| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I don't see how you can say the Democrats have provide a 'united front' and the Republicans haven't in the past 20 years.So you feel that the democratic party does not provide a united front? Yet the Repulicans do? I just want to be clear?
Yes.
50 spineless jellyfish being squeezed into a box is not a united front.
190 possums passing out to the cries of "don't hurt me!" is not a united front.
Yes.
50 spineless jellyfish being squeezed into a box is not a united front.
190 possums passing out to the cries of "don't hurt me!" is not a united front.
There did seem to be a whole lot of "blue dog" vs. liberal going on back when the Democrats controlled both houses. But I'd describe what is currently happening in the Republican party as "capitulation to extremeists" rather than "the presentation of a united front." YMMV.
We've got the free-market absolutists in the national discourse. Where are the radical socialists?G+%~*$nit, Jeff, I'm right here!Well get yourself into the Senate!
What are you wasting your time hanging around gaming messageboards for?
I'm not yet 35. EDIT: Or is that the president?
That's a fair description, though I'd probably describe it as the Republican party finally being taken over by the crazies they've being pandering to since Nixon started the "Southern Strategy".
The Republicans, over the last 20 years, have shown far more unity and party discipline than the Democrats. Examine the voting records, particularly on important votes. Which party has been able to sustain more filibusters, or threaten enough to win concessions or derail legislation.
I know some hope that the Republicans nominate and extremist because he or she would be "unelectable." Honestly, that prospect scares the crap out of me...desperation does some crazy things.
There did seem to be a whole lot of "blue dog" vs. liberal going on back when the Democrats controlled both houses. But I'd describe what is currently happening in the Republican party as "capitulation to extremeists" rather than "the presentation of a united front." YMMV.
Why is "capitulation to extremists" a contradiction with "present a united front? Why can't it be both? The tea party extremists wanted something, the republicans could have stood up with them and sided with the democrats on a compromise measure.. they didn't. They went lock step with the tea partiers so they didn't split their party.
Why is "capitulation to extremists" a contradiction with "present a united front? Why can't it be both? The tea party extremists wanted something, the republicans could have stood up with them and sided with the democrats on a compromise measure.. they didn't. They went lock step with the tea partiers so they didn't split their party.
When I think "united front," I think of people working together for mutual benefit, whereas I see the current Republican party dynamic as more fear-driven. But you're right in that they're not mutually exclusive.
So, is this going to be the setting of a PbP game here? What ruleset are we using?
So, is this going to be the setting of a PbP game here? What ruleset are we using?
I vote for Savage Worlds. :)
Deadlands. Weird west, OLD school classic rules. Lets see some six shooters ans sea snakes. Yeeeehaw
|
Risk?
I think both parties have difficulty presenting a united front. The Tea Party Republicans are only slightly more extreme than the extremist elements in the Democratic Party. But we're not seeing neo-Nazism in the Republican party (I know people will disagree) or communism (or even socialism) in the Democratic party. Most people in both parties are centrist.
Anyways, all problems can be solved with the promotion of more parties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What extremist elements in the Democratic Party?
- the ones that think that if you work hard, apply yourself, and spend 6 years in school getting a masters degree you should be able to put food on the table, own a home, AND see a doctor.
You know, the whackos...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What extremist elements in the Democratic Party?
- the ones that think that if you work hard, apply yourself, and spend 6 years in school getting a masters degree you should be able to put food on the table, own a home, AND see a doctor.
You know, the whackos...
Like Teachers? Teachers that have to get their masters, beyond their masters and honestly put in as many college hours as any doctor or lawyer but still get paid half as much or less?
Heaven forbid they ever organize! After all we need a bunch of people that can barely hold Bachelor Degrees telling them what to do in the form of the PTA/PTO/politicians! You know people with absolutely no training in the field, because they know best.
Or how about those FAA personnel that are doing their jobs without pay? Quite nice of them to do that so the republicans can prove how much of a waste they are.
Oh I know -- you mean the ones like Warren Buffet right? Those rich elitist that actually want to pay more taxes so they are doing their share?
Maybe the ones that want governmental health care? You know the programs that cut down on your actual medical expenses and kill the tick of the health insurance industry? While also getting all that liability off of companies' books so they are more competitive with overseas firms?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What extremist elements in the Democratic Party?
