| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No objective truth? What an interesting concept!
A corpse is found. It has a honking big bullet hole where its heart and chest used to be. The police go through the available suspects without nailing the crime to anybody. And why?
Turns out nobody actually killed the person. The murder never happened AT ALL. There is, after all, no objective truth, right?
Or, you could decide that the sum of human knowledge is a tiny, tiny part of what can be known, the rest being UNKNOWN rather than NONEXISTENT. But it's a hard thing to accept that we don't know everything, isn't it?
There's no such thing as overthinking things. Not even to death....I think you're wrong here.
Heee... I thought that would come back and bite me :) I was trying to be funny and forgot to include that ever-so-clarifying smiley ;)
I'd imagine that the nuanced European view comes from the need to form coalitions: Party A cannot calls party B's plan a deal with satan because they may need to hook up with party B.
The American primary system also tends to force politicians into extremes. You have to run first for the few registered voters who care enough to vote in a primary , who tend (especially with the republicans) to be an extreme element in the party. THEN you have to run to the general election. Its called the primary two step, and its at least as old as Lincoln, who toned down his anti slavery positions for the general public. It got him elected, but the south wasn't buying it.
The tea-party movement is such a poster boy for authoritarianism it would be funny -- if it weren't so damn scary.
Speaking of funny, "The main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama's policy of being black" was pretty freaking hilarious. :)
How about we limit ourselves to discussing the substance of the article, then?
Good luck with that. :P
|
The tea-party movement is such a poster boy for authoritarianism it would be funny, if it weren't so damn scary.
Remember that the Tea Party refers to a number of related movements that try to piggyback on each other to achieve critical mass. In general, where the movement was spontaneous, it wasn't effective, and where it is effective, it is not spontaneous. Where it is scariest, it is not actually populist--it just disguises itself as such.
I don't have as much to say about North vs. South Europe; what's going on there is everyone's fighting over splitting the bill and are relying on stereotypes to make their arguments. It's a very different situation from America vs. Europe.
In response to InVinoVeritas excellent view of the difference between European and American politicians:
I believe that the Europeans see it as a sign of strength that they question their leaders motives, even those that they generally agree with.
Is it the same for Americans? How often are the motives of those that you generally agree with questioned?
As for the media, I can only speak for Denmark. I believe we have some fairly critical journalists that are willing to dig out any fishy business.
They are the watch-dogs. Or, they are supposed to be.
That they also seem to be able to dictate some of the politics seems to speak against this though. But mostly I've seen this as a populists wet dream come through embodied in one of our parties called Dansk Folkeparti (Danish Folkparty (sounds really rubbish when I translate it :D), because they had the power to sway the government since they hinged on their support, and hence a bunch of crappy laws were made.
I'm sure GentleGiant could say a whole lot more on the issue, and it would be nice of him to chime in. :)
|
|
In response to InVinoVeritas excellent view of the difference between European and American politicians:
I believe that the Europeans see it as a sign of strength that they question their leaders motives, even those that they generally agree with.
Is it the same for Americans? How often are the motives of those that you generally agree with questioned?
It's definitely different. Americans tend to see a united front as a sign of strength, and so dissension within a party is voiced in private--especially now in the Republican Party. In many ways, this is backwards from what I'd expect to see. In America, where individuals are voted for, the individuals try to look properly aligned to the party. In Europe, where parties are voted for, individuals try to distinguish themselves apart from the party. I have to think about that some more.
As for the media, I can only speak for Denmark. I believe we have some fairly critical journalists that are willing to dig out any fishy business.They are the watch-dogs. Or, they are supposed to be.
That they also seem to be able to dictate some of the politics seems to speak against this though. But mostly I've seen this as a populists wet dream come through embodied in one of our parties called Dansk Folkeparti (Danish Folkparty (sounds really rubbish when I translate it :D), because they had the power to sway the government since they hinged on their support, and hence a bunch of crappy laws were made.
I believe "Danish People's Party" is the usual translation, even though "People's" has Communist undertones in America. I might also call it the Populist Party--it seems to fit what they're looking for.
Keep in mind that the Dansk Folkeparti wouldn't have had power if not for the votes of the citizenry, so they had to have a platform that was attractive enough to the average Danish citizen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Looks at clock and sighs]
T minus 5 days until my self-imposed exile from political threads expires...
I believe "Danish People's Party" is the usual translation, even though "People's" has Communist undertones in America. I might also call it the Populist Party--it seems to fit what they're looking for.Keep in mind that the Dansk Folkeparti wouldn't have had power if not for the votes of the citizenry, so they had to have a platform that was attractive enough to the average Danish citizen.
Yes, this is so true. Out of 179 seats they have 22, three less than before the election, a good slide, if you ask me. But not enough for my liking :)
[Looks at clock and sighs]
T minus 5 days until my self-imposed exile from political threads expires...
