Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Palin is getting to be like Jesse Jackson, whenever there's a chance to get before a camera, she's there. 

You just gotta love her gun toting image.  How 21st century!

QuoteOn Twitter, Palin told supporters disheartened by the health care vote: "Don't Retreat, instead - RELOAD!" She directed them to her Facebook page, where she used rifle scope-like crosshairs to identify the 20 seats she hopes SarahPAC will flip from blue to red.

Read more (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/27/1549689/palin-denounces-violence-but-gun.html#ixzz0jNddOFeu)

But I really enjoyed this reader's comment:

QuoteSarah Palin: National Spokesperson for the Society of Logic Impaired, Sore Losers of America, National Quitters Association, and History Redactors International.

The MORONs (Master Obfuscators Ruining Our Nation) crown a new champion who is now out duping the gullible, backward thinking base of the Grotesquely Obtuse Pigs.

I think we can find a job for this person.  ;D

Actually such articles reflect more on the people publishing them than the people they are against due to the emotionally-driven content they contain. Those who oppose the tea parties and those who favor Obamacare should actually try debating the arguments using logic not just name-calling. I have seen first-hand evidence of deliberate distortion by the media. There was one demonstration in which a black man was standing with a rifle slung over his shoulder. An article came out denouncing the protestors as "white racists" and showed the man carrying the gun except that they cropped the photo so you couldn't see his race.

Considering that millions of Americans are not happy with the current government including those who actually voted for Obama and are registered Democrats and the fact that hundreds of thousands if not millions are protesting nationwide tells me that this is something that should seriously be looked into. I'm sorry but calling large groups of people just "morons" and "racists" and "gun-toting nuts" may work to try to discredit their views for awhile but sooner or later these emotionally-driven personal attacks will soon be seen as increasingly desparate moves and even more people will start dismissing them and actually listening to what the demonstrators have to say.

Likewise, for those who don't like gun-toting, too bad. It is in the U.S. Constitution, there are hundreds of millions of guns in the U.S., and they are not going anywhere. Anyone who doesn't respect Americans' rights to self-defense can kindly move to another country that treats its population as subjects instead of citizens.

As to transgender issues or even GLBT in general, I'd like to know what the Obama administration has actually done. Sure, he appointed a trans person to his panel and he did sign hate crimes legislation but as far as I'm concerned this is more of a smoke screen to make him look good instead of real "change we can believe in." I'll believe it when ENDA is passed and the Supreme Court declares the marriage laws unconstitutional and allows any two adults for any reason to enter into any contract whether gay, straight, male, female, trans, whatever. All I've seen done so far is an administration requiring the entire country most of which already has healthcare to now have "forced healthcare" due to a smaller number of people who have no healthcare. If this is so great, let's see how many trans people will be able to get our surgeries, hormones, etc. at an affordable rate and how much more tax we won't have to start paying. Keep smoking and dream on.

You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

Quitter is not name calling, its an objective summation of her experience as a gov in a minor state.

Anyone who doesn't respect Americans' rights to self-defense can kindly move to another country that treats its population as subjects instead of citizens

Can we now say the same thing back at 'cha?  If you don't like the 'socialism' of Obama, or the Progressive agenda, can't you be the ones to move this time?

Considering that millions of Americans are not happy with the current government including those who actually voted for Obama and are registered Democrats and the fact that hundreds of thousands if not millions are protesting nationwide tells me that this is something that should seriously be looked into. I'm sorry but calling large groups of people just "morons" and "racists" and "gun-toting nuts" may work to try to discredit their views for awhile but sooner or later these emotionally-driven personal attacks will soon be seen as increasingly desparate moves and even more people will start dismissing them and actually listening to what the demonstrators have to say.

Consider some punctuation, that's one hell of a run on sentence there.  But, you know what, just like on the extreme left, a lot of people on the extreme right are morons.  That's why the Blazing Saddles line is so funny, 'cause it's true.  And this ends pretty much where you are trying to steer it, with a couple of people shot, and then the entire right-wing tossed in a dung heap for over a generation because of it.  I'll never understand how they got a pass on Oklahoma City (Oh yeah, because Clinton was a moron too), but they should have had to eat that one and run against that image for a decade and a half now.  Goldwater was wrong, extremism is never right.  Which is why he lost by the way.

Right now the "protesters" are screaming about health care reform being passed.  They are all worked up because the republicans got them worked up with some heavy spin on the evils of health care.

It's less important to focus on the emotionally charged campaign waged by the republicans against health care reform than it is to focus on how easy it is to get millions of people worked up into a fervor.  Politicians and their gurus know there's a lot of sheep out there who want to be told how to think and what to do.  And they know how to work that to their advantage.  That's why they are in office.

But it's irresponsible and bordering on criminal for anyone in the public eye to place crosshairs on anyone, directly or indirectly.  There are too many emotionally unstable people who are sheep and, for them, all it takes is one message and they have all the encouragement they need to carry out what they interpret as their "orders".

Palin, and her right wing buddies, need to accept responsibility for their shoot-em-up campaigns and the potential impact they may have on the people of this country.  "Win at any cost" is not a responsible policy.

It seems to me that our culture is in the first motions of civil war. Liberal life styles simply do not mix with the right wing religious.
Neither group should be required to live by life standards they do not agree with.
The two ideals have grown so far apart that the only solution is disolution of the union. I see 3 maybe 4 nations developing, probably 20-50 years from now I wager.
There will likely be civil war and class and sectarian struggles.
As a former Christian and now as a transwoman of an Earth religion I can see the complete disconects between groups that are going to bring about our downfall as a nation.
It is now just a matter of time before hatred tears us apart.
Goddess save us all.

How 'bout we just stop voting these self-serving politicians into office and vote in people who care about the country and its citizens more than they care about themselves?

It is they who are driving the wedge.

I say we create the Acceptance Party - the party that believes in human rights and the right to be who you are and encourages acceptance over criticism.  There doesn't have to be any one belief, any one religion, any one way to live one's life.  Be happy but don't hurt anyone in the process.

Quote from: Julie Marie on March 30, 2010, 11:04:56 AM
How 'bout we just stop voting these self-serving politicians into office and vote in people who care about the country and its citizens more than they care about themselves?

I prefer the vote out on regular intervals option. power and control in the form of being able to draft and pass legislation tends to corrupt, especially under the influence of bribes from special interests. (or just plain pork barrel spending)

QuotePalin is getting to be like Jesse Jackson, whenever there's a chance to get before a camera, she's there.

Can't quibble with this.

Quote
But I really enjoyed this reader's comment:

Calling people you disagree with disparaging names is hardly original or a demonstration of talent. Rather, it's the lowest common denominator of American Politics.

Quote
Actually such articles reflect more on the people publishing them than the people they are against due to the emotionally-driven content they contain. Those who oppose the tea parties and those who favor Obamacare should actually try debating the arguments using logic not just name-calling.

Bravo. Your whole post is praise-worthy.

Quote
I'll never understand how they got a pass on Oklahoma City

Mainly because those nutters had pretty much zero to do with mainstream conservatism. Pretty much the same reason we don't hang PETA people who blow up labs and stuff around the necks of environmentally conscience lefties.

Quote
Right now the "protesters" are screaming about health care reform being passed.  They are all worked up because the republicans got them worked up with some heavy spin on the evils of health care.

It's not the evils of health care, or the evils of reform....it's simply a fundamental philosophical difference about the underlying assumptions, and about the practical application of the measured passed. Already we are seeing business calculate the negative impact on the bottom line and that can't be good for an economy already hurting.

that doesn't mean any of the protesters oppose every detail of the bill or that they think no reform is needed. What they oppose is excessive government intrusion, and (what they perceive as) a massive negative economic impact.

I kinda thought the great thing about this country was that people could speak up about what disdpleased them.

I wonder - did you have this much skepticism about anti-war protesters?

Quote
Politicians and their gurus know there's a lot of sheep out there who want to be told how to think and what to do.  And they know how to work that to their advantage.  That's why they are in office.

Indeed, this is true. and it's true across the spectrum. Which is, by the way, pretty much exactly why Obama got elected.

QuoteBut it's irresponsible and bordering on criminal for anyone in the public eye to place crosshairs on anyone, directly or indirectly.

Oh please. if this had been done at HuffPost or Daily Kos or Move On, you wouldn't have blinked. It's obviously cultural symbolism, and means no more than if I say "we're in the home stretch of this race" i'm trying to get you on a horse.

Quote
It seems to me that our culture is in the first motions of civil war. Liberal life styles simply do not mix with the right wing religious.

I think you might be right, but the tension right not is not remotely driven by religion, nor is it focused on social issues. That's not to say that the Palin-supports are likely to vote for broad rights for LGBT people...but that's also not why they are in the streets.

Quote
The two ideals have grown so far apart that the only solution is disolution of the union. I see 3 maybe 4 nations developing, probably 20-50 years from now I wager.

I used to think so but right now I don't think it would take that much. I think if you drew a line East extending the southern border of Iowa...and one north from the Westernmost corner of DC...until they intersected and used the west boundary of Minnesota and Iowa as the western border and the Potomac as a border - and you took everything Northeast of those boundaries and ceded it to Canada, then left wingers would have a powerful and prominent country - maybe qualifying as a "super power" - which supported their values and the right wingers would have a less prominent country (on the order of Canada or Australia) that supported there's.

And the only folks out of place would be those along the West coast, but I don't see how it's practical to take the narrow strip of counties along the coast that always votes left of center and separate them from the rest of the continent.

Quote
There will likely be civil war and class and sectarian struggles.
As a former Christian and now as a transwoman of an Earth religion I can see the complete disconects between groups that are going to bring about our downfall as a nation.

If we are rational, there doesn't have to be violence. And there doesn't have to be a downfall, just a rational realignment. i can tell you that if the New England states ask to quit the U.S. and join Canada (or be independent) that the majority of right wingers would say "Good luck to yall" and be glad of it.

Quote
How 'bout we just stop voting these self-serving politicians into office and vote in people who care about the country and its citizens more than they care about themselves?

I totally agree.

And so do the tea party folks.

They just have a completely different view of what such people would believe than you do, thus the problem.

Quote
I say we create the Acceptance Party - the party that believes in human rights and the right to be who you are and encourages acceptance over criticism.  There doesn't have to be any one belief, any one religion, any one way to live one's life.  Be happy but don't hurt anyone in the process.

Indeed. It's why I have a lot of sympathy for the Libertarians. My fondest wish (politically) is that the party who's closest to me economically would not be sullied by the obsession with social issues.

I don't question the right of the religious conservatives to push for their point of view, and mine to push back - it just pisses me off that in order to push back, i would be forced to support the economic ruin of the country.

Quote
power and control in the form of being able to draft and pass legislation tends to corrupt,

and sadly, there's no cure for this syndrome.

Jeferson was of the opinion that each generation should be allowed to write a new constitution and laws reflective of that generation.
Often he is quoted saying that the constitution should be re-writen every 20 years.

I think that is a good idea in theory but it definatly would raise issues.

One thing about Palin is that she'll stir the pot but then tries to distanceherself from the way people react to her words. She can't do that. If somone get hurt or killed, she is just as guilty as if she pulled the trigger herself.

I've soured on politics anyway. Both parties are beholden too much to corporate interests.

Gennee          

Oh yeah, we're going to secede from the Union and we'll be our own nation.  So, I kinda gotta ask, how did that work out last time for ya'll?  Right.

It will not happen, pretty much for the same reasons that it wasn't allowed to happen last time.  There is way too much money involved. 

Plus that old order is dying out.  And it never had the money to make the decisions anyway.  It controlled some - and not very important - bits of social policy, but that's about it.  Pretty much the same people who opposed Health Care also opposed (and run on repealing or rolling back) Social Security, Civil Rights, Prayer in School, Abortion Rights.  Again, how'd that work out?  Real well eh?  Even with a Republican majority in Congress, and a 'Pub in the White House them people's got zip, zero, zilch.

