Fair doesn't matter. Life is not fair.Oh, well, in that case, I'll just go grab my gun and shoot you. I mean taking your wallet is a lot easier than going out and getting a real job. I mean, sure, it's not fair. But life's not fair, right? Fair doesn't matter.
That's how criminals actually think, you know. People see the authority figures as being unconcerned with fairness, and they see that they are the ones being treated unfairly, so they decide the entire system that the authorities support is corrupt and that it's a sucker's game to act with any consideration for others.
It is also what adults say when having to deal with situations. Is it fair that my water main broke after 1 month buying my house? Nope. That ain't fair, but you know what me and my wife did? We didn't whine about, we sucked it up and dealt. That is life. Some people get better deals than you do, that doesn't mean it is right to rob them.
It is time to grow up and put on the grown up pants and deal.That's insulting. It does nothing to support your argument and everything to discredit it. It's just a lame personal attack, a broadside swipe at everyone who disagrees with you.
Sorry if you feel insulted that someone implies that people should act like adults. I realize that because we all play roleplaying games, we might feel like we have a right to behave in childish manners, lay on the floor, banging our feet, and holding our breath, but that behavior does not solve problems. Let's solve the problems first and then we can discuss what is the most morally right set up from there. Claiming it is not fair that you have to carry a bucket of water just like the other because your bedroom was smaller in the burning house is silly.
As long as people are more interested in punishing the rich...And this is more of the same. How is making the rich to pay the same share of their income in taxes that I do right now punishing them?
It's not. But accusing people who disagree with you of being motivated by class-envy and a petty desire to "punish the rich" is a great way of denigrating anyone who disagrees with you.
Well considering the income tax code is progressive, your claim is illogical on its face. Now if you want to include other types of taxes, well you personally control a lot of those yourself. If you decide to buy a bunch of game books and have to pay the sales tax on those and then complain that the rich guy paid the same, well you didn't have to buy those books. The rich guy shouldn't have to pay extra tax, just because you choose to spend more of your income on things.
But I'm not against progressive taxes, far from it. But I think people are much more able to get an agreement if we show that we are all willing to bleed a little, then saying they have to bleed for all of us.
...than dealing with the issue it will continue.But the issue is that the rich aren't sharing the wealth that we all created, so forcing all of us who are already paying our fair share to pay more if the rich are going to pay more isn't dealing with the issue, it's perpetuating the issue.
I borrowed money from the bank to purchase my house. I am paying back that money to the bank with interest. With the interest, if I pay it back at the set amount for my 30 year loan, I will pay pretty much twice the value of my house to them. Does that make the bank evil? No. I asked for the loan, they put it up, they took the chance on me. Without them, I couldn't have bought my house for probably another 10-15 years, meanwhile I would have been flushing all my rent money down the toilet. In the end, both me and the bank benefit, I get some value back for what I am paying to have a place to live (even if it is only 10% back, that still is better than the 0% I get from renting), and they gain interest on my loan. I am not due any of the money the bank makes on the interest they get from my loan. There is no moral obligation for them to share it with me.
|
I agree that pres man's post was needlessly insulting. But .25% vs. 5% is still very progressive. Can you really refuse that and still claim in good faith to be willing to compromise?
Yes, of course I can. I'm letting you cut spending, which is going to increase costs for me. If we lower medicare payments, my parents have to spend more of their money on my mother's post-cancer medical treatment -- once she got cancer it became impossible to get her insurance -- which means less money they can devote to expanding the business and raising my wages. It also means I'll have less to inherit.
But apparently we have to cut medicare in order to pay for thirty years of tax cuts for millionaires. And you want me to pay higher taxes on top of that?
"We'll only pay our fair share if you pay more than your fair share." is not a "compromise." It's a "hah hah, I am screwing you."
|
|
It is also what adults say...Sorry if you feel insulted that someone implies that people should act like adults. I realize that because we all play roleplaying games, we might feel like we have a right to behave in childish manners, lay on the floor, banging our feet, and holding our breath, but that behavior does not solve problems...
Yeah, we're done talking. Get back to me when you can have a *ahem* grown-up conversation and knock of the *ahem* childish insults.
Yes, of course I can. I'm letting you cut spending, which is going to increase costs for me. If we lower medicare payments, my parents have to spend more of their money on my mother's post-cancer medical treatment -- once she got cancer it became impossible to get her insurance -- which means less money they can devote to expanding the business and raising my wages. It also means I'll have less to inherit.