Maybe he's referring to the ones who want to bail out Wall Street at the expense of the working population. Or the ones who want to bomb Libyans in the name of freedom. Or the ones who provide firearms to Mexican drug cartels in order to get a more gun-control friendly environment.
|
I think (my opinion) is that is the case because the democratic party has been very smart and has been able to bring together their party as a united front. Something the Republican party has been unable to do since the Regan era.
Gruumash,
I apologize that this has turned into a leftist dogpile, but I did want to address your post.
First, I agree that the Democratic Party have been very canny when it comes to enforcing solidarity in the ranks. What is so surprising about this, to my mind, is that the actual policy decisions do not reflect a genuinely progressive outlook, despite protests from the right.
Second, I wanted to take a second to clarify what I mean about the center-left politics I referred to previously. These views may seem extreme to many Americans, but do keep in mind that they are fairly standard across the rest of the world:
1. The promotion of locally-operated, democratically-run worker co-operatives over multinational corporate hierarchies.
2. Union involvement in the determination of national economic policy.
3. International control and monitoring of transnational corporations, with unions that transcend national boundaries.
4. Economies that mix private enterprise and socialism, which closely regulates financial services in the interests of the people and ensures public services (such as higher education and medical care) are available to everyone.
5. Modern Socialism looks not to control public institutions through top-down state-run policies but instead by the workers and their communities. There are a variety of models being tested here, but the goal is to achieve truly local, democratic decision-making at work and in the public sphere, instead of control wielded by distant bureaucrats.
6. The gradual elimination of the concentrated wealth and power of those at the top, with the eventual goal of a more equitable distribution amongst workers as well as producers.
7. Finally, there needs to be a special emphasis on gradual. Center-left socialist groups (Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists alike) advocate an evolutionary reform of society through the democratic process, not the revolutionary overthrow of governments.
Again, although these ideas may seem extreme to you, please keep in mind that they are normative goals amongst center-left parties that hold sway in Europe, Japan, Canada, and elsewhere. Despite this, we do not see anything approximating these goals by the Democrats in power, either in policy or even their campaign promises.
Finally, I wanted to express solidarity with your views regarding gay marriage and abortion. Although we may disagree on economic policy, on social issues we pretty much see eye to eye.
|
|
We've got the free-market absolutists in the national discourse. Where are the radical socialists?
I'll take a little less radicalism, please.
If you're looking for reasonable, moderate socialists, though, try here:
Democratic Socialists of America.
Sadly, they don't field candidates of their own. The best-organized progressive political movement in the US today is the Green Party. Although we may never see the emergence of a third-party candidate as President, I would highly recommend that you support your local and state DSA and Green Party organizations and, if there is not a local chapter, organize one!
Sounds good to me. The feds shouldn't bail out states to begin with. If a state is broke then it's broke. The federal governments role was originally a minor one mostly dealing with foreign powers and disagreements between the states not some king the dukes could run to.Then we had a civil war, and the role of the federal government changed.
True but it doesn't mean it changed for the better.
Nothing against the federal government but it needs to shrink it's role back to a more manageable level and let the individual states decide what works within their own borders.While certain things such as defense and interstate commerce need an overall governing body like the fed. Most aspects of governance "should" be left to the sovereign states. Whats right in California might not work in say South Carolina, just because it works in Maine it could be disastrous in Florida.
Yes I am aware that the civil war changed all that and that the fed has been growing out of control ever since, I wonder if they are ever going to give up the emergency powers they granted themselves during WW2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the health of the middle class, one of the largest indicators is college degrees. Which, of course, has largely fallen among blacks due to affirmative action (Thomas Sowell has some compelling data on this).
Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then.
The economic advancement of black poor actually slowed down after the Civil Rights Act.
Which of course has nothing to do with the difference between the overall growth of the middle class in the post war period and the stagnation of that growth since 1970.
No, no. What it really means is blacks were better off living under Jim Crow.
Does the data show a causal link or merely a correllation? I can see some ways it could be causal ("Well, we've made our quota, no need to worry now") but just checking as social science is always going to be chock full of confounding factors for any change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
A bunch of people splitting off to form their own government (world)
(playground) -- whatever -- seems like a dream that never goes away.