I'm sure part of the reason that the right is so mad at Obama (other than the fact that he won) is that he did what he said he was going to do.  No 'Pub president has done that since Nixon.

Of course, believing in some of the better notions of governing does have an upside when you actually have to govern.  Imagine that.

I bet just about every dem wishes they were on that Palin hit list, if only because it's so easy to run against Palin.  The sum total of her political power has been to scuttle the McCain effort even faster than he was doing it (and that's some power there, I'll hand you that) and get some Dem elected in a New York District that had been Republican from just about the beginning of time.  I know she is trying hard to do an end-run around the Party and all that, but the only thing she will really accomplish is to continue to ham-string those that can be painted with her brush.

All the tea-baggers did was pretty much guarantee a Dem majority for the next election (and beyond) because no 'Pub was allowed to support a single, little, teeny-tiny bit of Health Care, there by they are all going to have to run opposed to it (because of the votes on the record) and they are going to find that real hard to do. Because faced with problems (and everyone seems to agree that we have some problems) doing something - even the 'wrong' thing - is better than doing nothing.

We've all heard from some of our poorer corporations, like AT&T that this is going to cost them money.  They are right, but do you know how they lose money?  Because they just can't write off prescription subsidies anymore. Get it? Companies like AT&T were being given your tax dollars to subisdize the prescription drug coverage that they themselves promised to their retirees, then they were able to deduct those subsidies from their taxes.  Now they have lost that CORPORATE WELFARE and are out the money, that they really were not paying out in the first place.  Well boo-hoo.

Yeah, run to roll all this back.  Run saying that the teabaggers are real patriots.  Keep running on the 3 Gs (Guns, God and Gays) and keep on losing.  We needed a new version of the Republican Party anyway, one that fiscally conservative, but very socially liberal.  And given a few more electoral defeats (you know, like the last two) the 'Pubs with the money are going to go out and do exactly that.

Quote from: Laura Hope on March 30, 2010, 12:21:13 PMCalling people you disagree with disparaging names is hardly original or a demonstration of talent. Rather, it's the lowest common denominator of American Politics.

It's what politics has become.  Personally, I wish the mud slinging would disappear but it only seems to be getting worse.  BTW, the part of that reader's comment I liked had to do with quantifying and qualifying who and what Sarah Palin really is.

QuoteI kinda thought the great thing about this country was that people could speak up about what disdpleased them.

Freedom of speech should not mean you can make personal threats against someone.  After the health care bill passed, many dissenters made such threats against the politicians who voted for the bill.  That's the kind of thing I had a problem with.  If someone wants to rant and rave, by all means let them.  But we should never allow threats of violence to pass as freedom of speech.

QuoteOh please. if this had been done at HuffPost or Daily Kos or Move On, you wouldn't have blinked. It's obviously cultural symbolism, and means no more than if I say "we're in the home stretch of this race" i'm trying to get you on a horse.

Well, I don't read HuffPost or Daily Kos or Move On but had they said it I would have responded the same way.  My comment, as stated, still stands.  Please don't impart your interpretation of who I am into what I write because you may be wrong, again.

means no more than if I say "we're in the home stretch of this race" i'm trying to get you on a horse.

Given the problems they have spelling their protest signs correctly, I'm going to have to really doubt that subtle of a distinction.

Quote from: tekla on March 30, 2010, 04:49:49 PM
Oh yeah, we're going to secede from the Union and we'll be our own nation.  So, I kinda gotta ask, how did that work out last time for ya'll?  Right.

A very great many things don't happen now the same way they did 150 years ago.

Quote
It will not happen, pretty much for the same reasons that it wasn't allowed to happen last time.  There is way too much money involved. 

this, on the other hand, is pretty much true and presents the obvious rub.

Quote
Plus that old order is dying out.  And it never had the money to make the decisions anyway.  It controlled some - and not very important - bits of social policy, but that's about it.  Pretty much the same people who opposed Health Care also opposed (and run on repealing or rolling back) Social Security, Civil Rights, Prayer in School, Abortion Rights.  Again, how'd that work out?  Real well eh?  Even with a Republican majority in Congress, and a 'Pub in the White House them people's got zip, zero, zilch.

Which is pretty much why they they are so pissed off now. It would be a mistake to assume they are big fans of the GOP just because most of them are right of center.

I'd suggest that the protesters are almost entirely economically motivated. there surely are pro-lifers (for instance) in the crowd, but they are not motivated by abortion to be at the demonstrations.

Quote
I'm sure part of the reason that the right is so mad at Obama (other than the fact that he won) is that he did what he said he was going to do.  No 'Pub president has done that since Nixon.

Some he did, some he hasn't. A lot of things he's done exactly the opposite of what he said he'd do, both things that should be mainstream and things that the left expected of him (How's the "closing GITMO" thing working out?) - which is pretty much exactly like every president since ever.

Quote
Of course, believing in some of the better notions of governing does have an upside when you actually have to govern.  Imagine that.

I bet just about every dem wishes they were on that Palin hit list, if only because it's so easy to run against Palin.  The sum total of her political power has been to scuttle the McCain effort even faster than he was doing it (and that's some power there, I'll hand you that) and get some Dem elected in a New York District that had been Republican from just about the beginning of time.  I know she is trying hard to do an end-run around the Party and all that, but the only thing she will really accomplish is to continue to ham-string those that can be painted with her brush.

All the tea-baggers did was pretty much guarantee a Dem majority for the next election (and beyond) because....

I had to stop reading here because I can't really debate against self-delusion.

---

Post Merge: March 30, 2010, 08:22:06 PM

---

QuoteFreedom of speech should not mean you can make personal threats against someone.  After the health care bill passed, many dissenters made such threats against the politicians who voted for the bill.  That's the kind of thing I had a problem with.  If someone wants to rant and rave, by all means let them.  But we should never allow threats of violence to pass as freedom of speech.

Are you under the impression that this is new or that it only comes from the right?

I was flipping through Palin's book (horrors!) while waiting on a prescription just today and came across a passage where she described her children's life being threatened even while she was governor before she was in the national race, and again, specifically, while the 2008 campaign was going on.

Why didn't this get the public hand-wringing that's going on now?

Why is it only of so very much concern for the country when it happens to a left-of-center politician?

IMO, it's because it reinforces the leftist paradigm that says those who defend gun rights are dangerous, and that nicely sync's up with the knee-jerk urge to scores points against people on the right.

But it is an utter disconnect from reality to believe that inflammatory rhetoric, dangerous language, or allusions to (or outright threats of) violence are confined to or even more prominent on one side of the spectrum as opposed to the other.

Yet EVERY time this sort of thread appears, the implication is that "dangerous right wingers are influencing unstable extremest to violent action and should be held accountable" - with no hint that it cuts the other way in equal measure.

QuoteAre you under the impression that this is new or that it only comes from the right?

No.  Are you?

QuoteWhy didn't this get the public hand-wringing that's going on now?

While I wouldn't call it public hand wringing, a rather emotionally charged description, I do remember the public being very much against any threats made against Palin and her family and I was right there with them.  Still, that doesn't excuse Palin or her supporters from doing the same thing.

QuoteYet EVERY time this sort of thread appears, the implication is that "dangerous right wingers are influencing unstable extremest to violent action and should be held accountable" - with no hint that it cuts the other way in equal measure.

Well, if that's the case, maybe they need to get a new PR manager.

By their own admission, words and actions, the "right wingers" are against same-sex marriage, against ENDA, against DADT, and basically against any equal rights for LGBT people.  I just can't support that.  Anyone who wants to is free to do so.  But don't expect a lot of sympathy when you lose your job or are discriminated against legally.

Quote from: Julie Marie on March 30, 2010, 11:33:03 PM
No.  Are you?

Well, if I were to only listen to my left of center friends on the various boards I post on, or to the traditional media - I'd have to.

Quote
While I wouldn't call it public hand wringing, a rather emotionally charged description, I do remember the public being very much against any threats made against Palin and her family and I was right there with them.  Still, that doesn't excuse Palin or her supporters from doing the same thing.

First, I never employ the "it's alright because they do it too"  - I think it is intellectually weak and contemptible. So that's not my point here.

Second, I actually pay attention to what people on the right say and do and this is the first I've heard of her getting these threats (though it's easy enough to assume since it's pretty much the cost of doing business on the national political stage) and I sure as heck didn't hear any hue and cry from her political opponents that such threats were out of line.

I'm sure that any person anywhere on the spectrum (save the infinitesimally small nut fringe on either edge) would, if ask, condemn death threats or threats of any sort of violence in the generic question. that's a given.

But what has been my experience is that when a right-of-center figure gets derided, threatened, or harassed, it goes unremarked upon except by a few who muster the courage to suggest that the person ask for it by being so provocative and "hateful" themselves.

If it happens to a leftist, then the story-line is "noble caring public servant threatened by unhinged right wing loonies"

I will take it as a given that this is not YOUR reaction, but it is most certainly how it's played in the media and among vocal let wing public figures.

Quote
Well, if that's the case, maybe they need to get a new PR manager.

By their own admission, words and actions, the "right wingers" are against same-sex marriage, against ENDA, against DADT, and basically against any equal rights for LGBT people.  I just can't support that.  Anyone who wants to is free to do so.  But don't expect a lot of sympathy when you lose your job or are discriminated against legally.

I disagree with all those positions, and have repeatedly bemoaned the fact that those who I otherwise agree with are on the wrong side of those issues and explained why I prioritize as I do.

I also don't spend a lot of time suggesting the law should be saving me from...pretty much anything in this regard. I'm fully aware of the implications of my choices.

All that said, I do not subscribe to the notion that these misguided political positions are driven by "hatred" and have no patience for the mythology that because these are "hateful" people they can be treated in a manner that politicians with the correct view should never be treated.

Again, this may not be your personal view - but it's a very common view on the left. I don't treat left-of-center politicians who are as antagonistic towards "the religious right" as any on the right are towards the LGBT community (and more so) as contemptible and worthy of my scorn and badmouthing - I just respectfully disagree with them.

I find myself in no-man's-land.

I'm thoroughly embarrassed by many of my Christian peers for their ignorance and in some cases for their hatefulness, and I'm thoroughly embarrassed by some of my LGBT peers for exactly the same reasons.

Part of the delusion is applying politics to party preference, "right vs. left," or to particular politicians. It is far more important to focus on ideas than the politicians who share them. For instance, I'm obviously for GLBT rights as I'm sure most of us on this board are as well. However, why should I vote for a politican who supports ENDA if virtually everything else he supports I oppose? What ends up happening is basically people just vote for their particular special interest issue neglecting the bigger picture. I highly doubt there is one politican in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House who I agree 100% with. You pick up a GLBT magazine and they all support the politicians who support those issues. You pick up a hunting magazine and they all support the politicians for gun rights. You pick up a parenting magazine and they support politicans who cater to that magazine's views on education and healthcare reform. The problem is you won't find a politican who is likely to share all of your views.

So it goes on and on with just back and forth generalizing that conservatives think this way and liberals think that way or what constitutes a Republican or Democrat. In the end, little is accomplished. We need to look at the ideas and the issues.

Healthcare is an issue but so is privacy, taxation, the economy, jobs, debt, and government intervention. I believe you will be hard-pressed to find people at the tea parties who oppose Obamacare to actually oppose healthcare reform. Most people--conservatives and liberals--recognize a need for reform. The problem is that many people such as those at the tea parties are not going to accept certain types of healthcare reform even if it does mean much better healthcare if it violates their other views such as decreased privacy, increased taxation, negative impacts on jobs and the economy, increased national debt, and more government in their lives. It may sound simple to say that these people "just hate Obama" or "don't want Democrats taking any credit." However, this is not simple and not true. I really believe that it ultimately comes down to a personal ethics battle of choice vs. control.