But apparently we have to cut medicare in order to pay for thirty years of tax cuts for millionaires. And you want me to pay higher taxes on top of that?
"We'll only pay our fair share if you pay more than your fair share." is not a "compromise." It's a "hah hah, I am screwing you."
The point is that "fair share" is subjective. I believe you and I are largely on the same ideological page. But many, many others aren't, and so we want different things. And neither side has the power to do anything alone. The compromise Pres Man suggested is better than what we're likely to get in real life...yet you would reject it. You don't see how that makes a compromise impossible? Or do you just not care, and would rather watch it all burn?
I'm sorry, but that is folly, plain and simple.
I borrowed money from the bank to purchase my house. I am paying back that money to the bank with interest. With the interest, if I pay it back at the set amount for my 30 year loan, I will pay pretty much twice the value of my house to them. Does that make the bank evil? No. I asked for the loan, they put it up, they took the chance on me. Without them, I couldn't have bought my house for probably another 10-15 years, meanwhile I would have been flushing all my rent money down the toilet. In the end, both me and the bank benefit, I get some value back for what I am paying to have a place to live (even if it is only 10% back, that still is better than the 0% I get from renting),
That's the standard argument, sure, but when I ran the numbers in my own case I found that by renting I could eventually save enough to buy a house for cash, and that rent over that period of time was actually less than loan interest + property taxes + MUD taxes + homeowner's insurance + (mandatory) flood insurance + fees over that time.
But even if it were slightly more, I'd be inclined to do it that way -- I don't want to be a debt slave, ever, and when I have a house, I want to be the real owner -- not just be living in a place technically owned for the next 30 years by a bank somewhere. The issue of renting vs. buying isn't as one-sided as it's often made out to be.
Because this place is capable of being so much better than it is. It wasn't this way when I joined a few years ago and I want it to return to the way it was. Why should I just give up on it and move on?
This has got to be rose coloured glasses. People where not particularly better or worse on the off topic threads, especially the political or religious ones, in 2007 then they are now. I popped back to 2007 and noticed that there was a thread very much along the lines of the conversation we are having right here - in the sense that there where people advocating that non D&D threads be shut down and others saying pretty much 'if you don't like them don't read them'.
If we are "in this together" and we need to address this issue head on, then we need to stop the class warfare. Everyone puts in together.
One side is already putting in. We'd like the other side to start.
As for "class warfare..."
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.
|
|
The compromise Pres Man suggested is better than what we're likely to get in real life...yet you would reject it. You don't see how that makes a compromise impossible? Or do you just not care, and would rather watch it all burn?
I don't think compromise with the modern conservative movement is possible or desirable. I don't think you can compromise with lunacy without getting crazy all over you. Look at the whole debate this thread was instigated by, the debt ceiling debate. Its insanity.
I don't want it to all burn down, but for liberal/progressive Democrats the current options seem to be two-fold:
1) We can compromise with the arsonists on the right and engage in a semi-controlled burning down of our entire society while taking all of the blame for the complete and abject failure of conservatism or
2) We can just throw in the towel, let them have the matches and gasoline, and hope enough of us survive the fire and that those idiots burn up with the house.
Neither option is particularly appealing, but revoking all of their voting rights isn't on the table, so I guess we're stuck with dealing with them until the country either sobers up and realizes that conservatism is 100% stupid BS that has made our society progressively worse the more we try it, or it actually blows up in our faces.
Frankly, I think we're headed towards civil war. Probably not armies versus armies, but I expect a big uptick in violence over the next five years. We're going to see a deepening recession, probably a full on depression, with inner city riots, which will fan racial tension and push the right into full blown fascism, and then **** will really hit the fan.
And with each passing day, I care less and less. Its all so stupid, maybe it would be better if we just started shooting each other.
The compromise Pres Man suggested is better than what we're likely to get in real life...yet you would reject it. You don't see how that makes a compromise impossible? Or do you just not care, and would rather watch it all burn?I don't think compromise with the modern conservative movement is possible or desirable. I don't think you can compromise with lunacy without getting crazy all over you. Look at the whole debate this thread was instigated by, the debt ceiling debate. Its insanity.
I don't want it to all burn down, but for liberal/progressive Democrats the current options seem to be two-fold:
1) We can compromise with the arsonists on the right and engage in a semi-controlled burning down of our entire society while taking all of the blame for the complete and abject failure of conservatism or
2) We can just throw in the towel, let them have the matches and gasoline, and hope enough of us survive the fire and that those idiots burn up with the house.