I'm almost afraid to ask... But does it bother you that these are things that are debateable without beating each other over the head for their wrongness, or is it because you fear that your views would be considered so extreme that you would suffer ridicule and disrespect (if those are even understandable concepts for a goblin ;)) or something third?
|
|
I believe "Danish People's Party" is the usual translation, even though "People's" has Communist undertones in America. I might also call it the Populist Party--it seems to fit what they're looking for.Keep in mind that the Dansk Folkeparti wouldn't have had power if not for the votes of the citizenry, so they had to have a platform that was attractive enough to the average Danish citizen.
Yes, this is so true. Out of 179 seats they have 22, three less than before the election, a good slide, if you ask me. But not enough for my liking :)
Consider this: Under the American system, the party would have zero seats. But you'd have the American system.
Consider this: Under the American system, the party would have zero seats. But you'd have the American system.
I believe "Danish People's Party" is the usual translation, even though "People's" has Communist undertones in America. I might also call it the Populist Party--it seems to fit what they're looking for.Keep in mind that the Dansk Folkeparti wouldn't have had power if not for the votes of the citizenry, so they had to have a platform that was attractive enough to the average Danish citizen.
Yes, this is so true. Out of 179 seats they have 22, three less than before the election, a good slide, if you ask me. But not enough for my liking :)
Touché! :) I like our system better, after all ;) But of course, we are a socialist country, right? ;)
I believe that the Europeans see it as a sign of strength that they question their leaders motives, even those that they generally agree with.
Is it the same for Americans? How often are the motives of those that you generally agree with questioned?
The answer is kind of schizophrenic
First off, if you disagree with a politician, EVERYTHING they do gets questioned, and immediately answered with some moral equivalent of feeding babies to Satan. This has reached levels that are nigh impossible to parody lately.
Obama puts in a measure so that they will pay for counseling/end of life religious services and it becomes a death panel that will decide you cost too much money AND KILL YOU.
There's a measure to cover 911 rescue workers cancer by closing off loopholes so that PO boxes in the Cayman islands no longer qualified as an off shore business: it becomes Obama's socialist agenda.
I know its not what you asked but its good to have a baseline.
For politicians you AGREE with the benchmark as to whether or not you question isn't so much the politician but the ACTION. George Bush invades Iraq, his supporters will buy any excuse (they change weekly) for why we're doing so because they really didn't mind blowing up Muslim countries after 9 11. But when the republicans tried to ease actions on Mexican immigration into the US the base revolted.
The republicans have two monsters that disagree with each other to feed. Old white people who are afraid of change and love the "Real america tm" that existed in the rose colored glasses of their youth, and their corporate masters. Republicans solve this problem by 1) presenting an idealized America in the history books 2) Convincing the old white people that they are rich, if they don't lower taxes for for the rich (including corporations) the democrats will take their tax money and give it to lazy welfare cheats.
Democrats have to feed liberals and minorities (while not getting the same corporate masters SO upset that they completely burry them with more money going to the republicans) The bases are usually fairly united, or at least not at odds.
Most tree hugging hippies are against anything that smacks of abuse by police, and blacks by and large don't care if the government turns timberland into national park or lowers allowable arsenic levels in the water.
... And I realize it's a bit long. But if you kinda muscle your way past the TL;DR reflex, you may be as spooked as I am...Not really. When Rome is forced to retreat it poisons the wells of the territory it must surrender to it's enemies. The Republicans see themselves as a Mono-party Republic. The Democrats occasionally take control but by the Republicans poisoning the wells they are weakened when the Democrats do take control.
The only way this ends is if the Democrats resolve to charge the Republican party and its members with Treason for the Republican party's participation in crime and disolve the two party system giving every Citizen a seat in Parliament based on consensus - including the division of national resources.
In the End only accountability to the harshest penalties and laws will reign the Republicans in. Treason must cost them their citizenship or it is ineffective.
Treason? Mono-party republic? This is nonsense. When representing peoples' beliefs, please consider asking them to speak, and not volunteering to fill your head with this kind of talk. No one wants a one party government or intentionally sabotages the country in case they lose an election. I can only imagine if I blessed this forum with such talk about the Democrat party.
To me the entire thing smack of inflammatory rhetoric, using extreme examples to jump to conclusions that are far from accurate. He also seems to be pigeonholing not just the republican party but any voter who may claim affiliation to the republican party as a holder of these extreme views and attitudes. I do not have the time, nor the wherewithal to go point to point on this long, and in my opinion idiot tirade, I just have to say that if you believe even a tenth of what is written by this person as move than just a twisted distortion of what most people, let alone republicans feel, I am the one who is worried.