There's a LOT of people who vote single issue, a LOT.  And, while I don't have the numbers, I'd guess it skews the ultimate goal of most Americans.  Truth is, most people just don't want to take the time to get to know all aspects of a politician, so they go with their emotions.

My priorities are upholding the Constitution, following the Principles of Democracy and basically accepting people for who they are and not trying to shove any one doctrine, one set of beliefs or any one way to act or present oneself down anyone's throat.

Neither party has these priorities.  Mostly it's "what do I need to do to keep my job (or get elected)" that drives the actions of politicians.

To be a successful politician all you have to do well is get votes.  Whatever it takes to do that might have nothing to do with serving the public.  And that's why we see the caliber of people we do in public life.  Those skills attract a certain type of person.  Doing what the voters put you in office to do is only important when your re-election is in jeopardy.

What saddens me is what politics has become - mud slinging, nasty, down and dirty.  It's more about the lesser of two evils than someone who is right for the job.  It's about power, wealth and greed.  This could be a hell of a lot better place to live if we just cleaned house and let the incoming elected know we're not going to take any more of this crap.

I can only "amen" both the last two posts. Well said both of you.

One solution is to make it just as easy to recall a politician as it is to elect them, including the President. A President may have well below a 50% approval rating but unless he commits a crime and gets impeached the public has to wait until the next election to get rid of him. The public should be able to vote out presidents, governors, senators, representatives, and others just as easily as they can vote them in. That might make politicans take every day of their job much more seriously.

The masses are too stupid for that and it would cripple the government and waste even more money than it already does. Everyones' opponents would just spend all their time smearing them, and incumbents would do nothing but defend their positions.

If you want a government that achieves nothing, there are better ways.

A recall has the "problem" of making it difficult for politicians to make "tough" decisions, and it keeps them in perpetual campaign mode.  Also, it takes a fairly higher disapproval number to be fairly certain that there will be a another candidate who is actually more favorable.  Obama in the 40s of approval is probably still the consensus choice to be President.  McCain, Palin, Romney, and Huckabee can't beat him right now, and I don't see a person outside of the R/D paradigm getting serious consideration.

As for the original article, the premise appears correct.  While ostensibly condemning violence, Palin is quite guilty of fueling it.  Lying ("death panels") and violent imagery/language are designed to get people highly motivated to be loyal to her and her party, but the devices she uses also encourage uncivil criminal behavior.  Outcomes cannot always be controlled, but you can judge the means that someone uses to achieve their ends.  Considering the means Palin has used (especially the lying), her behavior is deplorable.  But then, her quitting as governor (where there would be tough work to do budget-wise with the recession kicking in) to set up a book deal and get a gig at Fox News suggests she's not really serious about doing something constructive.

Quote from: cynthialee on March 30, 2010, 12:34:48 PM
Jeferson was of the opinion that each generation should be allowed to write a new constitution and laws reflective of that generation.
Often he is quoted saying that the constitution should be re-writen every 20 years.

I think that is a good idea in theory but it definatly would raise issues.

I wouldn't worry too much about Jefferson.  Conservatives are writing him out of our children's history books as we speak.  In two generations, no one will know the difference between him and James Polk.

---

Post Merge: April 01, 2010, 04:03:42 AM

---

Quote from: Britney_413 on April 01, 2010, 01:56:59 AM
One solution is to make it just as easy to recall a politician as it is to elect them, including the President. A President may have well below a 50% approval rating but unless he commits a crime and gets impeached the public has to wait until the next election to get rid of him. The public should be able to vote out presidents, governors, senators, representatives, and others just as easily as they can vote them in. That might make politicans take every day of their job much more seriously.

This type of government resulted in Prop 8.  If American people had a better media, and were overall more intelligent then this might work.  But as it is, we are a stupid, lazy, and fat country that has been bought and sold over so many times, we can't even understand that we're being screwed beyond some vague tin foiled affectation to it's affect.  A kind of gross cultural mumbling if you will.

Not that any of it matters.  We're a bloated dying empire.  We're involved in two protracted wars that have decimated our economy and will continue to do so for as long as the eye can see (you can't defeat "terrorism").  We don't make anything anymore.  Our chief services are culture and financial services.  But as our kids get dumber and dumber with our poorly run, poorly constructed, poorly funded schools we won't even be able to do those things.

We needed change.  But Obama so far has not been radical enough to give the change we needed.  His center right policies will not work at addressing the complex problems that face us.

Be wary of calling US kids "dumb."  The under 30 crowd tends to be more supportive GLBT rights than older generations, so at the very least they tend to demonstrate more intelligence on this issue.  They may go through a decline relative to the rest of the world, but I think you are giving too much credit to the older people they are replacing.

Are there any people in the USA who are Conservative, but not Right-Wing extremists.
The sort of people who are in favour of stable families, regardless of the gender of the parents, or who don't believe that the goverment should be looking into peoples bedrooms?
The sort of person who supports "a safety net to catch those who fall, but reject any ceiling to stop those who are rising"? (Sir Robert Menzies, PM on the Australian welfare system in the 1950's).
The sort of people who still hold the concept of duty, and see that a nation has a responsibility to help those who fall by the wayside back on their feet?
Sir Winston Churchill would be chauffered in his Rolls to the Post Office to collect his Aged Pension, because it was his right as a British subject, even though he paid more in tax.

Basically do you have any "Normal" people over there, because from here it looks likeAmerican society has totally lost the plot on this question.

It depends on your standard of "conservative."  There are people who who fit the remaining criteria, but they are more likely to be called "liberals" or even "socialists" by certain others (notably staunch right-wingers) in the country, even though in an absolute sense they may be moderate or even carry a conservative lean.

And then, it depends on your definition of "normal."  Typical ("normal") people in the US are fairly immature when it comes to statesmanship (finding solutions rather than engaging in turf wars).  If by "normal" you mean wise, constructive, and educated on the issues, we have heaps of these people, but they appear to be a minority.

Quote from: Kaelin on April 01, 2010, 03:41:40 AM
A recall has the "problem" of making it difficult for politicians to make "tough" decisions, and it keeps them in perpetual campaign mode.  Also, it takes a fairly higher disapproval number to be fairly certain that there will be a another candidate who is actually more favorable.  Obama in the 40s of approval is probably still the consensus choice to be President.  McCain, Palin, Romney, and Huckabee can't beat him right now, and I don't see a person outside of the R/D paradigm getting serious consideration.

As for the original article, the premise appears correct.  While ostensibly condemning violence, Palin is quite guilty of fueling it.  Lying ("death panels") and violent imagery/language are designed to get people highly motivated to be loyal to her and her party, but the devices she uses also encourage uncivil criminal behavior.  Outcomes cannot always be controlled, but you can judge the means that someone uses to achieve their ends.  Considering the means Palin has used (especially the lying), her behavior is deplorable.  But then, her quitting as governor (where there would be tough work to do budget-wise with the recession kicking in) to set up a book deal and get a gig at Fox News suggests she's not really serious about doing something constructive.

On another board there was an interesting column posted, from an ostensibly neutral source and a writer who claimed to be a moderate.

I don't repost it here because I have no interest in defending whether or not the writer is in fact a moderate.

But what he did contribute to this conversation is this - he posted a selection of photos from both the Searchlight event, and a left-wing protest that happened in LA on the same day. And it was just as easy to find incendiary, sometimes violent imagery at the left wing rally as at the right wing rally.

Point being, imagery and rhetoric are loaded with provocative metaphors all across the political spectrum, yet it only becomes "dangerous" when we talk about right wingers.

---

Post Merge: April 02, 2010, 01:27:50 AM

---

Quote from: justmeinoz on April 01, 2010, 06:51:29 AM
Are there any people in the USA who are Conservative, but not Right-Wing extremists.
The sort of people who are in favour of stable families, regardless of the gender of the parents, or who don't believe that the goverment should be looking into peoples bedrooms?
The sort of person who supports "a safety net to catch those who fall, but reject any ceiling to stop those who are rising"? (Sir Robert Menzies, PM on the Australian welfare system in the 1950's).
The sort of people who still hold the concept of duty, and see that a nation has a responsibility to help those who fall by the wayside back on their feet?
Sir Winston Churchill would be chauffered in his Rolls to the Post Office to collect his Aged Pension, because it was his right as a British subject, even though he paid more in tax.

Basically do you have any "Normal" people over there, because from here it looks likeAmerican society has totally lost the plot on this question.

Yes, there are.

I'm one of them and I am FAR from alone.

Fox News treated Anti-War protesters during the Bush years, almost exactly how MSNBC treats tea baggers right now.  It's probably less important who is saying what about whom--and more important to look at the way the media, no matter which side it is flagging for, demeans the right to assemble.   Something that is one of the purest expressions within a democracy.

Now the simple thing is to say that the media is doing these things for political reasons.  But since it's both sides that do it, what politics is that serving?  No the reason the media does this is because it creates a sense of fear amongst the side they are preaching to, and anger from the side being persecuted.  Both end up watching your show or giving you feedback, and at the end of the day your ratings go up, and your bottomline increases.

The only politics at play here is money.

Of course then when you look at the people who are setting up these demonstrations on both the left and right, you'll note that the money leads back to some pretty rich hands.

At the end of the day all of this is about keeping the people divided and distracted while the rich get richer.

They've got the lower classes doing the work for the upper classes out there campaigning against taxes for the wealthy.  It's pretty amazing really.  But all part of the system that's been in place for the entire history of this country.

It's never been truly the land of the free.  It's always been the land of the rich.

There's no republican or democrat.  There's rich and there's poor.

---

Post Merge: April 02, 2010, 01:43:11 AM

---

Quote from: justmeinoz on April 01, 2010, 06:51:29 AM
Are there any people in the USA who are Conservative, but not Right-Wing extremists.
The sort of people who are in favour of stable families, regardless of the gender of the parents, or who don't believe that the goverment should be looking into peoples bedrooms?
The sort of person who supports "a safety net to catch those who fall, but reject any ceiling to stop those who are rising"? (Sir Robert Menzies, PM on the Australian welfare system in the 1950's).
The sort of people who still hold the concept of duty, and see that a nation has a responsibility to help those who fall by the wayside back on their feet?
Sir Winston Churchill would be chauffered in his Rolls to the Post Office to collect his Aged Pension, because it was his right as a British subject, even though he paid more in tax.

Basically do you have any "Normal" people over there, because from here it looks likeAmerican society has totally lost the plot on this question.

You more or less described Obama.  Who in our country is a socialist.

Australia is way more liberal than the US.  Your conservative is our liberal.

Laura Hope, the post you quoted from me only evaluates Sarah Palin's conduct, as that is what the thread's topic relates to.  I don't think the content points to misconduct as only being a "right-wing" problem, but your response seems to imply that I did.

That said, the right-wing does seem (to me) to be responsible for a clear majority of the violence and inflammatory rhetoric.  Your source produced one example of each "side" (and I use "side" with uneasiness, but the free thinkers that don't work for either "side" are highly unlikely to bother with these tactics anyway), but it doesn't prove each "side" has the same number of troublemakers doing the same amount of harm -- ("balance," showing misconduct on each side, is not the same thing as "fairness," which illustrates the overall quantity of violence for each side).

In the end, it doesn't matter, though.  All violence and incitement of this nature is bad.  It's just that I haven't seen such a mobilization on the left in the past decade that compares with what we've seen from the likes of Palin or Glenn Beck, so one wasn't about to show up in a comparison.

---

Sarah, I would say Fox News has not systematically demeaned the right to assemble.  Their network has seemed to *love* it when the "tea party" assembles (there was a "reporter" on at least one occasion who tried to whip the group into a frenzy, much like a local news channel would for an event it sponsors).  Fox News appears self-serving, although another take on it is that they are at least not systematically negative about the right to assemble.  But then, media has a nasty tendency to focus on disasters (and negatives) rather than positives (except for "human interest stories" that rarely show us anything new/interesting).