Neither option is particularly appealing, but revoking all of their voting rights isn't on the table, so I guess we're stuck with dealing with them until the country either sobers up and realizes that conservatism is 100% stupid BS that has made our society progressively worse the more we try it, or it actually blows up in our faces.
Frankly, I think we're headed towards civil war. Probably not armies versus armies, but I expect a big uptick in violence over the next five years. We're going to see a deepening recession, probably a full on depression, with inner city riots, which will fan racial tension and push the right into full blown fascism, and then **** will really hit the fan.
And with each passing day, I care less and less. Its all so stupid, maybe it would be better if we just started shooting each other.
See, I disagree about conservatism. I believe that there are more than 1 type of conservative. Myself, I do want to see the government cut, but just the programs that hurt us. Things that really do curtail our freedoms. Not things like social security or Medicare, but things like the Military-Industrial complex. I do want to see a lifting of many regulations. Not the important ones that we need (like clean water), but the ones that are written by the big corporations and passed into law by their cronies in Washington, only for the purpose of stifling innovation and curbing new competition. Yet, you lump all of us into "Fascists" and "loonies". I dont deny that some conservatives are, but we all aren't. So I guess that I agree that we probably will see more violence in the near future, but its attitudes that stereotype people who have a different viewpoint as fascists or arsonists that will certainly lead to it.
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.
Interesting article from which it appears this quotation was taken. Stein comes across as quite reasonable in this article.
...the usual generalisms...See, I disagree about conservatism. I believe that there are more than 1 type of conservative. Myself, I do want to see the government cut, but just the...
And there is more than one type of liberal.
But of course it doesn't suit the purposes of certain persons and powers to concede that people's political beliefs are heterogeneous.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...the usual generalisms...See, I disagree about conservatism. I believe that there are more than 1 type of conservative. Myself, I do want to see the government cut, but just the...And there is more than one type of liberal.
But of course it doesn't suit the purposes of certain persons and powers to concede that people's political beliefs are heterogeneous.
Mmmm, rocky road to the white house. Now with more nuts!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I disagree about conservatism. I believe that there are more than 1 type of conservative...
Sure. Given a broad enough definition of conservative, I'm a conservative.
When I say conservative, I mean the modern conservative movement exemplified by the Tea Party, the Republican leadership, FOX News and the right-wing establishment. You know, the guys who are responsible for pretty much every bad thing that has happened in American politics and the economy in the last thirty years?
You know, those guys? The ones that are conservative right up to the moment where they completely screw everyone, and then suddenly they were never conservative? Like George Bush. He was a conservative until the economy imploded thanks to conservative policies, and then suddenly he was a liberal all along.
Myself, I do want to see the government cut, but just the programs that hurt us. Things that really do curtail our freedoms. Not things like social security or Medicare, but things like the Military-Industrial complex. I do want to see a lifting of many regulations. Not the important ones that we need (like clean water), but the ones that are written by the big corporations and passed into law by their cronies in Washington, only for the purpose of stifling innovation and curbing new competition.
Great. Me too. I 100% agree with what you're saying. I'm a liberal Democrat.
And if you vote for liberal democrats, what you'll get is exactly what you're asking for. You want sensible reform of regulations? Democratic party platform position. You know who oversaw the most dramatic reduction in the size of government and elimination of burdensome regulation since WW2? Al Gore, liberal Democrat. That's what he was doing while the right was distracting everyone with impeaching the president for getting a hummer and not gloating about it afterwards.
Do you think you'll get any of that voting for the people who run as conservatives? Do you? Because if you do, I have a bridge to sell you. It's in Brooklyn. It's amazing, great view, real cheap.
Yet, you lump all of us into "Fascists" and "loonies". I dont deny that some conservatives are, but we all aren't. So I guess that I agree that we probably will see more violence in the near future, but its attitudes that stereotype people who have a different viewpoint as fascists or arsonists that will certainly lead to it.
Allow me to offer you a different interpretation: I'm not the one lumping you in with the crazies, you are. You're the one who has decided he's a "conservative."
Do you hate gay people? Do you support legislation that targets gay people for discrimination or protects the rights of oppressors to discriminate against gays?
Because if you vote for the politicians who call themselves conservative, that is what they are going to do. Screw over gay people.
Do you hate women? Do you think a woman's proper place is in the home, pumping out children, and not in the workplace? Do you want to remove women's real choice from them, and force them to choose a career and celibacy or a love life and the family that will entail by denying them access to sex ed, contraception and abortion?
