|
I have heard from many people that a parliamentary sytem of government feels more responsive then a federalist system like the U.S. has. Primarily it has to do with the larger number of political parties and the lack of winner takes all mentality.If someone is more confident in a local government, which they have more personal influence on, over a national government, which they have less personal influence on, then that is ludicrous and hypocritical?I can see your point, to an extent. Maybe Canada is "small" enough, that I don't feel as detached from my federal government as you seem to feel. Or maybe it's our parliamentary style of government.
I think our electoral districts are smaller than your districts as well. Maybe a more personal connection with the elected official.
|
Hey, Thing, we don't tolerate people saying "f#@% you" to each other on our message boards. I'm not going to delete the post and ban your butt for bad behavior in large part because I don't want to appear to be silencing political dissent in an off-topic thread, but I think you should take a step back and maybe even apologize to Samnell.
I'm not saying you can't disagree with the idea that conservatives are racists (which is obviously not uniformly the case), but let's ease off on the swearing and stuff, eh?
Personally, as a veteran, I don't think anyone should ever apologize to Samnell for anything. But then, I just really don't like being called a murderer simply because I served my country.
Sorry, from a different thread, from long ago, but still.
A word processing program (like MS Word or Works) is your friend with "long-winded" posts (well, at least they help me) :-)
Yeah, had I remembered to use it. :)
Check out this info about Rasmussen owner Scott Rasmussen (see the text under the "Polling" header): Scott Rasmussen
Clearly this guy has a political axe to grind.
According to a study by the Fordham University Political Science department, Gallup ranked 17th of 23 in accuracy regarding polling of the 2008 US presidential election. Not terribly encouraging.
Nate Silver, a statistician whose mathematical models accurately predicted 49 of 50 states in the 2008 presidential election, has called Zogby International "the worst pollster in the world," for their shoddy methodology. A lot of their poll results are self-selection robo-calls, which are not considered very accurate.
Again, I'm not saying any of this to comment on whether the polling on health care is accurate or what have you.
I am saying that the three pollsters cited here all have problems with their methodology, and ought not to be treated all that seriously as a real arbiter of the opinions of the American public, whether their results support Republicans, Democrats, or Space Aliens.
+1 for skepticism of methodology and motive!
Your average racist Teabagger Obama = Hitler sign carrier could probably say the exact same thing without lying.
OK I get that you don't like the tea party, whatever they may be ideologically, but I will give yo the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not calling all of them bigots even if think they are all "teabaggers".
Your average racist Teabagger Obama = Hitler sign carrier could probably say the exact same thing without lying.OK I get that you don't like the tea party, whatever they may be ideologically, but I will give yo the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not calling all of them bigots even if think they are all "teabaggers".
He didn't say all teabaggers are racist, but personally I think carrying a sign that says "Obama == Hitler" is a pretty good indicator! It's certainly one that says more about the guy carrying the sign than it does about the president...
As for Tea-baggers: I hate to agree with Jesse Ventura, but where were these people when habeas corpus was being gutted? When the Fourth Amendment was basically tossed? Let's just say I find their claims of concern "for the Constitution" highly suspect.
A note about polls. From what I've been hearing lately; it's true that at first glance, most Americans are against the healthcare proposal. Of course, that's before they hear what it will entail. Once they are informed of the details, most Americans like what they are hearing and support the piecemeal elements of the plan.
Of course, the Democrats don't want to pass the piecemeal elements. They want to force Americans to accept the 2700 page monstrosity they wrote.
A note about polls. From what I've been hearing lately; it's true that at first glance, most Americans are against the healthcare proposal. Of course, that's before they hear what it will entail. Once they are informed of the details, most Americans like what they are hearing and support the piecemeal elements of the plan.
Also, most Americans liked the idea of extending Medicare to younger Americans. That idea tracked really well. Too bad, Benedict Lieberman sank that hope.
Smart Americans know that our healthcare system is broken. Something is wrong when a large number of citizens of the greatest nation in the world can't afford to go to their doctor when they are sick. You get the benefits of being in a Capitalist society; you should have to pay for those rights and privileges. The price is helping your fellow man. Someone asked us to apologize to our kids. Maybe you should apologize to your neighbors first. Who cares how much it costs? Let's fix the problem first, and deal with the money later.
That was me. How many tens of trillions of dollars of our grand kids money do we have to spend for the state to help our fellow man? How and when do you plan on dealing with the money? Shall we just just let the federal government print more money and destroy the spending power of those on a fixed income and the working poor? Shall we double or triple the taxes of working families and corporations and drive even more jobs out of this country? Do we even begin to comprehend how much money ten or twenty trillion dollars is and what that means to our kids and economy!?
I care how much it costs! I care how much it costs my grand kids who didn't make this train wreck! Why should they have to, "...deal with the money later."? Do you have any idea what you're asking of them? Why should they be born into tens of thousands of dollars of debt to pay for some sense of nanny state crap that happened before they were born? Seriously WHY?