That article is garbage. It starts with name-calling and then advances as if the name-calling was reasonable and justified and beyond protest. Partisan nonsense. I don't much care who the guy claims to have been, he has my beliefs, and the beliefs of people that I support completely wrong.
Maybe the guy is a liberal working for Republicans and jsut can't stomach the disagreement anymore. But no one believes in substantive differences between parties and philosophies and ends up parroting the same trite rhetoric of the folk across the aisle. The guy is mean-spirited and flatly wrong. And I don't see any remakrs of substance.
The comment above that CJ doesn't have the time or interest in going line by line resonates with me. This guy isn't wrong with a side of snark. This article is therapy for someone who wants to feel good about himself by building straw men and setting them on fire.
Just one example: using the debt ceiling (routine yada yada) to manufacture a faux economic crisis? In case you, dear reader, also weren't listening when this guy errantly evaluated the position of tea party conservatives, our position is that racking up debt should never have become routine at all. Moreover, increasing the debt ceiling is a guarantee that no probelsm get solved, only that more debt is accrued. We are sometwhat tired of demogoguery and debt being Washington's solution for everything.
Now, I have my beef with establishment Republicans who do not stick to their principles once they get into office. On that point a lot of us can agree regardless of party. But when someone posts a bs article full of mischaracterizations and emotional language, maybe we ought to explore the actual arguments rather than run to the end zone with out misconceptions. Fairly often, I read an article by some conservative and I think "too much", or "not enough meat" or "not the right response". I am starting to wonder if my liberal friends ever do that, as distinct from shouting "yeah!" and reaching for a pitch fork regardless.
Now, a reasonable discussion about what Tea Party people actually believe, that would be great. I promise not to link any articles wherein someone posing as a former liberal accuses the president of being a spy sent from Kenya or similar nonsense. And I promise not to ask for the whole party to be accused of treason.
I promise not to link any articles wherein someone posing as a former liberal accuses the president of being a spy sent from Kenya or similar nonsense. And I promise not to ask for the whole party to be accused of treason.
-Would you mind pointing out what the person said that was factually incorrect?
some things
BNW, I hope one day you have a long series of talks with an actual Republican conservative. I don't know anyone as gullible or naive as you represent. I acknowledge they exist in my party just as they exist in other parties.
On FB a couple of weeks ago, someone was trying to explain how Obama came into the White House as a nonpartisan uniter, and that's why his successes (?) have been diminished. The guy is so blindly partisan that he thinks this uniter talk is somehow true. I don't even knwo where you'd go to read something like that.
I don't know anyone who drinks GOP Koolaid like you say they do. I don't think of you as intellectually dishonest. I just hope you one day find a more representative sample.
In the article? Lots of things. Very many. I gave one example already, but I will try to come back with some more after I finish killing me some samurai.
Long live the Black Chrysanthemum!
I've got a cure for all of the government rhetoric, vitriol, misinformation, and crisis waving.
TERM LIMITS...A single term at the local level, whether it be mayor or city council. You may then serve a single term at the State level, be it as a state-level congressman, governor, or other elected position. You may then serve a SINGLE term at the national level - as a Senator or Representative. After that, you get one shot at becoming a candidate for the Presidency. Whether or not you run for the PResidency, you're political career is over. Time to move on to a job in which you are completely removed from any further or continued poliical influence and aspirations.
Elimination of the TWO-PARTY system. We're supposed to be the have the best democracy in the world, yet we have a two-party system. Take a look at other democratic countries and you see more than two parties.
I vote and see it as a completely pointless exercise. Thanks to the squabbling between the TWO parties, nothing gets done. And contrary to the mudslinging that Republicans hurl about Democrats and Democrats hurl at Republicans, BOTH...let me repeat this BOTH parties are at fault...voters and non-voters even moreso, since we put ALL of these idiots into their offices.
|
|
Elimination of the TWO-PARTY system. We're supposed to be the have the best democracy in the world, yet we have a two-party system. Take a look at other democratic countries and you see more than two parties.
Be careful what you wish for. It's important to recognize what it will take to end this. First off, there's the "First past the post" system of American voting--the candidate with the most votes wins the election. This enforces the two-party system by reducing the vote to either voting FOR or AGAINST the winning candidate. Enough AGAINSTs, and the party switches.
In order to achieve the multi-party and coalition system seen in Europe, Congress as we know it would have to be abolished and replaced with a Parliament. Then, we would not vote for a candidate at all, but for a party. You'd be free to vote for the Libertarians or Greens or whoever, but you couldn't choose individuals. The votes would be tallied, and then the seats would be handed out to the individual parties, to be filled as they so chose. In the end, everyone might, for example, come from New York City and Washington, should the parties so choose.
In order to achieve multiparty representation at the national level, you would have to give up local representation.