Because if you vote for the politicians who call themselves conservative, that is what they are going to do. Screw over women.
Do you hate black people? Black people are far more likely to be unemployed than whites, and blacks who have middle-class incomes are far more likely to be government workers than middle-class whites. Massive cutbacks in federal employment rolls disproportionately affects black communities, who are already in a precarious position due to centuries of institutional racism.
Because if you vote for the politicians who call themselves conservative, that is what they are going to do. Screw over black people.
Should I go on? You want to destroy medicare? Because if you vote for the politicians who call themselves conservative, that is what they are going to do. Destroy medicare. And social security. And unemployment insurance. And the schools.
Do you want to see a crippling loss of infrastructure, watch our schools fall further and further behind the rest of the developed world, and give huge tax cuts to the Koch Brothers?
Because if you vote for the politicians who call themselves conservative, that is what they are going to do. Screw over everybody to help the increasingly international and unAmerican rich at everyone's expense.
I don't think you want any of that.
But that's what the politicians who call themselves conservative are offering you. Ignore all the rhetoric, all the slogans, and all the posturing, and just look at the legislation they actually bring up and pass.
If you support that, then yeah, you're a fascist. Sorry. Hate to break it to you. If you don't support that, then for god's sake man, why are you calling yourself a conservative?
This is the thing that blows me away, every time. You find self-identified conservatives on the internet, and 9 times out of 10 they don't support anything that conservatives in power actually do. Half the time they actually support a moderate Democrat position.
And then they go vote for Michelle Bachmann, as if she'll deliver anything but tax cuts for the rich and Christian dominion for the rest of us.
Despite what the media and White House are claiming, this is not and was not a political crisis. It is actually a debt crisis. The whole argument over raising the debt ceiling was a show, both sides were grand standing for political gain with their constituencies. The fundamental problem is the money the US government has already borrowed will not be paid back.
The market would not seem to agree with you. With all hell breaking loose where are investor's fleeing? U.S. Treasury bonds, which have not seen this much action since 2008. At the end of the day, S&P ratings not withstanding, where do the investors hide? Long term US government debt...its the only place that is seen as rock solid steady. The really odd thing is there are lots of countries that still have completely solid triple A ratings in all three rating agencies - but investors don't hide in these countries debt - even though many actually give better returns...simply not seen as being as safe as long term US debt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...the usual generalisms...See, I disagree about conservatism. I believe that there are more than 1 type of conservative. Myself, I do want to see the government cut, but just the...And there is more than one type of liberal.
But of course it doesn't suit the purposes of certain persons and powers to concede that people's political beliefs are heterogeneous.
No, I understand that there is more than one type of liberal. I'm not the one stereotyping the parties, though. In fact, I actively encourage people to not vote by party, but to look at every candidate's individual beliefs and voting record. For instance, I would be 9000% more likely to vote for Dennis Kucinich over Rick Santorum.
Here are where I see some more flaws in economic theory:
1. The USA is a meritocracy. This is patently false. For this to be true everyone would need to start on a level playing field, and then those that are better would have to be allowed to rise. However it doesn't happen that way. If it did the CEO's of corporations would never be able to claim they aren't responsible for what happens in their company (a claim that runs counter to what their very position in the company is supposed to be) -- and when they are released from their positions wouldn't be able to simply turn around and find another such position with another company almost immediately. This is ignoring the uneven playing field of education in the USA -- how can you possibly say that merit will rise and everyone has an equal chance of proving their merit when everyone does have an equal chance of having a decent education? Finally the claim of a meritocracy runs counter to the way laborers are treated. After all are we saying that people that are earning minimum wage working 2~3 jobs putting in 80+ hours a week are somehow doing less and less deserving than the CEO of a corporation? Are our truck drivers running hundreds of thousands of miles a year somehow not working hard enough? The people breaking their backs to build cars, roads, clothing, plastic cups, and loading trailers are obviously of poor merit since they make next to no money? If you make $15 or less a year are you comfortable saying that you have little to no merit and deserve to be poor?
2. The Rich Deserve to be rich. IF this is a meritocracy (which I think is really in doubt) then to say the rich deserve their riches is to inherently suggest the poor deserve to be where they are. After all if they didn't deserve to be poor they would in fact be rich and since they aren't rich they obviously deserve to be poor. If we follow this thinking to its conclusion we reestablish Divine Right. It is to say that anything that is done to take money from the rich is in fact to turn against fate that made them rich and therefore is wrong. It also gives leeway to blame the victim when misfortune happens -- after all if they had been more deserving it wouldn't have happened to them right? It must have been a flaw in them that caused the misfortune. IF the rich have earned and deserve their riches hasn't the working man earned and deserve his riches too? Why should his go to anyone else especially when it is already his work that puts the rich into the position they are in to begin with?