What exactly is your plan for, "deal with the money later."? That's the $ 50,000,000,000,000+ question. I really want to know.
Thanks,
Steve
|
|
A note about polls. From what I've been hearing lately; it's true that at first glance, most Americans are against the healthcare proposal. Of course, that's before they hear what it will entail. Once they are informed of the details, most Americans like what they are hearing and support the piecemeal elements of the plan.
Also, most Americans liked the idea of extending Medicare to younger Americans. That idea tracked really well. Too bad, Benedict Lieberman sank that hope.
Smart Americans know that our healthcare system is broken. Something is wrong when a large number of citizens of the greatest nation in the world can't afford to go to their doctor when they are sick. You get the benefits of being in a Capitalist society; you should have to pay for those rights and privileges. The price is helping your fellow man. Someone asked us to apologize to our kids. Maybe you should apologize to your neighbors first. Who cares how much it costs? Let's fix the problem first, and deal with the money later.
That was me. How many tens of trillions of dollars of our grand kids money do we have to spend for the state to help our fellow man? How and when do you plan on dealing with the money? Shall we just just let the federal government print more money and destroy the spending power of those on a fixed income and the working poor? Shall we double or triple the taxes of working families and corporations and drive even more jobs out of this country? Do we even begin to comprehend how much money ten or twenty trillion dollars is and what that means to our kids and economy!?
I care how much it costs! I care how much it costs my grand kids who didn't make this train wreck! Why should they have to, "...deal with the money later."? Do you have any idea what you're asking of them? Why should they be born into tens of thousands of dollars of debt to pay for some sense of nanny state crap that happened before they were born? Seriously WHY?
What exactly is your plan for, "deal with the...
What price do you put on a human life? How much are you worth? How much are your kids worth? How much?
Money versus human life. Money versus human dignity. Money versus quality of life. Money versus basic American promise of a healthy, long life.
It's money. I don't care what it costs. Human life and quality of life are PRICELESS. It doesn't matter how much it costs. It's the right thing to do. If you can't see that, if money is your bottom line; then there is NO common ground that you and I will ever find. I'm talking about the truly IMPORTANT stuff here. You're concerned with the cost.
The world would be a MUCH better place if we could just get past the dollar signs and get down to doing what's right. Yes, I'm a bleeding heart liberal. Yes, even if it was Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney or you suffering due to misfortune or your own poor choices; I'd be railing to get you government help so you could back on your feet. If they have to raise my taxes to do it; so be it.
Now. It's late, and I had no intention of returning to this thread tonight. So it's off to bed for me. But seriously, if you are going to keep throwing the cost argument at me; don't bother. We can just end the conversation, because we are concerned with totally different issues.
Thanks,
Chuck
What price do you put on a human life? How much are you worth? How much are your kids worth? How much?
Money versus human life. Money versus human dignity. Money versus quality of life. Money versus basic American promise of a healthy, long life.
It's money. I don't care what it costs. Human life and quality of life are PRICELESS. It doesn't matter how much it costs. It's the right thing to do. If you can't see that, if money is your bottom line; then there is NO common ground that you and I will ever find. I'm talking about the truly IMPORTANT stuff here. You're concerned with the cost.
And yet ... In the real world out there, money always wins. Protestations and idealism to the contrary, the idea that "Human Life is Pricessless" seems to equal "Human Life is Valueless." History, and this goes way back before the discovery of the "New World" by the Europeans, bears this out.
If you fail to consider the potential cost & potential profit - in money - of any proposal, your proposal will fail.
|
|
One could argue that this just is evidence that we should just go to a one-payer system. If the system is currently too complicated, we should probably find a way to simplify it. If someone could just walk into the doctor hand over their national health card, that they got from either filing a tax return or being the dependent of someone that filed a tax return, and have it paid for without the mess and fuss, that might be a way to go.
This Statement I agree with, The Government would go a long way into simplifying what already exists. And to clarify the process.
Here is an example, my Father finally got the government, after years of working on the process, to pay for some of his healthcare because of a disability. Few problems led to the process of it taken year, the complexity of the process, bureaucracy of the system, and denial on some certain key required tests.
One issue he is going through is that to continue his health care he needs to further prove his disability, to prove this he needs a certain DNA test that will cost $60,000 *What the hell! do they throw out the machine after the test? that price is ridicules!* Well the govenement disaprroved paying for the test. So now my father can't afford this test on his own, and he can't get the health care continued because he can't prove his disability. He is still working on the process, and he has been told it will be resolved, but until then he is still screwed!
Your average racist Teabagger Obama = Hitler sign carrier could probably say the exact same thing without lying.OK I get that you don't like the tea party, whatever they may be ideologically, but I will give yo the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not calling all of them bigots even if think they are all "teabaggers".He didn't say all teabaggers are racist, but personally I think carrying a sign that says "Obama == Hitler" is a pretty good indicator! It's certainly one that says more about the guy carrying the sign than it does about the president...
