household.
Look, the government has so many more ways of gathering money to pay down it's debts than a family does to pay down his or her personal debt. I'm not worried about debt as long as the job numbers continue to rise.
Just thought I should clarify before you send me Paul Krugman links.
Not going to send you any links, just going to quote yourself:
I hear you Scott, this is a personal philosophy. But one can carry over at least some of the philosophy into governing.
Insofar as they're both "budgets," you have "income" and "expenses" and obviously you should have an eye on those two. But those are very broad characteristics and beyond that you can't really carry anything over.
Mind you, I'm not knocking your budgeting as a personal way of living.
Not sure if I agree but the article made a compelling argument. I guess my thoughts are that in todays world there is a metric crap ton of "lovely" art to choose from. Probably more than I could ever get to so I can afford to skip this one.
Exactly. One isn't going to be devoid of great sci-fi movies or books just because one boycotts OSC. Luckily there are people out there creating other exciting books and movies who are more tolerant of other people.
As for OSC
I saw this quote in a Washington post article,
If you are only willing to support artists who agree with you, you wind up stuck with a lot of mediocre art. That people hold views you share does not mean they will write better books than people who go home and do horrible things to their house pets. If only there were some correlation. It would be so much easier. But given the choice, I’d rather have despicable artists and great art than creators with sedate, tolerant lives who made things that were dull and ugly. If you believe art changes things, of course that’s what you want. The more good art you have, the better for humanity. It expands and deepens your understanding. It forces you into another perspective. There is a moral element in it — even if it’s not overt. As Wilde wrote, “They will not say ‘We will not war against France because her prose is perfect,’ but because the prose of France is perfect, they will not hate the land…. It will give us the peace that springs from understanding.” Start penalizing beautiful things for coming from an ugly place, and you wind up with a less lovely world.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/07/10/why-skippin g-enders-game-because-of-orson-scott-card-is-a-bad-idea/
Not sure if I agree but the article made a compelling argument. I guess my thoughts are that in todays world there is a metric crap ton of "lovely" art to choose from. Probably more than I could ever get to so I can afford to skip this one.
I think Gravity comes out around the same time...that movie looks crazy good!...
I'm okay with separating the artist from the art as a concept.
What I'm not interested in is making an indirect donation, even an extremely small one, to NOM. No one has made a compelling argument (IMO) why I should give money to someone who will turn around and give it to an organization like NOM or the LDS.
It's not just about his views. It's about giving him money and what he'll do with it.
I'm okay with separating the artist from the art as a concept.What I'm not interested in is making an indirect donation, even an extremely small one, to NOM. No one has made a compelling argument (IMO) why I should give money to someone who will turn around and give it to an organization like NOM or the LDS.
It's not just about his views. It's about giving him money and what he'll do with it.
I can hear the counterarguments now. You're undoubtedly giving money to all sorts of people who will turn around and use it for purposes you consider nefarious - they're just not as vocal about it as OSC.
And it is true that I (and most other people) engage in economic transactions with lots of different entities, many of which undoubtedly make politically motivated donations to causes, organizations, and people I detest. But my ire with OSC is that he's been quite vocally an obstacle on an issue I particularly care about right now and have time to focus on. And if a bunch of people think I'm being inconsistent in holding him accountable while not holding others (that I probably don't know about), I don't really care. That I cannot be 100% faithful to a particular ideal shouldn't stop me from making the contributions I can when I can.
My hope for my (the republican) party, is to put forth a libertarian canidate. Who cares if he can't get the right wing "ridiculous" base, if moderates and indepandants swing to him. I'm hoping as things move on, this part of the party that's called the 'base' will shrink.
We need to stop falling prey to the political mudlsinging and THINK.
We need to start over, and get those old hacks (ie. McConnell, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, etc.) out of office, from both parties.
The republicans should hire JJ Abrams and do a re-boot.
Hopefully with tons of lens flare.
-MD
My hope for my (the republican) party, is to put forth a libertarian canidate. Who cares if he can't get the right wing "ridiculous" base, if moderates and indepandants swing to him. I'm hoping as things move on, this part of the party that's called the 'base' will shrink.
We need to stop falling prey to the political mudlsinging and THINK.
We need to start over, and get those old hacks (ie. McConnell, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, etc.) out of office, from both parties.
Can you find a libertarian candidate who doesn't come with massive baggage? They are kinda known for race baiting, strong opposition to civil rights movements, and generally being hypocritical jerks. Not to mention their anti-entitlement policies are one of the strong reasons this Republican congress has the lowest approval rating in history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one has made a compelling argument (IMO) why I should give money to someone who will turn around and give it to an organization like NOM or the LDS.