My assumption is this island will just become a huge Roman Orgy.
Then once the booze and money runs out they will get hungry and go home.
But, I have to wonder if we humans will ever colonize another planet.
Being on another planet ups the ante considerably, because when you get
tired and want to go home... you can't.
This will never come to pass. There is no profit motive, or atleast, not
a high enough profit motive to move the current forces at work into this
particular alignment.
Btw, I looked at the picture, but didn't read the article, because
reading is hard.
I'm keeping an open mind however.
|
So you'd agree, regardless of your personal feelings about racism, that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional? That the federal government should have left segregation up to the states?
This isn't just a random example. For all the high-minded theorizing about the limits of the federal government, state's rights have always been about race, from before the Civil War through the Civil Rights Movement and the backlash from that.
Not trying to speak for Steven here, but the Civil Rights Act was justified by upholding the "Equal Protection" portion of the 14th Ammendment.
It was perfectly within the Federal Government's juristiction.
|
Abraham, did you ever acknowledge this? I couldn't find your reply.
You're the one not reading it properly.The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place.Free from others means you create your own, not that you have none. In other words they get to start from scratch creating their own laws and morals, not that they lack them entirely, your argument assumes anarchy as he said, not libertarianism. Could they create what you're arguing if they so chose, possibly, are they going to after investing that much money into it, not likely. So lets leave the straw man Mad Max arguments behind please.
So you'd agree, regardless of your personal feelings about racism, that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional? That the federal government should have left segregation up to the states?
This isn't just a random example. For all the high-minded theorizing about the limits of the federal government, state's rights have always been about race, from before the Civil War through the Civil Rights Movement and the backlash from that.Not trying to speak for Steven here, but the Civil Rights Act was justified by upholding the "Equal Protection" portion of the 14th Ammendment.
It was perfectly within the Federal Government's juristiction.
I am in agreement. What was unconstitutional was states ignoring the rights of minorities in direct opposition of the 14th amendment.
|
|
I am in agreement. What was unconstitutional was states ignoring the rights of minorities in direct opposition of the 14th amendment.
Exactly. But thejeff's point (I believe, and my apologies if it was not) was that Civil Rights and segregation aren't clearly spelled out as responsibilities of the Federal Government in the Constitution. Therefore to a (very) strict states' rights activist, the Feds should have been hands off.
Now I don't think that anyone but the most extreme (read: crazy) person wouldn't see this falling under the 14th Ammendment but... eh. :)
..
What does 6 years of education have to do with Jack? I want a world where people are paid for performance and productivity, not getting a literary criticism Masters or the like.
If they suck at the job you should be able to figure that out before its harder to fire them.
Paying teachers based on performance is like handing one person a 1972 gremlin and the other a Porche and saying we'll pay you based on how fast you can do a lap. Believe it or not, students are individuals before they turn 18. They already have life experiences, desires, and free will. Some of them will work harder than others, some of them show up on time with a full stomach, their homework done, and a motivation to learn and others are hungry, distracted, and will find the paint cracks in the ceiling more interesting than anything you're doing.
|
|
People, people. I think we're straying from the topic at hand, which is: Will they have an adequate supply of fluffy white cats and minions?
I think you mean, will the fluffy white cats have an adequate supply of minions, some of whom think they're in charge.
.
A bunch of people splitting off to form their own government (world)
(playground) -- whatever -- seems like a dream that never goes away.My assumption is this island will just become a huge Roman Orgy.
Then once the booze and money runs out they will get hungry and go home.But, I have to wonder if we humans will ever colonize another planet.
Being on another planet ups the ante considerably, because when you get
tired and want to go home... you can't.This will never come to pass. There is no profit motive, or atleast, not
a high enough profit motive to move the current forces at work into this
particular alignment.Btw, I looked at the picture, but didn't read the article, because
reading is hard.I'm keeping an open mind however.
Once the tech catches up with our desire to actually explore space and colonize it the we will.
I never said it would be voluntary, look at the state of Georgia which started as a penal colony or Australia for that matter.All they have to do once we get "warp drive" or "hyper drive" or whatever is play the whole human treatment card and away they go.