As for Tea-baggers: I hate to agree with Jesse Ventura, but where were these people when habeas corpus was being gutted? When the Fourth Amendment was basically tossed? Let's just say I find their claims of concern "for the Constitution" highly suspect.
I said I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Quotes like, "Your average racist Teabagger" might be misunderstood.
Some tea party folks see an unholy alliance between government and massive corporations. There's no shortage of evidence to support this claim in my opinion. To many people this smacks of fascism, and the swastika symbolizes fascism to a lot of people. That doesn't mean that everyone who holds up a sign comparing Obama to a fascist or socialist thinks he's building concentration camps or what have you. Granted a small minority do, but there is a fringe in any large group.
In case you're still curious where millions of these people were "when habeas corpus was being gutted? When the Fourth Amendment was basically tossed?"
A whole lot of the same people you deride as "Tea-baggers" protested long and hard against the war in Iraq, warrant-less wire tapping, MCA, DHS, the patriot acts, TARP, and other bailouts as well as any number of other issues, but they were written off as nuts or un-American. Millions of these people you might like to discount have held remarkably consistent positions for quite some time. In the first Bush administration they were called unpatriotic or Perot deficit kooks or peace-nicks. In the Clinton administration they were dismissed as right wing nuts or isolationists or conspiracy wackos. In the second Bush administration they were called unpatriotic or truthers or deficit kooks or peace-nicks or isolationists. Now they are called right wing nuts or isolationists or conspiracy wackos or racists or hate mongers or Nazis or an angry mob.
I haven't marched with the Tea Party yet, but I have friends who have, and I agree that government is too big, corrupt and deeply broken.
I was called a racist for questioning the conduct of the FBI at Ruby Ridge during the first Bush administration.
I was marginalized for agreeing with Perot that our national debt was dangerous and unsound in 1992 even though I voted for Bush.
I was called a right wing wacko and hate monger for questioning nation building, Hillary care and condemning the federal governments handling of Waco as well as opposing Clinton's domestic terror agenda along with the ACLU.
I was called everything from an anarchist to a traitor by my own party when I opposed the invasion of Iraq, warrant-less wire taps and searches, the patriot acts, TARP, medicare part D, nation building, the MCAs, and sundry bailouts.
So if you're still curious where some of us have been consistently for the past two decades.
We have been marginalized.
We have been attacked as everything from Nazis to communists to traitors to racists.
We have been ignored.
We have been mocked.
But in large degree tens of trillions of dollars later:
We have been right.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
OK I get that you don't like the tea party, whatever they may be ideologically, but I will give yo the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not calling all of them bigots even if think they are all "teabaggers".
I was under the understanding that they started out calling themselves teabaggers.
I am talking about the ones holding stupid signs, not the ones holding reasonable signs or loitering around or reading the Turner Diaries or whatever.
I have no problem with any of that.
I should have used a witch doctor or whiteface sign as my example. I think a Hitler comparison is inane, but I don't think it's racist. So my bad there.
One could argue that this just is evidence that we should just go to a one-payer system. If the system is currently too complicated, we should probably find a way to simplify it. If someone could just walk into the doctor hand over their national health card, that they got from either filing a tax return or being the dependent of someone that filed a tax return, and have it paid for without the mess and fuss, that might be a way to go.
This Statement I agree with, The Government would go a long way into simplifying what already exists. And to clarify the process.
Here is an example, my Father finally got the government, after years of working on the process, to pay for some of his healthcare because of a disability. Few problems led to the process of it taken year, the complexity of the process, bureaucracy of the system, and denial on some certain key required tests.
One issue he is going through is that to continue his health care he needs to further prove his disability, to prove this he needs a certain DNA test that will cost $60,000 *What the hell! do they throw out the machine after the test? that price is ridicules!* Well the govenement disaprroved paying for the test. So now my father can't afford this test on his own, and he can't get the health care continued because he can't prove his disability. He is still working on the process, and he has been told it will be resolved, but until then he is still screwed!
Is this the government you want to control even more of your health care choices?
There are huge problems with the current system controlled by the government and mega corporations. The corporations have tremendous influence in the current process. These same corporations would receive hundreds of billions of dollars in direct subsidies from the government under Obama care.
Do you really want to put your fathers health care in the federal government's control?
OK I get that you don't like the tea party, whatever they may be ideologically, but I will give yo the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not calling all of them bigots even if think they are all "teabaggers".I was under the understanding that they started out calling themselves teabaggers.
I am talking about the ones holding stupid signs, not the ones holding reasonable signs or loitering around or reading the Turner Diaries or whatever.
I have no problem with any of that.