Because, no matter what purchases you partake in, at some point your money is going to end up in the hands of someone who will spend it on a cause you oppose. That said, a movie like Ender's Game is a pretty safe bet - few industries are as overwhelmingly socially liberal as Hollywood, and you are far more likely to have your money end up in the hands of people willing to spend it in support of gay rights than in opposition to it (especially since OSC isn't actually getting any of your money; he's probably already been paid everything he will be paid for the movie). Couple this with the fact that the film's distributor is going out of its way to make up for OSC's homophobia with olive branches to the LGBT community, and it becomes pretty hard to see buying a ticket to Ender's Game as something that is damaging to gay rights.
To boot, boycotting Ender's Game doesn't send a message - no one knows the reason you chose not to go. A studio exec is just as likely to see low ticket sales as an symptom of how this subgenre of sci-fi film just doesn't have widespread appeal. What will send a message is donating money to a LGBT rights group with the message that you're doing it to offset any money OSC might receive from the Ender's Game film for you and a bunch of other people going to see it.
Can you find a libertarian candidate who doesn't come with massive baggage? They are kinda known for race baiting, strong opposition to civil rights movements, and generally being hypocritical jerks. Not to mention their anti-entitlement policies are one of the strong reasons this Republican congress has the lowest approval rating in history.My hope for my (the republican) party, is to put forth a libertarian canidate. Who cares if he can't get the right wing "ridiculous" base, if moderates and indepandants swing to him. I'm hoping as things move on, this part of the party that's called the 'base' will shrink.
We need to stop falling prey to the political mudlsinging and THINK.
We need to start over, and get those old hacks (ie. McConnell, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, etc.) out of office, from both parties.
Republicans only have majority in the house. Congress is both the Seante and the House. To believe only the republicans have the low approval ratings is kinda ridiculous, seeing as how they werent that much higher when the dems controlled both.
But to your main question: I don't know.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Can you find a libertarian candidate who doesn't come with massive baggage? They are kinda known for race baiting, strong opposition to civil rights movements, and generally being hypocritical jerks. Not to mention their anti-entitlement policies are one of the strong reasons this Republican congress has the lowest approval rating in history.
It sounds like you are confusing libertarians with somebody else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially filling Congress with two ideologically opposed groups pretty much guarantees gridlock. The problem is the game, not the players. As long as we as citizens are progressives or conservatives first, and Americans second, nothing can change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Along with a hefty dose of "the market would have made it all right anyway", despite decades of the market not doing so.
Q: How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. If the light bulb needed changing the market would have already done it.
No one has made a compelling argument (IMO) why I should give money to someone who will turn around and give it to an organization like NOM or the LDS.Because, no matter what purchases you partake in, at some point your money is going to end up in the hands of someone who will spend it on a cause you oppose. That said, a movie like Ender's Game is a pretty safe bet - few industries are as overwhelmingly socially liberal as Hollywood, and you are far more likely to have your money end up in the hands of people willing to spend it in support of gay rights than in opposition to it (especially since OSC isn't actually getting any of your money; he's probably already been paid everything he will be paid for the movie). Couple this with the fact that the film's distributor is going out of its way to make up for OSC's homophobia with olive branches to the LGBT community, and it becomes pretty hard to see buying a ticket to Ender's Game as something that is damaging to gay rights.
To boot, boycotting Ender's Game doesn't send a message - no one knows the reason you chose not to go. A studio exec is just as likely to see low ticket sales as an symptom of how this subgenre of sci-fi film just doesn't have widespread appeal. What will send a message is donating money to a LGBT rights group with the message that you're doing it to offset any money OSC might receive from the Ender's Game film for you and a bunch of other people going to see it.
It isn't about sending a message.
It's about not sending my money to NOM.
I don't want to offset money I give to NOM, I don't want to give it to them in the first place.
Republicans only have majority in the house. Congress is both the Seante and the House. To believe only the republicans have the low approval ratings is kinda ridiculous, seeing as how they werent that much higher when the dems controlled both.
Congressional approval during the 111th Congress (the one where Democrats controlled both houses) averaged about 27% - nearly double what today's approval average for Congress is.
It isn't about sending a message.
It's about not sending my money to NOM.
I don't want to offset money I give to NOM, I don't want to give it to them in the first place.
Why do you care that NOM (may possibly) receive a tiny, tiny fraction of the $10 you spent (so tiny, in fact, that I'd be astonished if even $0.01 of your money reached their coffers) on a movie ticket? Yes, they're a terrible organization, but by purchasing that ticket you are contributing many times more in funding to pro-LGBT organizations. It is, almost without question, a net gain for gay rights every time you buy a movie ticket.
Are you sure your priorities here are well-ordered?
When in the 20's I don't think it really matters, other than technicly proving my assertion wrong, I suppose.
...unless you have 60+ seats, the minority party can just now filibuster you to death. (And it no longer requires the James Stewart marathon style of filibuster either, just a statement that "I'm filibustering" is enough to indefinitely delay legislation for the Senate.)