Given the power of money in campaigns and legislation, I would generally think of the United States as somewhat resembling a plutocracy, which seems to relate to the rest of your thought.  It may be a case of the rich and conservative versus the really rich and really conservative.

No I was saying Fox News, CNN, MSNBC---the 24 hour news networks.  They have conspired for the point of ratings to demean the power of assembly to almost comic proportions.  One side makes fun of one side, while the other side acts offended and more patrioatic until the roles reverse.  It's the same game every year.  Whether it's protesting the war or protesting health care.  One side says it's dangerous and anti-american.  And the other says that they are just exercising free speech.

There is a huge difference between the two.  For one thing, most people know the left is kidding, humor being one of their biggest weapons, for another they tend to be very bad at it.  The reason that right wing domestic terrorists are feared is because often they are very good.

A quick look at domestic terrorists in the US has a long list on one side, often highly effective, and a short list on the other, which tends to be populated by failure.  When the Weathermen or SLA tried to do terrorism they largely succeeded in killing themselves for the most part.  When the right does domestic terrorism we get: Night Riders, the KKK, White Citizens Councils, the Branch Davidians, The Montana Freemen, Ruby Ridge, The American Nazi Party, Aryan Nation, the Christian Identity Movement,  more militias then you can shake a stick at, Charles Manson (don't let the hippie outfit fool you, old Chuck was an old fashioned Southern Racist whose goal was a race war that would wipe out the blacks) and Oklahoma City.

When it seems like you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a right-wing militia terrorist cell in some places (Georgia, Florida, Montana, Idaho, Michigan) people wonder where the left wing militias terrorist cells are, and the answer is easy.  There has not been an armed left wing militia terrorist cell in the USA since the Black Panthers, and before that, never.   

And we just saw another right wing Christian group go down in Michigan, their plan was to kill some cops, then bomb the funeral, then the US would rise up and go all Helter Skelter and overthrow the government - and I guess instill them into power because they were such patriots.  The reality however is that given their mugshots all I can think of is that somewhere in Michigan right now a carnival is running itself and combined I bet they don't make a triple digit IQ.  Oh yeah, when arrested for plotting to violently overthrow the government what did they want?  Yeah, a public defender - a government sponsored lawyer.  I can't help but to imagine that they didn't think their clever plan all the way through.  Oh yeah, who defended this morons on national TV, the guy filling in for Glenn Beck of course.

So you have a huge difference when people on one side show up to protest rallies with guns, or signs threatening to go home and get them (and we damn sure know they have them to get) and the other side which tends to circus theatrics like painting tiger stripes on naked women and putting them in cages for some PETA protest of Ringling Brothers.

Basically do you have any "Normal" people over there, because from here it looks like American society has totally lost the plot on this question.

Yes, in fact most of the people here are 'normal' by American standards.  But...there are several things to consider here.  First is there is a huge difference (un-noted, because it's largely unknown to the right) between the largely unseen governance aspects and the highly televised political stuff.  The first is the day to day business of running a government for 300 million people in a highly advanced, technological, industrial nation state.  These people are the best students, who went to the best schools and did the best at the hardest programs.  Most of them have several degrees.  They work 12 hour days, six days a week, and they don't notice the news because they have real jobs and just don't have the time to watch it.  They are too busy doing research, holding hearings, meeting with committees, and writing the white papers, the gray papers, the reports, and the recommendations, that become actual policy.

What you get to see, because it's the part that TV covers, is the electoral system and it's far more about entertainment then information, and, at best is only infotainment.  As Frank Zappa once said: Politics is the entertainment branch of American Industry.  It's the 'smoke and mirrors' and the 'bread and circuses' that keep the marching morons marching while the other people go off and make policy.  From the beginning, and it's enshrined in the Constitution from the get-go, the owning/business class has always been institutionalized as the state and the custodians of the entire American social and political process.  'Twas ever thus.  The real business of America is business, and its run by the business class.  (Who also tend to have real jobs and are not watching TV either). 

While the infotainment sector is strictly focused on some right/left split I can assure you that such distinctions are never talked about in the process of governance because they are totally irrelevant.  They don't enter into the discussion because the discussion is about business, and commerce and done in the language of law, not politics.

But, that does beg the question of why is the right so wacked out most of the time.  I think its because they suffer from a bi-polar deal that has repeatedly lead them straight into the arms of paranoia.  The bi-polar deal is two-fold.  First, the documents they worship (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth) are in fact some of the most liberal documents ever written.  That alone causes them no end of grief.  At the same time they also worship the corporate structure, the scientific and technological base, capitalism, and industrialism, which are the chief engines of the very progress they so hate.  That leads them to a point where they are arriving at the party long after it's over.

When Pat Buchanan called for a "Culture War" it was almost laughable because anyone who studies such things knew that by the point old Pat was calling for that, the war had done come and gone, and they had already lost.  At best, they got to fight some rear-guard action while in full retreat.  And those two notions, one the progress keeps beating them to the punch, and two, that the very core of the nation they want to save by conservatism is in fact opposed to them has made them very parinoid.  And that is a long standing American tradition at this point.*

Which leads us to the present day.  Why are they all seemingly going nuts?  Well they lost.  Twice.  Huge losses that in many ways they will not recover from and are in the process of becoming a rump party that is geographically isolated to the South and parts of the InterMountian West.

I think that when they woke up, they freaked out.  As Chris Rock observed: "George Bush farked up so badly that not only were we able to elect a black man president, but a Black man with a name like "Barack HUSSIEN Obama" the dude couldn't be anymore more in-your -face black unless he was named As-salaam A'lakim Farrakhan!"   

I think when that finally dawned on them, they just lost it and are in the process of spinning out of control.  The GOP of late is part Kristallnacht and very much Nacht der langen Messer, or as we'd say in the States, a circular firing squad.

They think they have found their savior in Sara Palin.  She is their Ronald Reagan with a Rack, but I'm betting it ain't gonna pan out. She probably appeals to teabaggers because she is a moderately-attractive woman who does cutesy-folksy things and obviously puts-out. The Palin in a flag bikini brandishing a shotgun like Bonnie Parker just fuels that fantasy, and after 15-20 years of sexually repressed marriage, it's good spank-bank material for most of them.  But that's all it is, because in the end she values herself more than the movement, and it's going to show, and it's going to hurt.  She's not going to run for President, she's just going to raise money like she is, and skip out with it, like the attention whore grifter she really is.  If the GOP didn't pretend to be the party of superior values, then this wouldn't be an issue. But this very situation is exactly what the GOP is about, and has always been about: a party of hypocritical behavior and wimpy posers and before all is said and done Sara is going to be the poster girl for that.

All the tea-baggers did was pretty much guarantee a Dem majority for the next election (and beyond) because....
I had to stop reading here because I can't really debate against self-delusion.
But you know Laura, it's not self-delusion, it's based on a solid knowlage of who really swings elections these days, and what appeals to them.  Do you know who they are?  They get called 'soccer moms' in shorthand, but they are in reality middle/upper middle class women, which college degrees and professional careers.  They swing elections because they vote and have little to no sense of party identity, so they vote on issues.  And none of this is going to appeal to them, no more than the antics of the Left 50 years ago brought anyone over to their side.  They are not going to side with someone who is standing in public in some colonial Williamsburg outfit with teabags dangling from a hat and a misspelled sign that puts cross hairs on their political propaganda while threatening to bring a gun next time.

And, if you want proof - Republican fundraising (this in the Party of Money) is at an all time low.

* - Richard Hofstadter penned an essay in the early 60s for Harper's called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."  Check it out, brilliant stuff.

Just go back and watch both sides arguing for and against healthcare. One side was for the people and wasn't lying and the other were totally full of lies even to the point of using a term like Armageddon. I couldn't believe some of the lies that were passed around during the healthcare debate and after it became law. It is incredible. I expect lies and fear mongering from the extremes on both sides but the leaders of the party? Bizarre.

Quote from: tekla on April 02, 2010, 12:47:18 PM
But, that does beg the question of why is the right so wacked out most of the time.  I think its because they suffer from a bi-polar deal that has repeatedly lead them straight into the arms of paranoia.

Add to that many right wingers are fervently religious, mostly christian.  Baptized and raised catholic, I can tell you there's a high degree of masochism in catholicism.  Suffering is a good thing.

Walk into a christian church and right there, front and center, is a crucifix, and that crucifix may also have an emaciated man hanging on it with nails pounded through his hands and feet, a stab wound in his side and a thorny crown pushed into his skull.  Some will even have this in living color, complete with blood pouring from the wounds.

Imagine the impression this has on a child.  While we should rate this PG-13 or maybe even R for violence, we instead worship this figure and make a point about how much this man suffered for our sins.  And we should suffer too.

I won't even go into the graphics from the stations of the cross!

So here are these people, who have been conditioned (brainwashed) to believe suffering is the thing to do if you want god to love you, while trying to live a normal life.

"Be a masochist or you won't go to heaven!"

And, because they have given so much of their happiness (and their money supporting the christian religions), they refuse to accept the possibility that maybe they don't have to suffer.  But since misery loves company, or they simply can't admit they were taken, they prefer to drag as many people into this belief rather than consider for even a second that this concept is very disordered.

So if you add that to what you said Kat, you have some pretty messed up people being pulled every which way. 

There's an old joke, "I'm looking for a religion that doesn't make me feel guilty."  It's funny because it's true.

As for the rest of what you wrote Kat, brilliant!

BTW, Palin is appealing to them also because she conveys this image she's a good christian woman.  Then dresses like a bad girl.  (note the leather jacket)  I think that dual image on an attractive woman appeals to a lot conservatives who are too uptight to let loose.

Well, combine the hot MLIF dominatrix look with the recent revelation that the RNC spent money watching some faux lesbian S&M show in LA - and you pretty much have it.  And that sure carries all that 'pain, guilt and suffering' right along with it.

I'm suggesting the new RNC slogan:
Oh spank me mommy, I've been soooooooo bad!

And, as I would up saying this morning to some friends, 'that despite how much this will hurt, and eventually end, most of the insurance industry, and bring the health care industry under the same kind of regulation that other industries have, if you think for a New York Second that the Congress of the United States passes some sort of massive 'anti-business' legislation then you just have no idea of who is in Congress, or how they got there, and who bought that ticket for them.'

Quote
There has not been an armed left wing militia terrorist cell in the USA since the Black Panthers, and before that, never.   

Two words - Weather Underground.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest.

(and no, there were not only two either but there's no point in making a list)

---

Post Merge: April 02, 2010, 07:14:12 PM

---

Quote from: Dana Lane on April 02, 2010, 02:04:06 PM
Just go back and watch both sides arguing for and against healthcare. One side was for the people and wasn't lying and the other were totally full of lies even to the point of using a term like Armageddon. I couldn't believe some of the lies that were passed around during the healthcare debate and after it became law. It is incredible. I expect lies and fear mongering from the extremes on both sides but the leaders of the party? Bizarre.

Lies?

Interesting the info that's coming out about the bill now that contradicts what was said of it before, and breaks countless campaign pledges.

I'm stunned anyone thinks their side was telling the unvarnished truth - about this or anything else.

And they say religious people have irrational faith...

Quote from: tekla on April 02, 2010, 06:35:18 PMI'm suggesting the new RNC slogan:
Oh spank me mommy, I've been soooooooo bad!

...with a picture of Palin on a Harley wearing skin tight leathers. 

It's just a matter of time!
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_n-njTteDnPw%2FSLgMFZp2TkI%2FAAAAAAAACzY%2FDYKsWNY51gA%2Fs400%2FSarah_Palin.jpg&hash=f74019b26527531bab95e542d0606a45691d90ab)

Quote from: Laura Hope on April 02, 2010, 07:11:39 PM
Two words - Weather Underground.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest.