I should have used a witch doctor or whiteface sign as my example. I think a Hitler comparison is inane, but I don't think it's racist. So my bad there.
Tea party...
It's a reference to the Boston Tea Party.
Kieth Olberman was the first main stream media figure that I am aware of to start calling them tea baggers.
I am going to presume you know what sexual act tea bagging is and its homosexual connotations.
If you don't, feel free to google it when the kids aren't around.
As for the comparison to socialism or national socialism, please see my post up thread.
|
|
While what Bitter Thorn says might be true for his local area, it's about as true nationally as David Fryer's 'What Conservatives Believe' OP was. Polling on the Tea Party (PDF) suggests that membership (self proclaimed) mainly consists of rich, white, suburban and rural conservatives. Time and time again, the movement protests government moves towards 'Socialism'.
The idea that these same people were the ones protesting the Iraq War is quite unbelievable. It may very well be true amongst your friends, Bitter Thorn, but people like the Tea Party Nation, who describe their beliefs thusly, "We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!", are unlikely to have been out protesting seven years ago, imo.
As for the comparison to socialism or national socialism, please see my post up thread.Man, I seriously don't know how anyone can take this seriously, when you speak about socialism and fascism in the same breath. Sheesh.
Well, people who know their history would take it seriously.
In most people's minds:
"Nazism" = "Fascism"
And
"Nazism" is an abbreviation for "National Socialism."
What price do you put on a human life? How much are you worth? How much are your kids worth? How much?
Money versus human life. Money versus human dignity. Money versus quality of life. Money versus basic American promise of a healthy, long life.
It's money. I don't care what it costs. Human life and quality of life are PRICELESS. It doesn't matter how much it costs. It's the right thing to do. If you can't see that, if money is your bottom line; then there is NO common ground that you and I will ever find. I'm talking about the truly IMPORTANT stuff here. You're concerned with the cost.
The world would be a MUCH better place if we could just get past the dollar signs and get down to doing what's right. Yes, I'm a bleeding heart liberal. Yes, even if it was Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney or you suffering due to misfortune or your own poor choices; I'd be railing to get you government help so you could back on your feet. If they have to raise my taxes to do it; so be it.
Now. It's late, and I had no intention of returning to this thread tonight. So it's off to bed for me. But seriously, if you are going to keep throwing the cost argument at me; don't bother. We can just end the conversation, because we are concerned with totally different issues.
Thanks,
Chuck
I'm not sure what money is to you, so I will try to reply in a way that speaks to the human toll of taking that money from real people, so that this is not some abstract fiscal analysis. I'm not a very good writer, so please bear with me.
I see in your profile that you're about my age; at our current national debt of over $12,000,000,000,000 my grandson is and soon my granddaughter (when she is born) will be $40,000 in debt. I'm sure you can do math. That means a family of four is currently $160,000 in debt on top of their home, cars, credit cards, student loans and anything else they might owe. This does not take into account our unfunded future obligations regarding social security, medicare, medicaid, Obama care and whatever other unfunded social safety net costs our grand children will have to pay. I've posted links to some projections of these costs up thread.
I have no idea what your background and financial situation are. I don't know if you've ever struggled to make your payments on a home loan, car loans, credit cards, and student loans at the same time. If you have then you can begin to grasp what we are doing to our children and grand children. They are likely to have all of the same challenges we have had in dealing with debt (if they can even get credit in a credit market increasingly dominated by national and state debt). Of course they will have all of these challenges while saddled with their $40,000 dollars of national debt that they did not create. This figure is a very conservative one that does not include future deficits and unfunded liabilities.
Your post says that this is not important to you. "It doesn't matter how much it costs. It's the right thing to do."
Is it the right thing to do to crush our children and their children and their grand children with debt?
If it's not OK to do this to our kids, should we triple all taxes right now to begin to stanch the bleeding?
You say cost doesn't matter. OK. How do you pay for it?
Ultimately, beyond one hypocritical senator, that's what this entire debate is about. If your entire argument is that cost doesn't matter and our kids can pay for it then I simply can't take your position seriously, and you bring nothing useful to the debate IMO.
Your solution seems to be more government spending and you don't care what it costs. OK. How do you pay for it?
While what Bitter Thorn says might be true for his local area, it's about as true nationally as David Fryer's 'What Conservatives Believe' OP was. Polling on the Tea Party (PDF) suggests that membership (self proclaimed) mainly consists of rich, white, suburban and rural conservatives. Time and time again, the movement protests government moves towards 'Socialism'.
The idea that these same people were the ones protesting the Iraq War is quite unbelievable. It may very well be true amongst your friends, Bitter Thorn, but people like the Tea Party Nation, who describe their beliefs thusly, "We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!", are unlikely to have been out protesting seven years ago, imo.
Unfortunately, this is also true.
So, whatever is behind the "Tea Party" movement, it certainly appears to be "less then honest" fiscal responsibility.