That article is garbage. It starts with name-calling and then advances as if the name-calling was reasonable and justified and beyond protest. Partisan nonsense. I don't much care who the guy claims to have been, he has my beliefs, and the beliefs of people that I support completely wrong.
Maybe the guy is a liberal working for Republicans and jsut can't stomach the disagreement anymore. But no one believes in substantive differences between parties and philosophies and ends up parroting the same trite rhetoric of the folk across the aisle. The guy is mean-spirited and flatly wrong. And I don't see any remakrs of substance.
Aren't you just using the age-old trick of demonizing the "enemy" that was also mentioned earlier in this thread, just because you don't agree that the goals described in the article are true?
Whether it's because you truly don't believe they are true or because the "truth" is too embarrassing or uncomfortable to face?Just one example: using the debt ceiling (routine yada yada) to manufacture a faux economic crisis? In case you, dear reader, also weren't listening when this guy errantly evaluated the position of tea party conservatives, our position is that racking up debt should never have become routine at all. Moreover, increasing the debt ceiling is a guarantee that no probelsm get solved, only that more debt is accrued. We are sometwhat tired of demogoguery and debt being Washington's solution for everything.
Funny, where were you during the 8 years of Bush's Presidency, where the surplus was turned into a massive debt?
The Tea Party movement didn't even exist before that pesky socialist Obama came into office, despite Bush being the one who pawned off the country to China in the first place. Where are the protests against Wall Street for f$~+ing things up so much that they had to be bailed out?Now, a reasonable discussion about what Tea Party people actually believe, that would be great. I promise not to link any articles wherein someone posing as a former liberal accuses the president of being a spy sent from Kenya or similar nonsense. And I promise not to ask for the whole party to be accused of treason.
What exactly do the Tea Party people believe?
In keeping government out of their MediCare?Trickle down economy, which still hasn't worked?
Lower the taxes on the rich, because they all have the hope (pipe dream) that one day they will be rich too and enjoy the benefits of lower taxes?
Whether or not you run for the PResidency, you're political career is over. Time to move on to a job in which you are completely removed from any further or continued poliical influence and aspirations.
You mean like lobbying, where you can still make use of all the contacts you made while in office? ;-)
In order to achieve the multi-party and coalition system seen in Europe, Congress as we know it would have to be abolished and replaced with a Parliament. Then, we would not vote for a candidate at all, but for a party. You'd be free to vote for the Libertarians or Greens or whoever, but you couldn't choose individuals.
Not necessarily 100% true. Here in Denmark you can still vote for individual candidates, although they are still part of the party (unless they run as an independent). Your vote counts as a vote for the party, but the individual votes are then often used to figure out which candidate has enough votes to make the cut if the party has a limited number of seats.
E.g. if a party gets 8 seats, but has 15 candidates, it's usually the 8 candidates with the most personal votes who get the seats (but it is ultimately up to the party leadership to distribute the seats they get).
The tea-party movement is such a poster boy for authoritarianism it would be funny -- if it weren't so damn scary.
ROFL! Wait a minute. You were actually serious? Have you actually gone to a Tea Party gathering or are you just listening to the BS that Huffpo/MSNBC is peddling?
Funny, where were you during the 8 years of Bush's Presidency, where the surplus was turned into a massive debt?
The Tea Party movement didn't even exist before that pesky socialist Obama came into office, despite Bush being the one who pawned off the country to China in the first place. Where are the protests against Wall Street for f@&%ing things up so much that they had to be bailed out?
Ron Paul, the founder of the Tea Movement voted against every debt ceiling. Including the ones under Bush. Now, where were YOU in denouncing every democrat in the senate who united in voting against the debt ceiling of 2006? Republicans unite and they are terrorists who hold the world hostage. Democrats do it, and it goes without notice.
For full disclosure, personally I think the democrats were right in 06 and the republicans were right in 11. At least I'm consistent.
Edit- source
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
I think the first step in friendly dialogue is looking for what the other person is saying, and not looking for something you can turn into a fight.
For example, I didn't say Bush ran up the debt. I said Tea Party conservatives oppose running up the debt. I also said I have plenty complaints about the GOP when they don't live up to the principles their voters believe in. For your convenience, I put it all in the same post so you'd have context. Find a quotation of me saying it's okay when Republicans run up the debt, and I will grant you the hypocrisy argument without objection.
The age old trick of demonizing the enemy is not the tactic of conservatives. Certainly not more than anyone else. You might have heard about what insurance companies are "doing to us", or you might note my example from the article of a ridiculous claim - that conservatives ginned up a fake economic crisis - is exactly an example pf demonizing people. The tired argument about corporate masters and tax cuts for the rich are exactly demonization. I'm not involved in that.