3. The rich pay more of the taxes than anyone else and therefore shouldn't have to pay as much. Lets consider a figure that is often touted -- that 3% of the population owns 97% of the USA. Now lets toss this out as rubbish... and go with a more modest set of numbers. Lets instead say that 25% of the population owns 75% of the USA. That doesn't sound so bad right? Now lets say that everyone in the USA pays the same tax percentage -- just for ease of math here we'll say 20% (very low ball). So 75% of the population pays 20% on the 25% of the USA they own... that's .05%. Now the other 25% pays 20% on the 75% of the USA they own which is .15%. Even here we can plainly see that the top 25% are going to pay more each, and in total than the lower 75%. Now if we return to the much more uneven 3% with 97% and run the same even percentages we would see a much, much more lopsided amount of taxes being paid by a small percentage of the population... but in actuality they really aren't paying any more percentage wise than anyone else -- it's simply that the amount owned makes the payments look extreme... until its compared to the amount owned instead of the amount others pay. This is where it falls apart for me and where I'm reminded of something my Mother taught me: "Don't tell me what someone else is doing as a means of getting out of trouble -- tell me what you did. You can't control others you can only control yourself, and what others do is no excuse for your lack of control." The same applies to taxes -- you can't really compare the total amounts paid by each person unless their incomes are even.
4. That we can change social security. Look folks to change this contract that we have already establish for those that are already playing under the current contracts rules is wrong. It would be like a company saying, "Look we know you paid for this product but well... we simply priced it incorrectly for you and now we are going to have to raise the price and give you less than we initially said we were going to." It wouldn't be right for them and it isn't right for social security. IF honesty, integrity, commitment mean anything then they must be used even at the times it is the hardest -- a deal has been made, hands have been shaken payments received -- now stand by your promises. If you can't then you are a liar -- and one of the worse sorts, someone that breaks promises after receiving what they want.
5. That because Laffer's Curve states that at some point taxes are too high for maximum revenue that we must already be there, and need to lower taxes, and that raising taxes would decrease revenue. The fact of the manner is in most situations taxes are already too low. This is because there are natural forces at work to suppress taxes as much as possible already while there are few such forces at work to help raise taxes. Consider that any business (or person) if faced with a price hike (tax hike) of any type is going to complain that it's to much and are going to be unhappy about means that those that can raise prices are not going to want to especially if they might have to answer with their jobs to the people they raised prices on. This naturally leads to people not wanting to raise taxes while in office, and obviously people not in office aren't going to want to pay more if they can avoid it. The simple existence of Laffer's Curve doesn't mean that taxes are too high, just as the simple existence of drugs doesn't make make people drug addicts. Laffer's Curve also tells us that taxes can be too low as well... which is currently highly likely.
6. The government is inherently wasteful and can't do anything right. Well NASA, the mars rover, GPS, Velcro, Intercontinental ballistics, the entire military, medicare (one of the cheapest per patient medical programs in the country), and a whole host of other projects ran by, directed by and maintained by the government disagrees. In fact while the government shouldn't be involved in everything it generally does screw up as badly as people suggest. It would be like saying that because one airplane crashes every now and then for various reason that flying is unsafe while ignoring the millions of flights that continuously happen with no incident.
I've read a good bit of Ayn Rand (though despite multiple attempts, I've yet to make it all the way thorough Atlas Shrugged -- talk about verbose!). I understand the supply side argument. I get it. I probably understand it better than 75% of the tea party. As impossible as this may sound, I just don't agree.There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.
Well put.
I can appreciate her perspective (Capitalism compared to Soviet Russia is downright AWESOME), but I find her general philosophy to be utterly despicable. She merely substitutes one form of oppression for another (economic oppression substitutes totalitarianism) and justifies it as a form of natural selection. The problem with that is, the people who fell in line with Lenin and Stalin survived. So how is that not natural selection?
Somewhere along the spectrum of economic philosophy, one must distinguish things that are right and wrong as well as what helps you survive. Generally, what helps one person survive also helps everyone else survive, and funnily enough, those things are also morally right. We are capable of cooperation. But our economy thwarts it. Life is not Thunderdome, but our economy is. The economy is a poker table, and 99% of us are almost out of chips. Time for a New Deal.