No, I get it.
But a lot of folks involved apparently did not for the longest time, and I still find that pretty amusing.
I don't want to keep stirring the pot, though, so I think I'm going to bow out of this one for the time being.
OK; I don't know any one who identifies with the tea party who calls themselves a tea-bagger, but YMMV.
Take care.
While what Bitter Thorn says might be true for his local area, it's about as true nationally as David Fryer's 'What Conservatives Believe' OP was. Polling on the Tea Party (PDF) suggests that membership (self proclaimed) mainly consists of rich, white, suburban and rural conservatives. Time and time again, the movement protests government moves towards 'Socialism'.
The idea that these same people were the ones protesting the Iraq War is quite unbelievable. It may very well be true amongst your friends, Bitter Thorn, but people like the Tea Party Nation, who describe their beliefs thusly, "We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!", are unlikely to have been out protesting seven years ago, imo.
I'm going to respectfully and cautiously play the "I live here" card with the obvious caution that my experience is, well, my experience with all of the the obvious implied limitations.
I can't speak for or even to the national movement with any authority beyond my experience.
That said, a significant number of my friends and political associates from widely diverse backgrounds have strongly espoused, sometimes at significant personal cost, the positions I outlined broadly speaking.
Beyond that I can try to field questions.
Unfortunately what gets reported is often a case of what is sensational.
I would have thought that Republican military vets in a 2 to 1 Republican county with 5 major military bases opposing the invasion of Iraq would have been news worthy, but it's like we didn't exist.
The corporate media reports what it wants, but I thought they would eat that kind of in house Republican dissent up. I was entirely wrong. Go figure.
Well, people who know their history would take it seriously.No. They don't. In fact, it's sufficiently far from the truth that I give anyone who espouses it about as much credit as I give to someone who suggests that home canning is a plot of Freemasonry, and for the same reason.
National socialism isn't socialism, so a position that it is must be absurd on its face?
It's no reflection on you, but I've had this exact same argument with neo nazis who swear the same thing.
This argument makes no sense to me, but I don't buy into the whole two dimensional left versus right model of political science either, so maybe I'm just looking at it wrong. Granted, from my point of view it makes very little practical difference if someone is tortured and killed in a concentration camp or a gulag; it's all still statism to me. I suppose that's a common minarchist world view.
Nazis were hardcore syndicalists and Nazism as a movement was motivated by hating socialists as much as it was motivated by anything.
What he said. Freikorps machine-gunning Communists and all that fun stuff after WWI. Chucking Democratic Socialists in the camps. Things of that nature. Hated the pinkos long before antisemitism was part of the official program.
Zo
National socialism isn't socialism, so a position that it is must be absurd on its face?No, I credit "Nazism is socialism" just as much as I credit "Mason jars are a Freemason plot." Nazis were hardcore syndicalists and Nazism as a movement was motivated by hating socialists as much as it was motivated by anything. Syndicalism has pretty much nothing to do with socialism besides being a 20th-century non-capitalist economic system. That a self-professed minarchist doesn't understand the difference between syndicalism and socialism is especially cringelarious. Also, "Hey, just so you know, neo-Nazis all agree with you" is especially lame; if you know less about socioeconomics than neo-Nazis, perhaps that should force some introspection.
Also, fie on you for not getting my pun!
Wow! You made me look up two words.
I have never heard of syndicalism before which is a little humbling.
I also googled cringelarious and got Borat, so I was able to put that together.
I got freemasonry and canning reference as a metaphor for absurdity, so I think I got the pun. If it's something else then I'm more tired than I thought.
I took care not to equate you to neo nazis. It still surprises me how many there are in Califoria.
I'm missing the socio-political historical association between national socialism and syndicalism. If you have some educational links that would help.
If you're being humorous, I'm sorry for missing the joke.
If you're being serious, I'm sorry for being obtuse.
In any case I think I missed something.
Nazis were hardcore syndicalists and Nazism as a movement was motivated by hating socialists as much as it was motivated by anything.What he said. Freikorps machine-gunning Communists and all that fun stuff after WWI. Chucking Democratic Socialists in the camps. Things of that nature. Hated the pinkos long before antisemitism was part of the official program.
Zo
The anti communist foundations of the nazis are far from lost on me. Most of my neo-nazi friends like to emphasize that aspect. That just makes it that much more ironic to me.
Good stuff
Hey BT, just want to drop in real quick and give you props for staying in the fray and presenting your arguments in a cogent fashion. I used to argue the Libertarian line around here, but my skin is thinner than yours. Keep up the good fight.
While what Bitter Thorn says might be true for his local area, it's about as true nationally as David Fryer's 'What Conservatives Believe' OP was. Polling on the Tea Party (PDF) suggests that membership (self proclaimed) mainly consists of rich, white, suburban and rural conservatives. Time and time again, the movement protests government moves towards 'Socialism'.