I know the garbage described in the article isn't true because I am a tea party conservative. When a pundit accuses the tea party of racism, I know it isn't true, because I belong in that reference group. Also, I know many people from that reference group. Finally, because there's no evidence of racism at tea party events. So again, the claim is demonization, without facts. It isn't that I'm embarrassed to admit I'm a corporate shill or a racist. It's that none of that crap has ever been remotely true.
I'd argue the tea party movement is conservative voters from both parties who are tired of the same old crap. I know a lot of former Democrat Tea Party people. Some ohave changed their registration, some have not. Some have let go of exactly zero of their suspicions about the GOP.
Conservatives don't solely blame Wall Street for how things are now. A big part of the problem is a government that won't stop spending, never keeps its promises about the budget and has as its largest looming problems a debt and currency crisis that threatens to unravel the whole sweater. What's the current solution to the debt crisis? Spend more? On what? The same ideas that haven't improved anything so far? Good call.
This adversarial tack where you look for something to yell about within a larger post, ignoring the full context of the whole comment, it doesn't get us anywhere. And thus the request for a reasonable conversation about tea party conservatives and what they believe. Because it seems clear (when you shoot with a comment like "where were you when Bush added to the debt?") that you aren't really listening to see what someone else thinks, you just want to get mad and try to make someone look dumber than you. Who does that help?
FInally, I love how now it's a "massive" debt. In less than four years, this one president has surpassed Bush, who fully funded two wars and endured 9/11 AND was president for 8 years. You won't catch me defending idiocy like no child left behind or the highway bill or other things. But you can't reasonably ask me to give any credibility to talk of left-wing deficit hawks.
I do think we should emulate some of the behaviors that got us that surplus. Let's cut or eliminate capital gains taxes. Let's cut spending and make a hard ceiling on entitlement growth. Let's enact policies that restore confidence and increase revenues. You'll find me willing to support all that. I don't think it will solve the problem by itself, but it's a better path than the one we're on right now.
What exactly do the Tea Party people believe?
In keeping government out of their MediCare?
Trickle down economy, which still hasn't worked?
Lower the taxes on the rich, because they all have the hope (pipe dream) that one day they will be rich too and enjoy the benefits of lower taxes?
I can not speak for the party,but it seems to have many varied beliefs. The only constant that I can ascertain is that they believe that the U.S. government has gotten so much power. This happened after 8 years of George W. Bush, before President Obama ever took office. So at its core, the Tea Party movement is just as anti-Bush as it is anti-Obama. I guess that would just make them anti-establishment. Anyhow,here is a list of grievances according to a pro-Tea website. I fail to see anything that is pro-authoritanism here, to refute Bugleyman's post.
Edit-I also hope that you will notice that most of those grievances were started under Bush. I think that alot of the Tea anger directed at the President is due to the fact that he is continuing those very same practices, if not actually going further. (like the assassination one. That's a pretty big one.)
Why would we want to be like Europe? Our movies are better, our chicks are hotter, we don't rely on their military, the healthcare is better (for now). We are more generous on an individual level (statistically speaking, not comparing any individuals here). We aren't a European nation, and I consider the claim than any democratic society is somehow a better democracy than us to be completely unsubstantiated.
There's a gamer guy who used to argue on my FB page a lot. He once made the statement that Europeans are "provably happier" than Americans, which is ridiculous. I view statements about the relative worth of different societies in the same vein. We aren't a European nation. We do things here that might not work anywhere else in the world. Other nations are able to do things that have no chance of working here. Social healthcare is an example. When other nations are pitching in on the bill for your defense, you can have a more extensive safety net, up to a point. WHen you join a union where you are going to have to absorb someones carelessness one day, you should probably be more austere.
Look at France. The $56b they might have to absorb if Greece defaults is a serious blow to their economy. $56b isn't that big a deal for us (though it ought to be). We need to be in a place where our economy can handle whatever changes are on the horizon, whether than be surviving in an increasingly anti-American climate, or helping out our friends and neighbors when times are tougher for them. To maximize that ability, we need to be as economically fit as possible, which includes revenues (made by a larger base, not by soaking a smaller one), tightly controlled spending (not assumed annual increases to every budget area), and responsible energy policy (not manufactured dependence on those who would see us always at their mercy).
Anyhoo, there are a tone of good people from all over the world here on these boards. Please don't let anyone suggest for a second that I'm saying we are happier, or a better democracy or any such thing. I am saying every nation is different, and trying to effect change in order to be more like Britain or Finland is poor thinking. We need to be a better USA, not shoehorn a different culture's sensibilities into our framework.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm almost afraid to ask... But does it bother you that these are things that are debateable without beating each other over the head for their wrongness, or is it because you fear that your views would be considered so extreme that you would suffer ridicule and disrespect (if those are even understandable concepts for a goblin ;)) or something third?[Looks at clock and sighs]
T minus 5 days until my self-imposed exile from political threads expires...