(and no, there were not only two either but there's no point in making a list)

---

Post Merge: April 02, 2010, 07:14:12 PM

---

Lies?

Interesting the info that's coming out about the bill now that contradicts what was said of it before, and breaks countless campaign pledges.

I'm stunned anyone thinks their side was telling the unvarnished truth - about this or anything else.

And they say religious people have irrational faith...

Okay, unvarnished truth. How the hell can you argue that right? How about fear mongering? How about the outright lies from the GOP that were designed to cast fear in hopes of getting the bill killed? Or maybe Fox News didn't show that stuff. :) sorry couldn't resist.

Well, you can always argue the truth.  In the end it wins out.

Two words - Weather Underground.

Nah, I prefer the original - non PC name, Weathermen, taken from the Bob Dylan song Subterranean Homesick Blues with it's line: You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.  They only became the Weather Underground after some of the women complained that Weathermen was sexist.  They are the first group I mentioned by the way.  And at that, they were not a militia style group in the way the Black Panthers were, they were just bomber-style terrorists.  BTW, how did that all work out for them with all that stuff, same way that it will for the extreme right, it turned people off and drove them away in droves.  They killed more of themselves then the did 'the enemy' but of course, being dumb leftists, they tended to phone in warnings before the bombs went off.

And I know I'm absolutely right about the real business of government not being a political deal, but a business/commerce/law/technique (statistical, modeling, statistical analysis) deal.  I spend 3 years at the DoE and can't remember a single political conversation except during lunch.  We tended to talk about energy (imagine that) technology conversion, dual-use technologies, business incubation, start-ups, venture capital, and marketing plans.

As for Sara on the bike, pretty much what I said: wimpy posers.  I mean is that her bike?  Can she drive it?  No?  Then get your butt off of it, or gas, grass or ass baby, nobody rides for free.

And of course you had the RAF before the Weathermen.  Which I only bring up because the recent Baader-Meinhof Complex movie is pretty fantastic.  And for further viewing, Fassbinder's Third Generation.

Quote from: Dana Lane on April 02, 2010, 10:06:45 PM
Okay, unvarnished truth. How the hell can you argue that right? How about fear mongering? How about the outright lies from the GOP that were designed to cast fear in hopes of getting the bill killed? Or maybe Fox News didn't show that stuff. :) sorry couldn't resist.

I'll just have to agree to disagree if you are that convinced. there is WAY too much info concerning that bill to begin to debate here, especially given that my general policy is that arguing politics online is a no-win scenario no matter how good one might be at it.

I'll only say this - and realize in the saying that you will flat out disagree and take the exact opposite position:

It's not fear mongering or scare tactics if it's true, or if it's at least reasonably possible. It's my position that all that the right said in opposition to that bill was at a minimum reasonably possible.

I suppose we are all now condemned to find out who was right. I guess we'll have to table the discussion for a decade or so.

We're going to be way past this in a decade or so, this is not the end, it's only the beginning.  By the end we're going to wind up where EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL NATION is, a single payer system, largely because that's the best business/commercial solution.

The end interest here is not socialism, or fairness, or compassion, or even public health (even though there are compelling reasons for each) but a matter of international competitiveness for American business.  And since the business of America is business, they will, in the end, get what they want.

From my perspective this whole situation is getting more bizarre the more it is discussed, along with US politics in general.
I find it incomprehensible that people are making death threats over a Health System. The abolition of slavery or a similar question I can understand, but a Health System?

Quote from: justmeinoz on April 03, 2010, 05:35:56 AM
From my perspective this whole situation is getting more bizarre the more it is discussed, along with US politics in general.
I find it incomprehensible that people are making death threats over a Health System. The abolition of slavery or a similar question I can understand, but a Health System?

When your political figureheads use gun imagery to "target" the opposition, it doesn't take much to get some people heading in that direction.

Imagine, instead of an image with crosshairs on it, a message with plain text naming the people and a link of how to contact them.  Would that stir up the same emotions as the crosshair image?  Of course not!  But it would accomplish the same thing the GOP is claiming they want to do.  But since it's easier to get people to follow you when they are emotionally stirred up, why not use that tactic?  Who cares if some kook takes it too far?  That's his problem, not ours! :icon_2gun:

I realize I can be a bit hard headed when it comes to trying to have discussions with conservatives. If they would drop their incredible pro-discrimination and anti-choice and anti-science (pro god in schools) stances I might be more receptive. Those stances alone shut me right out. Anyone who votes for a Republican is essentially voting against brothers and sisters on this very site. I am sure they aren't thinking "I am going to go vote against the civil rights of my siblings" but it is what happens.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))

Sexual Orientation. Exit polls conducted in 2000, 2004 and 2006 indicate that about one quarter of gay and lesbian Americans voted for the GOP. In recent years, many in the party have opposed same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, inclusion of sexual orientation in federal hate crimes laws, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, while supporting the use of the don't ask, don't tell policy within the military. Some members of the party, particularly in the Northeast and Pacific coast support Civil Unions and adoption rights for same-sex couples.[68] The opposition to some gay rights found in the Republican Party largely comes from the socially conservative wing of the party.

This is why I use the phrase "termite working for a pest control company".

The longer Republicans have some kind of significant power the longer we will have to wait to simply be ourselves and FREE in our country. I am currently NOT free. I can't just move to any state or city due to it being legal to discriminate against me.

Every single time I think of this I just can't help but get angry. I am an American taxpayer and deserve to be free.

Quote from: justmeinoz on April 03, 2010, 05:35:56 AM
From my perspective this whole situation is getting more bizarre the more it is discussed, along with US politics in general.
I find it incomprehensible that people are making death threats over a Health System. The abolition of slavery or a similar question I can understand, but a Health System?

Because those who are upset are not upset about health care reform, they are upset about deeper issues.

For a person living in another nation, it might seem unclear because you can only know what your press tells you (or ours).

The angry response from the left comes (as far as i can tell) because the mythology is affot that the right cares nothing for those in need - when all the right really wants to do is find the BEST way to help them rather than just throwing money at it.

the anger from the right comes because they precieve that the recent bill achives the goals it achieves at too high a cost, both in terms of money and lost liberty. A lot of people don't realize that the U.S. is well past the point of financial solovancy, if it were any private sector institution.

Between the already existing unfunded mandates of medicare and Social Security, and the cost of the recent sending, and the projections for this bill*, many believe that the financial collapse of our country is inevitable. That in itself creates a lot of stress.

Add to that the fact that the bill establishes an individual mandate from the government to the citizen to engage in a private business contract which goes WILDLY beyond it's previous reach into private affairs, and many on the right feel we've reached a tipping point in terms of the precedent this action would set for government power.

so ultimately, the anger doesn't arise from "health care" at all but from over-reaching government athority and the implications for future power grabs.

*Yes I know about the CBO scoring, but the CBO didn't have the full bill and it's a matter of historical record that previous such programs always cost hundreds of times what the intial projections were (Medicare, for instance, cost in it's first 25 years over 700% more than the projections at the time of passage in adjusted dollars)

---

Post Merge: April 03, 2010, 12:58:22 PM

---

QuoteAnyone who votes for a Republican is essentially voting against brothers and sisters on this very site. I am sure they aren't thinking "I am going to go vote against the civil rights of my siblings" but it is what happens.

I don't disagree.

However, from my perspective, (almost) every time one votes Democrat, one is voting for the financial destruction of this nation and for more intrusive government across the board. We are ALL less free when the government takes a heavy hand in our private lives.

I simply have chosen the point of view that the country, as we know it, has to EXIST in order to protect our freedoms. Give me a Democrat Party that has sane financial policies that protect the economic future existence of this country and I'll be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. Even if i still have other disagreements with them.

Does this mean i think the Republicans have it right on every issue regarding spending or the size of government or economic choices - absolutely not. but they at least give some consideration to the matter and I'm not seeing that at all from the Democrats.

Does this mean I'll be slower about getting full equality in matters related to my condition? Yeah. And that sucks. But again, a country which can't pay it's bills is in a poor position to protect my liberties.

Quote"I am going to go vote against the civil rights of my siblings" but it is what happens.

Rights come with responsibility. If you are not responsible the Government will do it for you and you lose those rights. Morals and ethics are not the responsibility of the Government they are yours. If you do not want to respect other peoples freedoms and liberties then how do you expect them to respect yours?, by laws which are not enforced or selectively enforced? Then who is going to pay for all those people that are going to be in prison. It seems that very few understand the cost and results of adding more laws.

It's not necessarily wise to vote for a party just because of one issue, but I would suspect that GLBT rights would be a fairly crucial one for people who participate in this site.  Of course, if you are somewhere where the Republicans on the ballot will support these rights (or at least do so up to a threshold you can live with), or the Democrats are opposed to these rights, then your vote can become largely about other issues.  Even when they are the same on GLBT, I usually pick the Dem lizard anyway, but that's a whole other issue.

Quotewhen all the right really wants to do is find the BEST way to help them rather than just throwing money at it.

If the right seriously cared about not wasting money, we wouldn't have a death penalty (which costs more than life in prison) that sometimes executes innocent people.

Quotefrom my perspective, (almost) every time one votes Democrat, one is voting for the financial destruction of this nation and for more intrusive government across the board. We are ALL less free when the government takes a heavy hand in our private lives.

I like the idea of government "intruding" by giving children medical care, offering people education, building roads, and being able to run a draft in a time of war.  I like meat inspections and infrastructure that supports better energy acquisition/use (wind is more sustainable than coal).  I also like the government enforcing laws that keep people safe -- including anti-discrimination and anti-hate laws that keep the majority from forcing the minority to live as pariahs or second-class citizens.  All of these policies support the public good, and in the case of care and education for children, ensures basic services for people who cannot provide it for themselves.  These lists are not comprehensive, but they have important bits listed.  Beyond a list of whatever things a government should do, you would rather it not be involved, because it begins to establish advantages that interfere with free will.

On my scorecoard, the Republicans are doing a poor job.  Child health care, GLBT rights/protection, education funding, the Dems do better (although far from perfect).  The Republicans also have the nasty habit of favoring the interests of certain religions (worse than the Dems).  Also, they gave us the second Iraq War.

EDIT: And yeah, the lying.

Nor would we have two wars going on, both pretty much unwinable, and unfinanced.

All I've seen out of the 'Pubs is they are trying to stop the Dems at any cost.  They are the party of no.  No ideas, No values, No morality.

And, a lot of the people who are upset about this bill, are mad because it did not go far enough, nor take the obvious route to solve the problem.

Quote from: tekla on April 03, 2010, 04:11:46 PM
Nor would we have two wars going on, both pretty much unwinable, and unfinanced.

All I've seen out of the 'Pubs is they are trying to stop the Dems at any cost.  They are the party of no.  No ideas, No values, No morality.

And, a lot of the people who are upset about this bill, are mad because it did not go far enough, nor take the obvious route to solve the problem.

Not to mention that Bush was in charge when the economy totally collapsed. We are still seeing the HUGE COST of this. This is what I don't get. Save the country from the Democrats? LOL okay

QuoteThe angry response from the left comes (as far as i can tell) because the mythology is affot that the right cares nothing for those in need - when all the right really wants to do is find the BEST way to help them rather than just throwing money at it.

the anger from the right comes because they precieve that the recent bill achives the goals it achieves at too high a cost, both in terms of money and lost liberty. A lot of people don't realize that the U.S. is well past the point of financial solovancy, if it were any private sector institution.

Health care a problem because of cost?  Our politicians had no problem handing over trillions to Wall Street, the banks, car companies, and we didn't see anything near the fervor generated from the health care bill passage.  This wasn't cost or fiscal responsibility, this was politics.

In the US, we have Democrats and Republicans that, presently, seem to be vehemently opposed to anything the other does, wants or stands for.   What I see is, it is more important to stand in opposition to the other party than it is to take the time to evaluate what the impact one's actions have on the nation and its citizens.