The idea that these same people were the ones protesting the Iraq War is quite unbelievable. It may very well be true amongst your friends, Bitter Thorn, but people like the Tea Party Nation, who describe their beliefs thusly, "We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!", are unlikely to have been out protesting seven years ago, imo.
Unfortunately, this is also true.
Else, they would have been protesting when the run-a-way deficit started Under Ronald Regan. ... and there was no national movement.
They would have been cheering when under Bill Clinton the deficit actually went down. ... and there was no national applause.
They would have been outraged when George W. Bush passed his deficit financed tax cuts. ... and there was no national movement.
So, whatever is behind the "Tea Party" movement, it certainly appears to be "less then honest" fiscal responsibility.
I'll try to speak to this from my perspective.
Conservatives swallowed the soaring deficits under Regan as something of a Faustian bargain with a largely Democratic legislature during a period of existential threat during the cold war. Like most Faustian bargains this doesn't look so good in retrospect.
Republicans were cheering reduced deficits in the 90's, but we were also preoccupied with whether Newt or Clinton got the credit and the whole impeachment thing.
Small government conservatives were predictably in favor of tax cuts, and we were simultaneously outraged and betrayed by the absence of spending cuts and deregulation and the growth of entitlements and government in general. Of course the party largely fell in line with Bush's neocon party line of "war time emergency spending and deficits" and largely defended the growing debt and preemptive war. A minority of conservatives railed against these betrayals, and we were ignored or marginalized as unpatriotic or loony.
I think this is part of why the tea party is a minority movement and why it's not just a subset of the Republican party. A reoccurring theme with tea partiers that I know is an attitude of "We worked for a Republican president, house and senate, and we got screwed by bigger more stupid government. They can all go to h#!!!"
I hope that helps a little, but the tea party isn't exactly a united ideological front. A lot of them are just folks who feel betrayed by their government, and they want that government to leave them the heck alone.
I'm missing the socio-political historical association between national socialism and syndicalism. If you have some educational links that would help.Look around on Wikipedia, I guess? WP's less than super in socioeconomics unless everyone who cared about the specific subject has been dead for 20 years, but you can't be doing much worse than you are now.
Ouch!
I guess you weren't being tongue in cheek before.
I will endeavor to educate myself.
Good stuffHey BT, just want to drop in real quick and give you props for staying in the fray and presenting your arguments in a cogent fashion. I used to argue the Libertarian line around here, but my skin is thinner than yours. Keep up the good fight.
Thanks! I sent you a friend request on my space although I'm rarely on there.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Back to healthcare:
Did Sarah Palin's speech in Calgary get any play down south? She mentioned coming across the border to Canada for medical stuff as a kid.
*When it was closer to do so and
*before national Healthcare (provinicial Health Care?) in Canukistan.I can't link to the Hotair discussion I read on it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, it shouldn't be *that* surprising that the majority of the folks in the Tea Party don't know the connotations of the term within a small sexual subset.
As to Reagan Deficits, I'll plead youth and ignorance. Though it's my (historical) understanding that the deficits were the result of increased spending, not the tax cuts (which generated revenue). Also it was the efforts of the Conservative Trinity (Ronald Reaganm, Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II) to help liberate Eastern Europe that was, in part, the cause of the deficits. (Gods, how far we've fallen).
Unfortunately, RR did not address the minor threats (at the time) like Lebanon and Iran's war on us, focusing on the big red bear.
Spending went down in the 90's, but that was in part with Clinton's turning to handle the congress flip in 94. Say what you will about him being a contemptable human being, he was an incredible politician.
W. spent like a drunken sailor. I was hoping for massive spending cuts on non-military things, and a more decisive foreign policy front. NCLB bothered me (again, that's a state issue) and the way his outreach to Democrat Policians was rebuffed didn't bode well. I think you saw a chunk of the 'Tea Parties' stir up when Gore tried to steal the election. There were other issues besides the legal ones, like CBS calling Florida before the panhandle voting had ended. For those who often argue about the living constitution, the Electoral College was shown to have been a briliant idea, that worked.
As I've said elsewhere, the Patriot Act, hystaria aside, didn't raise that high on my radar, because I'd put faith in the sunset provisions, and that it would be used correctly. I've not seen any abuse of it reported, just speculated on. (as opposed to RICO, which was abused in the 90's)
I do think history will show W got a bad rap over all. Not just on Dan Blather's forged documents, but on Katrina (quick, why did the other states recover faster than LA?) and foreign policy.
I am mortified at the rate we're abandoning/offending our allies around the world. Disraeli once said that nations don't have long term allies, just long term interests, but we shouldn't go upsetting allies just because they're there. Then again, I'm all for dropping a large chunk of nickle/iron from orbit onto Terhan, so you can take my foreign policy solutions with a grain of salt.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No, I get it.