Neither. Vigorous debate is the sine qua non of democracy, even workers' democracy, and I am used to and invite being ridiculed. I just was involved in two emotionally-draining, friendship-straining fracases last week, so I gave up political threads for Lent (little known fact: Goblin Lent is in September). [Looks at clock] Hmmm, T minus 4 days and counting...
Also, you're an anti-goblin racist, another blind sheep following Paizo's Big Lie. We can easily understand any concept you pinkskinned monkeys care to name--including String Theory. Shame on you!
ROFL! Wait a minute. You were actually serious? Have you actually gone to a Tea Party gathering or are you just listening to the BS that Huffpo/MSNBC is peddling?
Neither...though I see you are still fond of the false dichotomy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, I didn't say Bush ran up the debt. I said Tea Party conservatives oppose running up the debt.
Which, given the fact that we are in debt, equals massive cuts to government spending, after 8 years of Bush spending like a drunken Kennedy and no one saying a peep. The timing of the sudden need to deal with the debt just as Obamma takes office is... suspicious shall we say? Not so say that the individuals involved are dishonest, but the movement itself has been rather astroturfed as it was taken from Ron Pauls grasp.
The age old trick of demonizing the enemy is not the tactic of conservatives. Certainly not more than anyone else. You might have heard about what insurance companies are "doing to us"
Yeah, let me add an example of that "demonization" when i blast insurance companies.
I had thyroid surgery. Basically it looked like I'd swallowed a tennis ball. Out comes half the thyroid at 3 pm. I need to be antibiotic IV for 8 hours.
The insurgence company complained about me staying overnight. Apparently i was supposed to go home and use the home kit antibiotic/ painkiller injection.
Workers comp insurence: a 300 pound log landed on my foot in front of 5 witnesses. I said in the report that the log fell on my foot. The insurance company said that the toe is not part of the foot, therefore they didn't need to pay for me to get surgery. It took SIX MONTHS of being hung up in the air to get them to do anything... during which time the toe got worse. Because of the delay i needed a second surgery, which they held up for another six months. It STILL hasn't healed right 8 months after surgery.
So no, i am not demonizing the insurance companies. They willingly slapped the horns and goatee on themselves thank you very much.
or you might note my example from the article of a ridiculous claim - that conservatives ginned up a fake economic crisis
Who ginned up the fake economic crisis then? It wasn't the liberals. The debt ceiling was not a crisis. Its a long term trend and yes, something needs to be done, but its not am immediate problem.
- is exactly an example pf demonizing people. The tired argument about corporate masters and tax cuts for the rich are exactly demonization. I'm not involved in that.
Its not demonization its reality. Republican economic policy looks suspiciously like equine veterinary practice, except instead of shoot the horse the answer is lower taxes on the rich.
The economy is going badly? Lower taxes on the rich! It will stimulate the economy
The economy is going well? Lower taxes on the rich and give the people who earned it back their money!
They DON"T phrase it that way but that IS the plan. They want to lower income tax, capital gains tax, and other forms of taxation that primarily affect the rich. How often do you hear a call to lower social security taxes or medicare taxes and use those to pay into the general fund rather than the other way around?
I know the garbage described in the article isn't true because I am a tea party conservative. When a pundit accuses the tea party of racism, I know it isn't true, because I belong in that reference group.
Fallacy of composition. I am not a red brick in the wall, therefore the wall is not red.
It could be going both ways though.
Also, I know many people from that reference group. Finally, because there's no evidence of racism at tea party events.
There's been more than a few... less than politically correct signs at tea party rallies.
Conservatives don't solely blame Wall Street for how things are now. A big part of the problem is a government that won't stop spending, never keeps its promises about the budget and has as its largest looming problems a debt and currency crisis that threatens to unravel the whole sweater. What's the current solution to the debt crisis? Spend more? On what? The same ideas that haven't improved anything so far? Good call.
Exactly what is the connection between washingtons spending and wall streets collapse?
Because it seems clear (when you shoot with a comment like "where were you when Bush added to the debt?") that you aren't really listening to see what someone else thinks, you just want to get mad and try to make someone look dumber than you. Who does that help?
I do not have to take people at face value, sorry. Actions speak louder than words and if some of the tea party's actions don't match their rhetoric i'm going to base things off of actions. The movement appears to be astroturf, not grass roots.
FInally, I love how now it's a "massive" debt. In less than four years, this one president has surpassed Bush, who fully funded two wars and endured 9/11 AND was president for 8 years..
Where are you getting this figure from?