When is Paizo going to start banning these troublemakers? I used to love this website but not anymore. It's overrun by trolls and you guys do absolutely nothing except to tell us "to flag and move on". I'm sorry but that's just not good enough anymore. You guys need to do your damn jobs. I've never seen a website that allows the crap you guys do. Sorry to be so blunt but this place is turning into a zoo.
You've clearly never frequented the WoW forums.
This thread is a heated topic. It would have been nipped in the bud over on WoW, but that is because people there are virtually incapable of having a civil conversation.
The Paizo forums are a breath of fresh air in comparison.
This thread is a heated topic. It would have been nipped in the bud over on WoW, but that is because people there are virtually incapable of having a civil conversation.The WOW mods don't tolerate off-topic discussion because it inevitably leads to embarrassment, liability, and PR headaches for Blizzard. The civility of the community doesn't enter into it.
I haven't been there in years, but I recall the off topic forums mostly just being in jokes and aimless chatter. Less politics, more a small group of regular posters making pictures and chatting with blues.
See, I disagree about conservatism. I believe that there are more than 1 type of conservative...Sure. Given a broad enough definition of conservative, I'm a conservative.
When I say conservative, I mean...[stuff about crazies]
So what's a sane conservative to do?
To invert Ronald Reagan (may he burn in hell): "I didn't leave the conservative party. The conservative party left me."
Sadly, I almost feel the same way about the dems. We stuffed the government with them in 2008 and they failed hard with a clear majority. The problem is, every single Republican tows the party line without fail, while the dems pull the rope in two different directions. The result is, regardless of a majority, we go where the Republicans want, just more slowly.
I haven't been there in years, but I recall the off topic forums mostly just being in jokes and aimless chatter. Less politics, more a small group of regular posters making pictures and chatting with blues.This thread is a heated topic. It would have been nipped in the bud over on WoW, but that is because people there are virtually incapable of having a civil conversation.The WOW mods don't tolerate off-topic discussion because it inevitably leads to embarrassment, liability, and PR headaches for Blizzard. The civility of the community doesn't enter into it.
You don't recall it because inflammatory posts get deleted quick. EDIT: Also, there are no more OT forums.
The civility of the community has a lot to do with it. Transplant this thread over there and you will automatically reduce half the posts to meaningless flaming. I'm not saying there aren't civil people there, or that civil people don't play (because I still play), but the overall community isn't mature enough to handle such inflammatory topics. And there is, I feel, much less of a sense of integrity, or caring what anyone thinks of what you say or how you say it. I even censor my own thoughts more here than there, because I somehow feel more like it matters that I don't come across as a complete asshat.
This is compounded by the fact that questions here get answered rather than flamed.
Myself, I do want to see the government cut, but just the programs that hurt us. Things that really do curtail our freedoms. Not things like social security or Medicare, but things like the Military-Industrial complex. I do want to see a lifting of many regulations. Not the important ones that we need (like clean water), but the ones that are written by the big corporations and passed into law by their cronies in Washington, only for the purpose of stifling innovation and curbing new competition.
Dude, that looks suspiciously (read: "exactly") like something I would write. And my Texas friends think I'm a liberal shill. So I think maybe the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have outlived their usefulness. As have the party distinctions, given that the Dems have thoughtfully provided us with a 3rd term of G.W. Bush, and are offering us a 4th starting next year.
Myself, I do want to see the government cut, but just the programs that hurt us. Things that really do curtail our freedoms. Not things like social security or Medicare, but things like the Military-Industrial complex. I do want to see a lifting of many regulations. Not the important ones that we need (like clean water), but the ones that are written by the big corporations and passed into law by their cronies in Washington, only for the purpose of stifling innovation and curbing new competition.Dude, that looks suspiciously (read: "exactly") like something I would write. And my Texas friends think I'm a liberal shill. So I think maybe the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have outlived their usefulness. As have the party distinctions, given that the Dems have thoughtfully provided us with a 3rd term of G.W. Bush, and are offering us a 4th starting next year.
** spoiler omitted **
Wow... I'm in agreement on these points -- does that make me the shill liberal radical with no virtues as I am called by some 'conservatives' or the sell out hack with no social conscious that I am called by some 'liberals'?
** spoiler omitted **
I wouldn't worry too much, if they get nominated, people like myself are going to vote for Obama. Better the person you know, then the wacko you don't.