But a lot of folks involved apparently did not for the longest time, and I still find that pretty amusing.
I don't want to keep stirring the pot, though, so I think I'm going to bow out of this one for the time being.
I understand. I mean, I respect you and Sean, and Wolfgan, et. al. Even if you are a bunch of Hippy Dippy Tree Huggers ;-)
I think we can turn to a great thinker to sum up how it feels:
Spike: You think you can fool me?! You were my sire, man! You were my... Yoda!
Angel: Things change.
Spike: Not us! Not demons! Man, I can't believe this. You Uncle Tom! Come on people! This isn't a spectator sport!
:-)
I'll try to speak to this from my perspective.
Conservatives swallowed the soaring deficits under Regan as something of a Faustian bargain with a largely Democratic legislature during a period of existential threat during the cold war. Like most Faustian bargains this doesn't look so good in retrospect.
But will the angels intervene to save our souls?
Republicans were cheering reduced deficits in the 90's, but we were also preoccupied with whether Newt or Clinton got the credit and the whole impeachment thing.
Small government conservatives were predictably in favor of tax cuts, and we were simultaneously outraged and betrayed by the absence of spending cuts and deregulation and the growth of entitlements and government in general. Of course the party largely fell in line with Bush's neocon party line of "war time emergency spending and deficits" and largely defended the growing debt and preemptive war. A minority of conservatives railed against these betrayals, and we were ignored or marginalized as unpatriotic or loony.
This, the irresponsible actions of the very Republican administration of Dick Cheny and Karl Rove, is also were a lot of the legitimate suspicion towards the Tea Party movement comes from. Is the whole Tea Party a Republican Party astroturf movement to regain power?
I hope that helps a little, but the tea party isn't exactly a united ideological front. A lot of them are just folks who feel betrayed by their government, and they want that government to leave them the heck alone.
Unfortunately, there are 13 trillion (the current US national debt) reasons why that can't happen. That debt needs to be paid one way or the other. (Yes, I do know that it will be much higher once some of the unfunded entitlements come due.)
Small government conservatives were predictably in favor of tax cuts, and we were simultaneously outraged and betrayed by the absence of spending cuts and deregulation and the growth of entitlements and government in general. Of course the party largely fell in line with Bush's neocon party line of "war time emergency spending and deficits" and largely defended the growing debt and preemptive war. A minority of conservatives railed against these betrayals, and we were ignored or marginalized as unpatriotic or loony.This, the irresponsible actions of the very Republican administration of Dick Cheny and Karl Rove, is also were a lot of the legitimate suspicion towards the Tea Party movement comes from. Is the whole Tea Party a Republican Party astroturf movement to regain power?
Wow! This is just alien to me. The tea party folks I know despise the Bush/Rove/Cheny trinity as traitors to the conservative cause like unto Judas. I mean real hate, like ex wife hate! Maybe it's a local thing, but they might want to stay out of high power rifle range. I don't know if I should laugh or just be kind of stunned. Maybe my experience is unique to Colorado, but I don't think so.
I hope that helps a little, but the tea party isn't exactly a united ideological front. A lot of them are just folks who feel betrayed by their government, and they want that government to leave them the heck alone.Unfortunately, there are 13 trillion (the current US national debt) reasons why that can't happen. That debt needs to be paid one way or the other. (Yes, I do know that it will be much higher once some of the unfunded entitlements come due.)
OK, but wouldn't a smaller debt and entitlement load be bigger than an epic one?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd add one more thing about the TEA parties.
They're not a Republican/Democrat thing. If the Dems take a pounding this November, it doesn't mean the Republicans are ascendent. It means they suck less than the Democrats. Catwoman sucked less than Battlefield Earth, but neither will ever be seen as a quality film. If the Republicans gain either/both houses (big IF) in 2010, or in the future, they won't keep them by doing 'business as usual' I don't see the populace going back to sleep as easy as they have in the past.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As I've said elsewhere, the Patriot Act, hystaria aside, didn't raise that high on my radar, because I'd put faith in the sunset provisions, and that it would be used correctly. I've not seen any abuse of it reported, just speculated on. (as opposed to RICO, which was abused in the 90's)
Thank you. The 2005 article doesn't have much useful information.
The first case was a mistake that was caught. (fortunately, the Matthew Morris' out there are not terrorists) To call the Madrid bombing a 'criminal action' defies logic. Indeed, that he had due process and was released is a sign that the legal system worked.
The second comes out and admits that it has nothing to do with the patriot act. "...the judge's ruling affected an earlier communications privacy law that was simply expanded by the Patriot Act."
The third, well I find it kind of silly to not read links you post, but again, he was found not guilty.
The last two are examples of criminal stupidity. Both committed crimes and acts of terror. I don't see much of a difference between a lone wolf terrorist and Bill Ayers to be honest.