Its not like obama hasn't had to fund those same wars and deal with a massive drop in income that occurred before he even took office.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif
The debt isn't exactly something new, or democrat caused.
I do think we should emulate some of the behaviors that got us that surplus. Let's cut or eliminate capital gains taxes.
WHAT surplus? We didn't have a surplus we had a lack of a deficit in THAT years spending.
You're assuming that washington policy was responsible for the "surplus". Its not. We had the dot com revolution that brought in a ton of cash. Cutting spending has no more chance of bringing that windfall than whistling has of calling up a storm.
Let's cut spending and make a hard ceiling on entitlement growth.
With a rising number of people needing those "entitlements" that they've been paying for for 40 years now that's not possible.
Government swiped the money from the program, using it as a double income tax on working americans, and expected them to die before collecting. They had the temerity to live, and shouldn't be punished for that. Pay the workers back what they've been paying washington for decades.
Let's enact policies that restore confidence and increase revenues.
Are we going to track confidence now? How exactly are you measuring that? What does confidence mean to business people except "we have the republicans in office" ?
Are tea party shennanigans making a fake fight over the debt ceiling and resolving not to raise taxes a dime instilling confidence or what S&P called out specifically as one of the things that spooked them?
You'll find me willing to support all that. I don't think it will solve the problem by itself, but it's a better path than the one we're on right now.
Can you point to any specific deviations from the path we've been on since reagan? Its not like obama did anything drastically new
ROFL! Wait a minute. You were actually serious? Have you actually gone to a Tea Party gathering or are you just listening to the BS that Huffpo/MSNBC is peddling?Neither...though I see you are still fond of the false dichotomy.
Thank you. I just got my answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, I hope one day you have a long series of talks with an actual Republican conservative.
Is that like one of those "real christians" i'm supposed to run into eventually?
|
In order to achieve multiparty representation at the national level, you would have to give up local representation.
That's a bit of a dubious assertion. Some proportional systems work according to party lists, where the politicians chose who is in line to win in order of preference. Generally, that is somewhat anti-democratic to the extent that you will probably see the same old faces, and at several levels the struggle is not with the opposition but with the other people who want to get above you in the list. But it is not a given that proportional systems work according to party lists, as there are other models. And very few proportional systems work on a country-wide level - most operate on a regional level with the results then added up, often with a top-up at the national level. The main benefit of first-past-the-post is clarity - everyone knows the rules. Proportionality normally involves various hybrid systems operating together.
Interesting posts, with a minimum of thumbs in eyes. I'd prefer NO thumbs in eyes, but I'm not sure I'm gonna get that one. Also interested in Goblin Lent.
Which, given the fact that we are in debt, equals massive cuts to government spending, after 8 years of Bush spending like a drunken Kennedy and no one saying a peep.
I am sorry my, friend, but some statements are just factually incorrect. Conservatives complain loudly about big spenders from their own party. You'll recall poor voter turnout for conswervatives in 2008, and the existence of web sites like "Get drunk and vote for John McCain". If you didn't hear me complain about the highway bill or note Ann Coulter calling Bush a "nincompoop" in television, you were choosing not to listen.
There's nothing remotely astroturfed about the Tea Party. Had the GOP seized the movement for its own benefit, there wouldn't have been so many milquetoast conservatives fired from government in the last round of primaries. There's nothing suspicious about the timing of conservative Americans wanting the debt dealt with: we wanted it handled responsibly all along.
One thing I teach my kids is that bad behavior is justified when someone else gets away with it. Bush's legacy will be the creation of democracy in the Middle East (unless we allow that to expire in favor of religious despotism), but it will also be that he was weak on domestic spending and couldn't be bothered to aggressivelt defend his beliefs. If you poll a thousand conservatives, you aren't likely to find a single one that says it was okay for Bush to run up the debt, give up on SSI reform, sign the highway bill, spend more federal money on education, etc. If you think we just glibly excuse our own team when the debt increases, you're choosing to see hypocrisy where there isn't any.
Yeah, let me add an example of that "demonization" when i blast insurance companies.
Of course I can't help you with your personal insurance company experiences. I feel badly for you. But your experiences are not the typical experience with insurance. It is darn tough to be an insurance salesman these days - and the number one reason is that everyone likes the plan they have and think it works fine for them. There are some horror stories - in a nation of 312 million, there would have to be. Although, there aren't enough horror stories that the president didn't have to make some up to sell his worthless bill. I hope you're blowing up the phones of your state insurance commissioner to get them breathing down the company's neck.
Who ginned up the fake economic crisis then? It wasn't the liberals.