...thereby pretty much ensuring gridlock. And of course whomever happens to be the beneficiary at them moment always opposes changing the rules.
Are you sure your priorities here are well-ordered?
I am. As I said before, I'm not that keen on offsets because, no matter how much is devoted to offset the offending money, money is still going toward the message I can't condone.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Can you find a libertarian candidate who doesn't come with massive baggage? They are kinda known for race baiting, strong opposition to civil rights movements, and generally being hypocritical jerks. Not to mention their anti-entitlement policies are one of the strong reasons this Republican congress has the lowest approval rating in history.It sounds like you are confusing libertarians with somebody else.Let's say Libertarian politicians then.
And while they may not all be known for race baiting or opposition to civil rights movements, they tend to firmly against any government action against racism. At the federal level, they tend to claim support for state's rights, which have long been used to push racial discrimination. In some cases to the point of attacking all the Civil Rights era legislation as unwarranted federal interfence. Along with a hefty dose of "the market would have made it all right anyway", despite decades of the market not doing so.
Opposition to "enitlement" programs is definitely part of the agenda. Just like mainstream Republicans only more so. Those programs that I've been paying into my whole working life.
This is kind of an example of what I was talking about upthread about assuming broad agendas based on vague labels.
[Yawns]
Well, since we're doing the whole State of the Union thing, here's a fun article that's making its way through the backalleys of commie listservdom.
Down with the Twin Parties of American Plutocracy!
Orson Scott Card sucks!
Vive le Galt!
For the Goblin:
Norman Mailer was married six times and actually stabbed one of his wives.
PS: Some of the Brazilian and Russian comrades were pretty hawt.
I went to Russia on a study thing in 1992....
OHFWA
Yes, women of Russia, and the world, OHWFA!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Along with a hefty dose of "the market would have made it all right anyway", despite decades of the market not doing so.Q: How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. If the light bulb needed changing the market would have already done it.
How many Austrian School economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
They reject the principle that changing light bulbs can be studied empirically. They will, however, tell a story requiring exactly as many as you need, as long as that number isn't as many as you actually need because then it would be all empirical, if you give them a dictator that promises to gun down union leaders and democratically-elected politicians.
My hope for my (the republican) party, is to put forth a libertarian canidate. Who cares if he can't get the right wing "ridiculous" base, if moderates and indepandants swing to him. I'm hoping as things move on, this part of the party that's called the 'base' will shrink.
We need to stop falling prey to the political mudlsinging and THINK.
We need to start over, and get those old hacks (ie. McConnell, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, etc.) out of office, from both parties.
THINK GOOD, SLOGANS BAD!
THINK GOOD, SLOGANS BAD!THINK GOOD, SLOGANS BAD!
I am. As I said before, I'm not that keen on offsets because, no matter how much is devoted to offset the offending money, money is still going toward the message I can't condone.
Are you sure your priorities here are well-ordered?
Right, but why is that a problem? This seems like the sort of thing that no one but you will care or know about, and that will likely have exactly zero benefit for the anti-gay organization in question.
I mean, yes, an organization you find repulsive might have an ever-so-slightly larger checking account, but is that a problem? Why is that a moral dilemma when placed into the perspective of our everyday interactions and the degree to which we as individuals can affect change?
My take is that you should seek to have a net positive effect on the causes you support, and that beyond that the details are fairly unimportant. It is almost certainly better to give $0.01 to NOM and $10.00 to the Human Rights Campaign than it is to give $0.00 to both.
You are getting hung up on something tiny and losing opportunities that are far more significant as a result.
I am. As I said before, I'm not that keen on offsets because, no matter how much is devoted to offset the offending money, money is still going toward the message I can't condone.
Are you sure your priorities here are well-ordered?Right, but why is that a problem? This seems like the sort of thing that no one but you will care or know about, and that will likely have exactly zero benefit for the anti-gay organization in question.
I mean, yes, an organization you find repulsive might have an ever-so-slightly larger checking account, but is that a problem? Why is that a moral dilemma when placed into the perspective of our everyday interactions and the degree to which we as individuals can affect change?
My take is that you should seek to have a net positive effect on the causes you support, and that beyond that the details are fairly unimportant. It is almost certainly better to give $0.01 to NOM and $10.00 to the Human Rights Campaign than it is to give $0.00 to both.
You are getting hung up on something tiny and losing opportunities that are far more significant as a result.
No, I'm not. I could give $10 to the Human Rights Campaign and none to NOM if I choose to do so. No opportunity, of any sort, is lost (save me seeing a movie - but I'd have to give up other opportunities to do that anyway, so I guess I have the bonus of keeping one of those opportunities too). But the point of rejecting the offset is I don't want to pay money to undo or compete with the damage I'm doing with other money. That's unnecessarily inefficient.