The 2009 article is much more disturbing. The Airlines should be able to boot off anyone they deem a threat or disturbance (and how could you not know that assaulting a flight attendent in the first one isn't a crime, even if not a terrorist act?) but a lot of the cases in the article are questionable at best, 'he said/she said' at worst.
I'd add one more thing about the TEA parties.
They're not a Republican/Democrat thing. If the Dems take a pounding this November, it doesn't mean the Republicans are ascendent. It means they suck less than the Democrats. Catwoman sucked less than Battlefield Earth, but neither will ever be seen as a quality film. If the Republicans gain either/both houses (big IF) in 2010, or in the future, they won't keep them by doing 'business as usual' I don't see the populace going back to sleep as easy as they have in the past.
You are not yet as bitter and cynical as I have become.
I am still not convinced that the populace has actually woken up.
Your average racist Teabagger Obama = Hitler sign carrier could probably say the exact same thing without lying.OK I get that you don't like the tea party, whatever they may be ideologically, but I will give yo the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not calling all of them bigots even if think they are all "teabaggers".He didn't say all teabaggers are racist, but personally I think carrying a sign that says "Obama == Hitler" is a pretty good indicator! It's certainly one that says more about the guy carrying the sign than it does about the president...
I just have to take a moment here in the conversation to point out that disliking or disagreeing with the President, or equating him with Hitler, doesn't make one a racist.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I just have to take a moment here in the conversation to point out that disliking or disagreeing with the President, or equating him with Hitler, doesn't make one a racist.Your average racist Teabagger Obama = Hitler sign carrier could probably say the exact same thing without lying.OK I get that you don't like the tea party, whatever they may be ideologically, but I will give yo the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not calling all of them bigots even if think they are all "teabaggers".He didn't say all teabaggers are racist, but personally I think carrying a sign that says "Obama == Hitler" is a pretty good indicator! It's certainly one that says more about the guy carrying the sign than it does about the president...
Thanks, I forgot to cover this. It normally makes one a Lindon Larouche Democrat.
|
A note about polls. From what I've been hearing lately; it's true that at first glance, most Americans are against the healthcare proposal. Of course, that's before they hear what it will entail. Once they are informed of the details, most Americans like what they are hearing and support the piecemeal elements of the plan.Of course, the Democrats don't want to pass the piecemeal elements. They want to force Americans to accept the 2700 page monstrosity they wrote.
Which led to oneof my favorite Pelosiisms ever that they ran on Meet The Press on Sunday. "We know the American people will love this bill when it passes, and we really want you to know what's in it. So urge the Republicans to let us pass the bill so we can tell you what's in it."
|
|
I just have to take a moment here in the conversation to point out that disliking or disagreeing with the President, or equating him with Hitler, doesn't make one a racist.Your average racist Teabagger Obama = Hitler sign carrier could probably say the exact same thing without lying.OK I get that you don't like the tea party, whatever they may be ideologically, but I will give yo the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not calling all of them bigots even if think they are all "teabaggers".He didn't say all teabaggers are racist, but personally I think carrying a sign that says "Obama == Hitler" is a pretty good indicator! It's certainly one that says more about the guy carrying the sign than it does about the president...
What about equating him to a witch doctor?
And no, disagreeing with the president alone does not make you racist, but c'mon. Most of the teabaggers (seem to) come from the sourthern states (small red flag), oppose EVERYTHING he does without giving it a fair shake (medium red flag), carry around obama=hitler signs (big red flag), and then the oh-so-funny birthers (giant red flag o doom). To say that the vehement opposition by a decent amount of the teabaggers has nothing to do with race is naive at best.
I just have to take a moment here in the conversation to point out that disliking or disagreeing with the President, or equating him with Hitler, doesn't make one a racist.Your average racist Teabagger Obama = Hitler sign carrier could probably say the exact same thing without lying.OK I get that you don't like the tea party, whatever they may be ideologically, but I will give yo the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not calling all of them bigots even if think they are all "teabaggers".He didn't say all teabaggers are racist, but personally I think carrying a sign that says "Obama == Hitler" is a pretty good indicator! It's certainly one that says more about the guy carrying the sign than it does about the president...
What about equating him to a witch doctor?
And no, disagreeing with the president alone does not make you racist, but c'mon. Most of the teabaggers (seem to) come from the sourthern states (small red flag), oppose EVERYTHING he does without giving it a fair shake (medium red flag), carry around obama=hitler signs (big red flag), and then the oh-so-funny birthers (giant red flag o doom). To say that the vehement opposition by a decent amount of the teabaggers has nothing to do with race is naive at best.
I find the double standard that is in place with regards to generalizations and stereotyping disgusting, personally. Take everything you just said and apply it to the practice of racial profiling, and watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth erupt from the left.
"No really, it's okay to make sweeping statements about a large, ideologically diverse group of people, because my comments are coming from a liberal point of view and are aimed at a bunch of white folks."