Psh, you aren't a true liberal radical until you start legit saying things like "smash capital" without any tone of irony ;p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Psh, you aren't a true liberal radical until you start legit saying things like "smash capital" without any tone of irony ;p
I'm reminded of a song then...
"Clowns on the left of me, jokers on the right and here I am, stuck in the middle with you."
|
|
So what's a sane conservative to do?
Vote Democrat. I mean, as a liberal I kind of hate that voting Democrat is actually the smart thing for a sane conservative to do, but that's basically what the "blue dog democrats" are: sane conservatives.
To invert Ronald Reagan (may he burn in hell): "I didn't leave the conservative party. The conservative party left me."
Well, you know what they say: politics is a pendulum. The left got pretty radical in the 70s and made the rise of modern conservatism possible as a backlash, but things have swung way too far to the right and a sane conservative has got to recognize that.
Consider the New Deal. It's worked for 80 years, virtually eradicating elder poverty and freeing up succeeding generations from the high costs of elder care, which has had a huge stimulative effect on consumption. Everyone who is serious about economics, left or right, American or European, agrees that social security works.
At the same time, the "conservatives" in power want to place all of the money from social security into the stock market. You know, that thing that destroyed a couple of trillion dollars in the last week? That's not a conservative idea, that's a radical idea. I'm a pretty out-there progressive, and nothing I'd propose actually doing is as crazy as that.
Sadly, I almost feel the same way about the dems. We stuffed the government with them in 2008 and they failed hard with a clear majority. The problem is, every single Republican tows the party line without fail, while the dems pull the rope in two different directions. The result is, regardless of a majority, we go where the Republicans want, just more slowly.
But the Democrats never had a majority in the Senate, thanks to the filibuster rules. They needed 60 votes to get a vote on anything of importance, and due to a whole host of factors (the incredible delay in appointing Al Franken and the death of Ted Kennedy being the greatest factors) generally only had 59 votes. This meant that the three moderate Republicans left in the senate (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for the most part) with tremendous power to leverage their votes for cloture. Now that the split is 54-47, the Democrats have no chance of passing anything without caving entirely to the Republicans, who have decided that taking the American economy hostage every few months is a kewl tactic we can expect to see a lot more of.
Meanwhile, in the House, Nancy Pelosi had one of the most effective and progressive congresses in decades, and passed a huge amount of legislation, almost all of which died in the Senate.
Pretty much everything that sucks about the Democrats right now can be laid at the feet of Harry Reid, who just doesn't seem to understand that Mitch McConnel is a lying, cheating dirtbag whose only goal (as he has said) is to make sure Obama doesn't get a second term, which means making sure that nothing gets passed. Reid should have killed the filibuster when he had the chance, or at the very least killed the stupid "secret hold" nonsense that lets one senator from the minority stop any bill from getting an actual vote.
The only solution is to vote for Democrats in droves, retake the House and get at least 61 Democrats in the Senate. Then Republicans can just be ignored. Which is kind of the only reasonable option left.
|
Psh, you aren't a true liberal radical until you start legit saying things like "smash capital" without any tone of irony ;pI'm reminded of a song then...
"Clowns on the left of me, jokers on the right and here I am, stuck in the middle with you."
Hmmm much to ponder...
To me:
Republicans* are unified evil. They shamelessly promote the interests of the least threatened Americans, all while using incredibly well-honed information warfare to convince the most threatened Americans that it's all in their interest.
Democrats are petty, squabbling, well-intentioned by completely ineffective idiots. Many are evil as well through ignorance or intention. I often wish that they were so brazen as the republicans were, they might get something done, even if it was something crappy.
It's clear we're going to need to change to a parliamentary system if we want to fix any problems, but nobody seems to want that, even though everyone is scared to death right now.
*the pols, now, not the voters.
We need statesmaen and women, all we have are politicians.
When I use the term conservative, I mean as it is intended, like getting a "conservative estimate", to err on the side of caution, to hold back a bit, be more cautious. Fiscally I believe we need to be more conservative, cool it with the spending, spend only where we need to, have clear cut things to spend on. Socially, there should be a standard of "Americans get x", no matter your skin color, sexual preference, etc. Almost all social issues would fall into this category. "Stop the race baiting and class warfare shit, and get to work" would be my message to congress and potus.
So, what am I?
So, what am I?Insane. Welcome to the club!
and in good company.
I guess that's why Ron Paul is looking better as a canidate...
I guess that's why Ron Paul is looking better as a canidate...
Oh, no in that case you're a Nihilist -- they are three doors down and on the left.