Any good politician knows if you can get the voters whipped up into an emotional frenzy, you can pretty much control them.  And fear and anger are two of the most common emotions politicians try to instill in the voters.  Typically, women respond with fear, men with anger.  Together they can become a boiling cauldron.

When you look at the Health Care cauldron the Republicans stirred up, you see how easily they worked the voters up, so much so that there were reported death threats!  Over health care reform!  Did any of these people who were so angry or fearful take the time to look at the process that took place to come up with a passable bill?  Did any of them review the bill themselves and decide for themselves if it is as bad as the Republican spin?  If any did, I'm sure it was only a small fraction and odds are none of those people made death threats or lost any sleep over the bill's passing.

What upsets me is what politics has become in the US.  Voters are more apt to vote for you because of how you look or what single issue you support than what positive effect your time in office will have for the nation or its citizens.  Few voters take any time to research the politicians they are voting for or the issues that are truly important.  Most just want someone to tell them everything will be okay.

We are told the USA is the greatest country in the world.  So we believe it.  And in the process we adopt the belief it will always be that way and we don't have to work at it to keep it that way.  That's how great nations crumble.

Today we look to the former winner of the Miss Wasilla Pageant to save us from the evils of liberalism.    We elect movie stars and celebrities to represent us at all levels of government.  What they look like and how they speak is more important than their experience, their skills and their ability – and more importantly their desire – to make a positive difference for the betterment of this country. 

But instead of using logic and reason, we elect emotionally.  And in doing so we elect people with big egos who are more concerned about themselves than the people they represent.  And we make people like Sarah Palin folk heroes rather than keeping them in books and magazines where physical attractiveness has a higher value than who someone is on the inside.

QuoteEDIT: And yeah, the lying.

"your side lies and mine doesn't" (or at least not as much)


That bit never gets old.

Ok, it's all cool. I respectfully resign the floor. The more i argue politics online, the more I think I'd get more done nailing jello to the wall.

You might want to try arguing from a more mature perspective, away from politics and like the big boys and girls do, debate policy.  But that takes facts and not manufactured sound bites.  And it leads away from Republicans and Democrats, you have to forget that grade school stuff about Right and Left, and try to think instead about right and wrong.

The idea that Republicans are better at responsible spending than Democrats is simply false. Reagan was a big spender. Bush Jr. is the number one candidate for largest spender of un-accounted-for, debt-increasing monies in American history. His Republican congress had similar habits. What part of "we went from the biggest surplus in American history to the biggest deficit in American history" don't Republicans understand? That does NOT qualify as responsible spending.

Responsible spending is not about how much or how little is spent - it's about accounting for the monies spent, spending monies we either have or can somehow responsibly generate, spending efficiently and on projects that are important, make sense and are designed well, and so on. Governmental size should be in proportion to the size of the projects that need to be taken on, and right now, things like healthcare reform, proper economic regulation, environmental regulation to assuage the effects of global warming and the end of the oil glut, and rights and protections for queer and trans/gender-variant people are pressing concerns.

So let's be real: the divide here is fundamentally about what people are interested in spending on. The Repubs don't seem to have any problem funding the largest military this side of the Milky Way. In fact, they don't have very good spending records themselves, by and large. I'm not denying that real, practicing "fiscal conservatives" exist, or that super-spender Democrats exist. However, denying the presence of a very large amount of super-spender Republicans is disingenuous and does not square with the hard data.

Speaking of hard data, people who see healthcare reform as a big spending bill need to look at some good, hard numbers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new healthcare law will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. I put that in bold for a reason. Many of the Republicans who uniformly opposed passage of the healthcare bill voted for Medicare Part D, which was projected by that same office to increase the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next 20 years from the date of its passage.

I wish to hammer this home, and I damned well will: healthcare reform saves money.
You know what happens when an uninsured person ends up in the emergency room? We, the taxpayers, foot most of the bill. By insuring 95% of Americans, we are saving a heap of money. Them's the facts.

-------------

As for the Tea Partiers, how am I supposed to take people who take their cues from Fox News and make it their business to call Obama a "Marxist" and a "Nazi" seriously? How am I supposed to do anything but shake my head in wonderment when these folks lionize a senator best known for shouting "YOU LIE!" at the President, or continue to spread reams of blatant falsities - ACORN engaging in fraud, "death panels," Obama not being an American citizen, et cetera...?

The simple fact is that these people are cut from the same cloth as the McCarthyites of yesteryear. It is no surprise that the John Birch Society is part of this frothing fray, and today's Tea Partiers follow many of the same patterns as yesterday's Red Scareniks: conspiracy theories, paranoia, bigotry against minorities, bubbling at the mouth about "socialists" and "Marxists" in the government, gun zealotry, and so on. To be sure, the right wing is no monolith, and these people come in shades: the general gist of the Tea Party seems to be closer to Fox Newsian cafeteria libertarianism with a strong whiff of Alex Jones than the sort of Bible-thumping, social-message right-winginess peddled by Republicans of the George W. Bush years. Nonetheless, a lot of these messages are coming from those same people.

The true hilarity in all of this lies in the fact that "Obamacare" is closest to... er... Romneycare. It very closely resembles the bill that Mitt Romney passed in his own state, and incorporates all sorts of ideas - such as the mandate - which Republicans supported or even invented in the years before they decided to oppose everything that Dems did and started screaming about how bad their own ideas were.


Regarding "Democrats are destroying the economy," please read some Keynes. It was deregulation - a Republican platform - that led to the current economic crisis. Stable economies require regulation, and solvent governments require accountable spending; these both seem to be things that Democrats are by and large better at than Republicans. In this sense, at least, it is indeed about left vs. right. Don't get me wrong: both parties are bad at being responsible. The thing is that Republicans are a lot worse.

Single-issue voting. It depends on how much that single issue effects your life, doesn't it? Trans and queer rights effect my life an awful lot, and a politician's record on that single issue can have a huge impact on how I view them. I care about far too many things to ever be a true "single-issue" voter, but I was ganged up on and beaten unconscious with two of my teeth knocked out because I'm queer and trans. I care a LOT about that issue, and I should, because experience has shown me that my physical safety is at risk. Would I vote for a right-winger who inexplicably had a solid record on trans rights? I wouldn't. I might consider it for a second, though, especially if I lived in an area where I felt myself to be at greater physical risk. Fists make for strong arguments.

I could go on and on, as many can on this subject. All I can say is that being trans and voting Republican is like being a sheep and voting for more wolves: it's, shall we say, a tad masochistic.

QuoteI could go on and on, as many can on this subject. All I can say is that being trans and voting Republican is like being a sheep and voting for more wolves: it's, shall we say, a tad masochistic.

The analogy that came to my mind is the kid who gets beaten up by the bully, then tries to be friends with the bully.  Masochism certainly a strong element in either analogy.

Whatever one believes about the parties, neither party is going to destroy this country, not as long as it is able to milk the tax revenues.  That would be biting the hand that feeds you.

But when a politician or political party actively and openly campaigns against human rights, they can bank on zero support from me.

QuoteSpeaking of hard data, people who see health care reform as a big spending bill need to look at some good, hard numbers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new health care law will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. I put that in bold for a reason. Many of the Republicans who uniformly opposed passage of the health care bill voted for Medicare Part D, which was projected by that same office to increase the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next 20 years from the date of its passage.

Propaganda is fun in fantasy land but in reality it puts us in danger. A Harvard study for the past ten years disputes savings with computers in health care. Look at the other programs in health care in states and countries that have it not one is in the black. Look at the other entitlement programs which have put us in the mess we are today. SS is in the red this year way before they predicted. The budget people never endorsed those numbers they are politically forced on the Dept's. Just wait and see it is your future.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 04, 2010, 11:10:54 AM
Propaganda is fun in fantasy land but in reality it puts us in danger. A Harvard study for the past ten years disputes savings with computers in health care. Look at the other programs in health care in states and countries that have it not one is in the black. Look at the other entitlement programs which have put us in the mess we are today. SS is in the red this year way before they predicted. The budget people never endorsed those numbers they are politically forced on the Dept's. Just wait and see it is your future.

And what exactly makes you think that the $1.2 trillion number was forced on the CBO? Do you have some sort of special insider privileges in the Beltway? If those numbers were somehow forced on the CBO, why didn't the Republicans simply force similar numbers on the CBO for Medicare Part D? How do you know that your Harvard study wasn't manipulated or simply poorly done? What makes you want to qualify it over the CBO's data, other than it playing into your completely unreasonable fear of the government actually doing its job?

The CBO may be a bit politically influenced, just like other supposedly non-partisan bodies (the Supreme Court, anyone?), but they are still milling hard data collected by one of the largest data-collection agencies in the world - the U.S. government. It's entirely possible that they produce biased reports now and then, but they are in the business of producing reports based on actual math, not on the fears and fantasies of Republicans sucking at the corporate nipple. One cannot simply go to the CBO and force them to completely ignore the actual numbers.

As for Social Security, do you think perhaps we would have an easier time funding these things if (a) Republicans hadn't conditioned so many Americans to expect government to do big things without taxing them to pay for it and (b) we didn't insist on having far and away the largest military in the world? We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushing into various surrounding areas, we still have bases in places like Okinawa where there hasn't been any military action for many decades, and we're still struggling to take care of the poor wounded, psychologically crippled, struggling vets who go out to fight these pointless wars for us - and you're complaining about the cost of Social Security.

Social Security and medicare are important, necessary and good. Accidentally flying drones into Arab children is unnecessary and bad, and huge waste of money. These "entitlement" programs save lives. They are a way for us as a country to take the responsibility that is ours: the responsibility to make sure that those in need, those who are struggling and cannot help themselves, are taken care of. This is not some kind of luxury. If the system is poorly or improperly funded, let us find better funding for it. If occasionally it is abused, let us find ways to close the loopholes. Let us not, however, put our own egalitarianism behind the interests of insurance companies and and generals who think Don't Ask, Don't Tell shouldn't be repealed because the Srebrenitsa Massacre was caused by openly gay Dutch soldiers.

Education, healthcare, and helping the poor and struggling to get a leg up in life are now and always will be more important than dropping bombs on people and playing to the interests of giant corporations. If it seems like I'm perhaps a bit angry, I am.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 04, 2010, 11:10:54 AM
SS is in the red this year way before they predicted.

There was an article in Reader's Digest many years ago that looked at SS and its future.  At the time there was enough money in the SS system to keep it solvent FOREVER.  Shortly after that, the politicians raided it. 

Had they left it alone and not borrowed from it, SS would be totally solvent and very healthy.  But anytime there's a big pool of cash sitting there, someone figures out a way to get their hands on it.  Then they put a spin on it and make it sound like it's the program's and not the looter's fault.

I'm sure if one digs deeply enough, one would find looters at the gates of most all government programs.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 04, 2010, 01:47:33 AM
The idea that Republicans are better at responsible spending than Democrats is simply false. Reagan was a big spender. Bush Jr. is the number one candidate for largest spender of un-accounted-for, debt-increasing monies in American history. His Republican congress had similar habits. What part of "we went from the biggest surplus in American history to the biggest deficit in American history" don't Republicans understand? That does NOT qualify as responsible spending.

Responsible spending is not about how much or how little is spent - it's about accounting for the monies spent, spending monies we either have or can somehow responsibly generate, spending efficiently and on projects that are important, make sense and are designed well, and so on. Governmental size should be in proportion to the size of the projects that need to be taken on, and right now, things like healthcare reform, proper economic regulation, environmental regulation to assuage the effects of global warming and the end of the oil glut, and rights and protections for queer and trans/gender-variant people are pressing concerns.