The crisis we have is real enough without having to make up a fake one. I am stunned by any supposition that the economic woes we are dealing with are not real. If there's an economic crisis ginned up in recent memory, it's the media complaiing about Bush's jobless recovery while median incomes were rising, home ownership was at a record high, unemployment was dropping below 5% and the DOW raced past 12, 13, and 14K. Not that we didn't have trouble then, part (not all) of the housing statistic was padded by reckless lending at the point of a gun, on the govenrment's guarantee of those securites. We can safely conclude that crisis was real, yes?
You should invest a little time listening to conservatives articulate an argument rather than mischaracterizing it. If you did, you'd know that lowering payroll taxes has been suggested before, and is on the table right now, as a means of stimulating small business stability and growing jobs. Also, cutting capital gains and corporate txes. And the reason isn't that the party is owned by corporations, it's that cutting taxes creates jobs which increases the tax base, which stabilizes or increases revenues. Growth policies work. Tax increases don't.
Got to go to work, but I know there';s more to tackle here. I will say in closing this fallicy of composition thing is mis-applied. I am not claiming the brick wall isn't red because I am not a red brick. I am saying I know hundreds of bricks, and they are not red. I am saying that the media has been caught lying about the color of the bricks. I am saying that the claim of the red brick wall is decades old and we have precious few red bricks in evidence. Whether its tea party racism or willful ignorance about spending, the claim that it applies to any reference group ought to be accompanies by evidence, and there isn't any. In fact, saying there have been more than a few politically incorrect signs a tea party rallies makes you guilty of the fallicy yourself. Politically correct doesn't equal racist, and a few signs (some of them we know planted by anti-tea party activists, who are not ashamed to admit they just want other people to know what we "really" believe) doesn't mean the reference group is remotely affected by their presence. There is, and always has been, a yawning chasm between the reality of conservative beliefs, and the ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated claims of morons like Garofalo.
It just turns out the wall isn't red.
our chicks are hotterSorry, married one. Named "The Winner" in my dorm. On this point, you're wrong. :)
Come on, now. No one said that Europe didn't have its share of hot chicks. Be fair. : }
Andrew:
My post didn't attack a person or provide snark in response to anyone else's post. My first post denounced a ridiculous article. You could say I aggressively attacked the author of that article, sure. But not anyone here. Calling that article garbage is in know way being snarly or facetious with anyone actually in the friendly conversation.
Also, you have this composition claim, too, and I am baffled by it. I never said "you'll never find any racism among tea partiers because I am not a racist". I said the movement isn't racist based on two things: I know hundreds of them and don't know any racists, and there's no evidence that the movement is racist. I am confused at the rush of some to point out classic logical fallicies without thinking about them first.
A couple of weeks ago, someone made the claim that even if an assertion is true, it shouldn't be made if it's a fallicy. I wonder if sometimes winning an argument is more impoprtant than pursuing truth. Claiming the composition fallicy is silly when stacked against the claim that I know HUNDREDS of folk from this movement and NONE of them are bigots.
FACT: I have seen hundreds of bricks that are not red.
FACT: I have not seen any bricks that are red.
CONCLUSION: This brick wall is not red.
|
|
Come on, now. No one said that Europe didn't have its share of hot chicks. Be fair. : }our chicks are hotterSorry, married one. Named "The Winner" in my dorm. On this point, you're wrong. :)
See? This is the twisting of statements that keeps us all angry, and tends to make us all think the opposite side are idiots.
I didn't say you said there were no hot chicks in Europe. I said you said that Americans were hotter. I have proof that that statement is wrong.
One thing I teach my kids is that bad behavior is justified when someone else gets away with it.
Just... wow. And I thought you were anti-moral relativism.
For the record, I believe that there is no justification for bad behavior; only excuses.
One thing I teach my kids is that bad behavior is justified when someone else gets away with it.Just... wow. And I thought you were anti-moral relativism.
For the record, I believe that there is no justification for bad behavior; only excuses.
I'm hoping he was missing an 'nt on the is...
Thank you. I just got my answer.ROFL! Wait a minute. You were actually serious? Have you actually gone to a Tea Party gathering or are you just listening to the BS that Huffpo/MSNBC is peddling?Neither...though I see you are still fond of the false dichotomy.
You're welcome.
Say hi for me at your next Al-Qaeda gathering, won't you?
The only claim I'd make is there's some fundamental failures in critical thinking (or communication) going on here.
Experience has taught me that it is the former. Sadly, such a lack precludes recognition by those so afflicted. :)
Thank you. I just got my answer.ROFL! Wait a minute. You were actually serious? Have you actually gone to a Tea Party gathering or are you just listening to the BS that Huffpo/MSNBC is peddling?Neither...though I see you are still fond of the false dichotomy.You're welcome.
Say hi for me at your next Al-Qaeda gathering, won't you?
Tea Party= Al Qaeda? You should go to work for MSNBC Bugleyman. You'd feel welcome with the other nuts there.