I guess that's why Ron Paul is looking better as a canidate...Oh, no in that case you're a Nihilist -- they are three doors down and on the left.
The fact that I would take great pleasure in moderating this forum tells me I am entirely unsuited to the task. :)
Meh, this place just seems like it'd be a piece of cake to moderate compared to DDRFreak in its heyday.
Like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche?
So you're suggesting a vote for Paul would be an exercise in futility?
I only mention Paul becasue on the surface he seems fiscaly conservative and socialy...well he doesn't seem to care. He has his own views, but he doesn't sound like he'd legislate his own views.
Like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche?
So you're suggesting a vote for Paul would be an exercise in futility?I only mention Paul becasue on the surface he seems fiscaly conservative and socialy...well he doesn't seem to care. He has his own views, but he doesn't sound like he'd legislate his own views.
... Fiscally he's for blowing the government so that corporations can run things as they please. The only thing he cares for is that those making money can keep making money.
Also he's as 'establishment' as anyone else -- he's been in office just as long as any of them -- he's a politician first and foremost so if you expect anything else from him you'll be disappointed.
Finally on social issues his not caring is just as dangerous as someone that's extreme on them -- after all if he doesn't care then he doesn't have a position and he'll sell social issues to go after what he wants. This makes him willy-nilly at best and a social mercenary at worse. At least with Buchanan I can expect and know his position and what he's going to try for -- not so much with Ron Paul.
And I don't mean to say it would be an exercise in futility -- I mean that it would be an exercise in crashing the country faster, further and more thoroughly.
Ahh, I see.
Ahh, I see.
Now in a way he has several points worth admiring (if not worth emulating) -- he's done great work on brand recognition and most politicians can't play the social mercenary without serious losses at the voting booth -- he manages it very well. He hides his main goals behind the cause of 'helping average Americans' -- he sells neo-classical economics well without pointing out exactly what this would really mean or how this would affect our country.
He's played the 'outsider' for years and honestly has been a huge influence on the Tea Party without anyone really realizing it -- he's brought libertarianism to the main stream in a way few could and done so without causing it to be ridiculed as freely as it has been in the past.
Now I think he's a down right horrible candidate for office (of any kind) but I can freely admit he's done a great job for himself while playing off being a civil servant (the dude is loaded at this point... the fact his son has played the exact same cards in Kentucky is absolutely unbelievable to me too).
|
|
It's also worth noting that for all of Ron Paul's talk of freedom, he really only means freedom from the federal government. He supports state's rights to engage in all kinds of curbs on individual freedoms, from defining marriage as between a man and a woman only, to outlawing divorce, to mandating school prayer and teaching creationism. His version of libertarianism would allow Texas to become a Christian theocracy.
So that leads once again to the question, who the hell do we vote for? The "assassinating US citizens is ok with us and bomb those brown people" Left or "selling US citizens into slavery is mighty fine with us and bomb those brown people" Right? I really do wish we could end the 2 party, but not really, paradigm already.
And for the record, I am conservative with a lower case c as well. I switched to republican just last week to vote in the primary, but it wont last long, methinks. The left could have me back again as they did in 08 if someone better challenges President Obama, however. (Ive been hearing reports of unrest among the Democratic party)
It's also worth noting that for all of Ron Paul's talk of freedom, he really only means freedom from the federal government. He supports state's rights to engage in all kinds of curbs on individual freedoms, from defining marriage as between a man and a woman only, to outlawing divorce, to mandating school prayer and teaching creationism. His version of libertarianism would allow Texas to become a Christian theocracy.
which is all the power that a president could legally remove. It also means that, conversely, state's would have the power to engage in all kinds of support on individual freedoms, from supporting marriage in any form (or even admitting marriage is a religious concept and not being involved in marriage at all!), to allowing the sale of currently illegal drugs, to mandating that schools actually teach science and math! His version of libertarianism would not allow anyone to mandate prayer or Christain Theocracy as that would violate Freedom of Religion and Incorporation amendments. And that's assuming he had the support of a libertarian Congress and libertarian leaning Supreme Court justices, which he would not. As the Head of the Executive branch all he would be able to do is rescind executive orders, command the military (which is great, if youve ever bothered to check his record on war), and end some of the most corrupt parts of government. (DHS, TSA, DEA, ATF are all functionaries of the executive branch if im not mistaken)
libertarian leaning Supreme Court justices
Good luck finding those... unless "only corporations, not citizens, should have rights" is libertarian, in which case the current group is spot-on.