So let's be real: the divide here is fundamentally about what people are interested in spending on. The Repubs don't seem to have any problem funding the largest military this side of the Milky Way. In fact, they don't have very good spending records themselves, by and large. I'm not denying that real, practicing "fiscal conservatives" exist, or that super-spender Democrats exist. However, denying the presence of a very large amount of super-spender Republicans is disingenuous and does not square with the hard data.

Speaking of hard data, people who see healthcare reform as a big spending bill need to look at some good, hard numbers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new healthcare law will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. I put that in bold for a reason. Many of the Republicans who uniformly opposed passage of the healthcare bill voted for Medicare Part D, which was projected by that same office to increase the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next 20 years from the date of its passage.

I wish to hammer this home, and I damned well will: healthcare reform saves money.
You know what happens when an uninsured person ends up in the emergency room? We, the taxpayers, foot most of the bill. By insuring 95% of Americans, we are saving a heap of money. Them's the facts.

-------------

As for the Tea Partiers, how am I supposed to take people who take their cues from Fox News and make it their business to call Obama a "Marxist" and a "Nazi" seriously? How am I supposed to do anything but shake my head in wonderment when these folks lionize a senator best known for shouting "YOU LIE!" at the President, or continue to spread reams of blatant falsities - ACORN engaging in fraud, "death panels," Obama not being an American citizen, et cetera...?

The simple fact is that these people are cut from the same cloth as the McCarthyites of yesteryear. It is no surprise that the John Birch Society is part of this frothing fray, and today's Tea Partiers follow many of the same patterns as yesterday's Red Scareniks: conspiracy theories, paranoia, bigotry against minorities, bubbling at the mouth about "socialists" and "Marxists" in the government, gun zealotry, and so on. To be sure, the right wing is no monolith, and these people come in shades: the general gist of the Tea Party seems to be closer to Fox Newsian cafeteria libertarianism with a strong whiff of Alex Jones than the sort of Bible-thumping, social-message right-winginess peddled by Republicans of the George W. Bush years. Nonetheless, a lot of these messages are coming from those same people.

The true hilarity in all of this lies in the fact that "Obamacare" is closest to... er... Romneycare. It very closely resembles the bill that Mitt Romney passed in his own state, and incorporates all sorts of ideas - such as the mandate - which Republicans supported or even invented in the years before they decided to oppose everything that Dems did and started screaming about how bad their own ideas were.


Regarding "Democrats are destroying the economy," please read some Keynes. It was deregulation - a Republican platform - that led to the current economic crisis. Stable economies require regulation, and solvent governments require accountable spending; these both seem to be things that Democrats are by and large better at than Republicans. In this sense, at least, it is indeed about left vs. right. Don't get me wrong: both parties are bad at being responsible. The thing is that Republicans are a lot worse.

Single-issue voting. It depends on how much that single issue effects your life, doesn't it? Trans and queer rights effect my life an awful lot, and a politician's record on that single issue can have a huge impact on how I view them. I care about far too many things to ever be a true "single-issue" voter, but I was ganged up on and beaten unconscious with two of my teeth knocked out because I'm queer and trans. I care a LOT about that issue, and I should, because experience has shown me that my physical safety is at risk. Would I vote for a right-winger who inexplicably had a solid record on trans rights? I wouldn't. I might consider it for a second, though, especially if I lived in an area where I felt myself to be at greater physical risk. Fists make for strong arguments.

I could go on and on, as many can on this subject. All I can say is that being trans and voting Republican is like being a sheep and voting for more wolves: it's, shall we say, a tad masochistic.

COSIGN!!! Very well said!

Quote from: Dana Lane on April 05, 2010, 09:57:22 AM
COSIGN!!! Very well said!

Indeed!! :icon_clap:

---

Post Merge: April 05, 2010, 10:17:00 AM

---

Quote from: justmeinoz on April 03, 2010, 05:35:56 AM
From my perspective this whole situation is getting more bizarre the more it is discussed, along with US politics in general.
I find it incomprehensible that people are making death threats over a Health System. The abolition of slavery or a similar question I can understand, but a Health System?

Well, we DO have a lot of stupid, reactionary dimwits in this country.

The classic thing about these discussions is that when it costs WAY more than they say it will (which will happen, see Meedicare for an obvious example) two things will happen:

1. Both sides will insist the other side screwed it up

2. Both sides will insist only they can fix it because the other side is so sorry

and the wheel will turn over again.

Which is why every day I'm a bit more cynical about all politics and more resigned to just washing my hands of all of it and adopting an "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" philosophy (when it comes to politics)

Quote from: Laura Hope on April 05, 2010, 10:40:26 AM
The classic thing about these discussions is that when it costs WAY more than they say it will (which will happen, see Meedicare for an obvious example) two things will happen:

1. Both sides will insist the other side screwed it up

2. Both sides will insist only they can fix it because the other side is so sorry

and the wheel will turn over again.

Which is why every day I'm a bit more cynical about all politics and more resigned to just washing my hands of all of it and adopting an "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" philosophy (when it comes to politics)

Yeah, I agree with you on that one. I used to believe that if the right person was elected that things would change for the better. Now I see that it doesn't really matter because the system is so clogged with lobbyists and all of the shady backroom deals, etc that it's a waste of time to worry about it all.

Quote from: Laura91 on April 05, 2010, 10:48:50 AM
Yeah, I agree with you on that one. I used to believe that if the right person was elected that things would change for the better. Now I see that it doesn't really matter because the system is so clogged with lobbyists and all of the shady backroom deals, etc that it's a waste of time to worry about it all.

Which is why I see the only real solution is to change the entire voting system.  I posted something a while ago about how it would be done but basically we get rid of all campaign contributions, establish the needed qualifications for each position and give each qualified candidate a certain amount, based on the position, to use to run for office.

By eliminating campaign contributions, you reduce or even eliminate the "appreciation" politicians pay back to their contributors with tax payer dollars.  Part of the tax revenue savings can be put towards the campaign dollars we give to the candidates, some could even go towards providing a better salary for our public servants. 

And maybe that would attract a better breed of candidates, ones who actually want to perform the duties expected of them.  And by controlling the campaign process, it gives more time for the elected official to do the work they were voted in to do.

A lot of people are against tax payers funding campaigns, but when you look at all the tax dollars politicians dole out to their supporters (in various forms), you realize there could actually be a tax savings, maybe even a substantial one.

I used to be apolitical.  Then I started listening to Rush Limbaugh.  Then I realized I had to take a stand if I didn't want his type to take over the country.  >:-)

Quote from: Julie Marie on April 06, 2010, 09:31:28 AM
Which is why I see the only real solution is to change the entire voting system.  I posted something a while ago about how it would be done but basically we get rid of all campaign contributions, establish the needed qualifications for each position and give each qualified candidate a certain amount, based on the position, to use to run for office.

By eliminating campaign contributions, you reduce or even eliminate the "appreciation" politicians pay back to their contributors with tax payer dollars.  Part of the tax revenue savings can be put towards the campaign dollars we give to the candidates, some could even go towards providing a better salary for our public servants. 

And maybe that would attract a better breed of candidates, ones who actually want to perform the duties expected of them.  And by controlling the campaign process, it gives more time for the elected official to do the work they were voted in to do.

A lot of people are against tax payers funding campaigns, but when you look at all the tax dollars politicians dole out to their supporters (in various forms), you realize there could actually be a tax savings, maybe even a substantial one.

I used to be apolitical.  Then I started listening to Rush Limbaugh.  Then I realized I had to take a stand if I didn't want his type to take over the country. >:-)

While I do agree with the last sentence in your post, I don't ever see things changing in the way that you described. It would be great if that actually happened but everyone knows that money is what rules our political system and people aren't going to give up all that cash.

Quoteso many Americans to expect government to do big things

Quote22  Location:San Francisco, CA, USA

I have a book for you. "Deliberate Dumbing Down of America "  Free down load http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html (http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html)

Americans especially the ones who took American history before the national religion was declared as Secular Humanism acknowledge by the Supreme Court do not expect the Federal Government should do big things in fact they would like the  the Federal Government to only handle National defense. I do not want Social Security, Medicare, or forced health insurance. I worked and saved my life to take care of myself. It is called responsibility. Many young people today still want their diaper changed by the Government.

I do not "want my diaper changed by the government." I expect the government to be responsible and to actually tackle pressing issues which the government, being the sole legitimate arbiter of force, taxation and regulation, is uniquely situated to tackle. Wanting a strong, independent philanthropic and nonprofit sector is all well and good and I support it completely, but foundations cannot prevent companies from putting their employees at unnecessary physical risk, or polluting excessively. Governments can.

There is no such thing as a free lunch; by paying taxes for Medicare, Social Security and other programs, we are paying the government to work for the greater good. We pay the government so that the old, feeble and unable to work among us are able to scrape by, and so that when we grow old and feeble, or get in an accident and are paralyzed for life, we too are able to scrape by. How this concept gets twisted into the idea of "getting one's diaper changed by the government" baffles me. This is not demanding that the government give us free stuff, it's being socially responsible.

The sort of "diaper changing" I object to is the sort put forth by social conservatives: prioritization and subtle enforcement of a monolithic, repressive, religiously-based vision of culture that privileges more Christian, straight, cisgendered, white, patriarchal moneyed and "American" groups at the expense of out-groups: non-religious and non-Christians, people of color, women the poor, queer and trans people, and anyone else deemed scary, foreign or impure. It is a politics of fear and exclusion that posits preachers, pastors and moralizers as the more-or-less mandatory guideposts of society. It punishes adventurousness, pleasure, dissent, and free thought, and intimates that people are simply too stupid to be anything more than reactionary, fearful, angry creatures, lashing out at the world around them, responding to the slightest difference with militarism and anger, fearing their own bodies.

In this way, the ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists of Christianity and Islam are very similar indeed. John Hagee is not so different in his Catholic-bashing and homophobia from the antisemitic conspiracy theories of Hamas propaganda. Pat Robertson declares Islam a wicked cult of death and the governments of the Middle East evil; Sayyid Qutb, one of Osama bin Laden's inspirations, declared the West wicked, decadent and materialistic. If we speak of "Islamism," let us also speak of "Christianism," its counterpart, a movement just as dangerous and violent and just as intolerant. The evangelicals condemn the world-conquering/world-converting ambitions of Salafi Islamists, and then turn around and exhort Christians to go forth and convert the entire planet to their particular strain of religion.

Social responsibility is a blessing, not a problem. It is the religious right-wingers, hypocritically holding the torch of moral purity, who look to change the diapers of society, not the social justice activists who call for safety nets and universal healthcare.

Wicked golf clap.

Well said!  :eusa_clap: Articulate, insightful and accurate.  You should write a book, if you haven't already...

Thank you both! My father is a professional writer and speaker, and expatiation does seem to run in the family - we have a peculiar dialogue style, in which we take turns more or less giving speeches to each other. I'm told it's quite amusing.
I'm a comics artist, so I am looking to make a career out of writing (and laying out, and drawing, and lettering etc.) books. I'm hoping that they'll be on subjects more exciting (and more fictional) than social safety nets. ;D

Quotebut foundations cannot prevent companies from putting their employees at unnecessary physical risk, or polluting excessively

You can spout all the propaganda you like but "Companies are made up of citizens. It is a citizens responsibility to the community not to do those things. You do not need laws to force them, only the virtues of being a citizen. When people depend on laws they lose responsibility figuring the Government will take care of it. Fact is most crimes and law breakers do not get caught or punished. So you have a system of lies. One which those who cheat the best get the most from those who comply. The Government does not provide a safety net they only remove personal responsibility. If you are so empathic to those in need then I am sure you will volunteer your time and money to help those people.

You will do a much better job changing their diapers than the Government.

And the reasons that people are not flocking to your side is exactly what?

So you think that people can just take personal responsibility all the time without so much as a nudge from any higher authority, do you? If that's the case, why hasn't it happened yet - and why have government at all? Why aren't you an Anarchist if people can be decent and responsible without an enforced social contract?

Incidentally, I do volunteer, and so does everyone else in my house. I volunteer, I give money to charity, and I pay my taxes. It's called being a responsible citizen. You talk about the system allowing people to be irresponsible, but you engage in the ultimate act of irresponsibility - you seem to just give up on trying to solve society's problems altogether. It reveals a callous attitude towards those in need, and permits the greedy and heartless to do what they will without consequences. That is irresponsible.

"It's called being a responsible citizen."
============
You talk about companies polluting and are unsafe without regulations. Yet you buy from them all the time especially things made in China. No amount of regulation can protect you from contributing to the horrors you say you are against except you yourself and the money you spend. A responsible citizen doe not try to buy their way to morals. They work at it. Giving money to a third middle man only invites corruption as it also separates you from where the money is going.

Quotewhy hasn't it happened yet

It has happened till people let the Federal government take over. Each state had local control that met the different cultures needs. Then the corporate states wanted control of the agricultural states. Then that was not enough profits so they started using slavery from out side the grasp of the national Government. Unless you plan on a level playing field world wide people who make the money will just move to more friendly places.

Am I misreading you, or did you just blame the North for the civil war?

Quote from: lisagurl on April 10, 2010, 04:09:57 PM
You can spout all the propaganda you like but "Companies are made up of citizens. It is a citizens responsibility to the community not to do those things. You do not need laws to force them, only the virtues of being a citizen.

So... how do you suggest we get 300 million people to take full responsibility for themselves? 

How do you suggest we get the government to lower the taxes because we are all now taking full responsibility for ourselves? 

How can we convince politicians we don't need them anymore because we are taking full responsibility for ourselves?

How can you convince a few hundred million people who are taking full responsibility for themselves to all band together for a common cause?  Like when someone kills some of these responsible citizens.

Or maybe this full responsibility civilization doesn't worry about the guy next door or the innocent people killed by a senseless act of violence.

Where's Sarah Palin when you need her?

In Lisagurl's world slavery would still exist today. And for any of us to be able to leave the house presenting as who we are? Forget that! We would be killed pretty quickly. I love my country because of it's government.

I have to say that I do not think that you can get even 50% compliance on self policing Lisa.
So what is the solution to a world where some people feel that they do not need to worry about what they do?
Factory owners who polute rivers do not rely on said river other than a dump for chemicals so what is to prevent such people from being callous and dumping in the river that others do rely on? Self policing, and personal responsibility?
good luck on that.
We must have government and enforcement of laws. Otherwise this planet would die alot faster than it already is.

QuoteIn Lisagurl's world slavery would still exist today

Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy by John Bowe

---

Post Merge: April 11, 2010, 11:34:16 AM

---

QuoteWe must have government and enforcement of laws. Otherwise this planet would die alot faster than it already is.

No, we have selective enforcement and corruption. Our educational system is a shambles. What we need is to go back to good old fashion morals, ethics, character, virtue, and honor. We need to instill honesty, self control, patients, focus, community and friendships. The academic subjects will take care of themselves when the students have self worth and values. The teacher's goal is to inspire the students will do the rest.
Read : Deliberate Dumbing Down of America  http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html (http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html)

It seems that the California experiment of the Government taking care of the people has not worked either. Another solar company has just moved out of the overtaxed, over regulated, unethical, and over populated mess on the west coast.  If you want a utopia you have to start with individual motives. A society based on selfishness, to attain individual pleasure and desires will not work even with the strict enforcement to equally distribute wealth.  Individuals have to put the community ahead of their own welfare for a society that will benefit all. It works in small communities but not on a national scale.  It has not even worked on a state scale. So states that allow each community to operate independently without large government interference would have the greatest chance of success. You do understand that many communities would have very different laws and cultures. That would allow like minded people to live together. But it would also require those who visit communities that are not their own would have to be on their best behavior as not to offend that which they visit.

Lisagurl, you obviously know nothing about the California economy and government. Our problem here, in the power industry especially, has been a disastrous deregulation program that backfired and created a statewide energy crisis. We've spent years and years recovering from it. Meanwhile, the Governator is terribly mishandling the budget, and we labor under tax rules left over from the "Taxpayers' Revolution" days which require a 2/3rds majority in the state legislature to raise taxes - making balancing the budget under increasing budgetary needs practically impossible. Our education system is in crisis, our prison system has been ballooning for years, and yet the tax rules are so difficult to repeal that there seems to be no good way out of the mess.

You don't seem to understand what the welfare state is for. It exists to prevent suffering, not to feed the greed of individuals. It is true that some people abuse it, but the solution to welfare abuse is to implement a better-designed system, not to get rid of the system altogether.

As for forced/unfree labor, it is true that there are more people in slavery and other coerced/unfree labor situations around the world than at any other time in history; however,  they make up a smaller portion of the world population than they ever have - a product of population growth. As with other problems, I would ask you: what would you have us do, if not institute government regulation and try to enforce it as best we can? Is the solution to people running red lights really to remove the red lights? Surely you don't think that slaveholders will simply release their slaves voluntarily.

The book on education you linked to looks by all accounts to be a gross misreading of a variety of sources, theories and studies, from John Dewey downwards, plugged into a hysterical, ax-grinding conspiracy theory about evil socialists ruining American education. Pardon me if I don't waste my time reading it.

I will not be swayed by the opinions of others unless they make sense to me.  I've read many books but I've never read one that I completely believe in its entire content.  For every book or article one may present, there is one or more out there to contradict it.  No one person has all the answers.  But there are certain basic principles that work, like equality.

Going back to the "good old days"?  No thanks!  The days when social repression ruled?  The days when the majority stomped out any minorities it didn't like?  The days when we "put people in their places"?  You can have it!

The extreme right wants things to go back to the good old days.  They talk about being the party of change but all they want to change is encouraging progress.  They want "those people" put back in their boxes and out of sight.  They can't stand diversity. They embrace sameness, a world where everyone acts and dresses alike, where everyone marches in lockstep.  That's not what I want. 

My message to the teabaggers: It's not my cup of tea.

" has been a disastrous deregulation program that backfired and created a statewide energy crisis."
=============
Your problem has been the environmental refusal to build power plants and power lines. Which left you no choose but to buy power from middle men.

"that there seems to be no good way out of the mess."
============
There is a simple way out of it  Get rid of the prop system and then reduce entitlement programs like education, health care, welfare and other's. Then start population control by getting rid of illegal workers. then get rid of the three strike law. Make the prisoners support their own needs such as growing their own food and making their own cloths etc.

"It exists to prevent suffering, not to feed the greed of individuals."

-------
Suffering is necessary when people do irrational things. Let them suffer. It is the best teacher.


"Is the solution to people running red lights really to remove the red lights?"

Better yet remove insurance. So when they break their car they will have to walk. Insurance makes people not be responsible. Just as the health care will allow people to do thing sthat cause health problems knowing they can get help. It takes away personal responsibility.

---

Post Merge: April 12, 2010, 05:24:53 PM

---

QuoteNo one person has all the answers.  But there are certain basic principles that work, like equality.

The simple fact is that people are not equal. Everyone is different and has different attributes some are valued by society and some are not.

QuoteThey talk about being the party of change but all they want to change is encouraging progress.

The world can not have progress. The resources are being used faster than they can be renewed. We are headed for a lower standard of living especially if we do not reduce population.  You do not have to worry about the majority social repression because many will die of the over population by natural events as in the past such as war, disease, starvation, lack of water etc.

I am thinking next you will advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Quote from: lisagurl on April 12, 2010, 05:16:46 PM
" has been a disastrous deregulation program that backfired and created a statewide energy crisis."
=============
Your problem has been the environmental refusal to build power plants and power lines. Which left you no choose but to buy power from middle men.

"that there seems to be no good way out of the mess."
============
There is a simple way out of it  Get rid of the prop system and then reduce entitlement programs like education, health care, welfare and other's. Then start population control by getting rid of illegal workers. then get rid of the three strike law. Make the prisoners support their own needs such as growing their own food and making their own cloths etc.

"It exists to prevent suffering, not to feed the greed of individuals."

-------
Suffering is necessary when people do irrational things. Let them suffer. It is the best teacher.


"Is the solution to people running red lights really to remove the red lights?"

Better yet remove insurance. So when they break their car they will have to walk. Insurance makes people not be responsible. Just as the health care will allow people to do thing sthat cause health problems knowing they can get help. It takes away personal responsibility.

---

Post Merge: April 12, 2010, 04:24:53 PM

---

The simple fact is that people are not equal. Everyone is different and has different attributes some are valued by society and some are not.

The world can not have progress. The resources are being used faster than they can be renewed. We are headed for a lower standard of living especially if we do not reduce population.  You do not have to worry about the majority social repression because many will die of the over population by natural events as in the past such as war, disease, starvation, lack of water etc.

You gotta be kidding me. good grief

---

Post Merge: April 12, 2010, 06:19:55 PM

---

Socialist-Free Purity Pledge

I, ________________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the
principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word
that I shall strictly adhere to the following: I pledge to eliminate
all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of
and participation in any socialist goods and services including but
not limited to the following:

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
US Postal Service
Roads and Highways
Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
The US Railway System
Rest Areas on Highways
Bridges
Sidewalks
Public Water/Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower,
dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
FDA Approved Food and Drugs
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
Treatment at Any Hospital/Clinic That Ever Received Funding From
Local/State/Federal Government
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created/Derived From Any
Government Grant/Research Funding
Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and
Velcro (NASA Inventions)
Use of the Internets, email, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for
computer networking
Foodstuffs/Meats/Produce/Crops That Were Grown With/Fed With/Raised
With/That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
Public Education
Government grants/loans for higher education
Attending publicly funded or state colleges/universities

SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____IN THE YEAR ____.

_________________ _________________
Name/Town/State

Just print, disconnect your computer from the socialist internets,
sign and hand deliver to the appropriate agencies. Don't forget to
pass it along to all your anti-socialist friends so that they, too,
can free themselves of the tyranny!

To reduce the population, we should eliminate all the inferior people, people who have little or no value to society, people who are lazy, people who are handicapped, people who are a blight on society and, especially, them gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-whatever folks!

That should clean up a lot of the mess.  We can feed them to to the sharks, lions, tigers and whatever other carnivore will eat them.  That should help the animal/fish population for a while and reduce the clean up costs.

Then, after the cleansed population settles into the new world, we should re-evaluate our standards and identify the next class of inferiors and get rid of them.  Continue the process until purification is complete.

But first we need to elect people to the new "Purification of Odd and Ordinary People" (POOP) board.  I nominate Sarah Palin, Fred Phelps, Pastor Thomas Robb , August Kreis III, Don McLeroy, William Donahue, Peter LaBarbera, Maggie Gallagher and Kenneth Zucker - to start.  That should put the cleansing process into hyper-drive.

Lisagurl, you are portraying yourself as something of a sociopath; there is no other way to put it. I can only hope that you are not what you portray yourself to be.

You want no healthcare, no education, no stoplights, no insurance, no this, no that, we should get out of your life - but you want to control the lives of immigrants who are suffering so much they will risk their lives to cross the border illegally. You want them to suffer more. This all leads to the grand reveal, which is of course that you have no real problem with suffering.

I'm willing to make a bet, though, and that bet is this: you do have a problem with suffering. You have a problem with your own suffering; you would weep and lament and suffer over the loss of a leg, or a loved one, like anyone else. You simply fail to extend that common human decency to anyone who is not close enough to you to hug. You seem to believe that people are always responsible for their own suffering; this is obviously not the case.

You are correct in one and only one thing: we need to get rid of the proposition system in California.

General, not political, observation:

it seems to me that often a political philosophy is built on a foundation of wonderful intentions, and laudable goals, but has the unfortunate flaw of being wholly impractical to actually apply to real human nature.

Specifically, if one were to say, for instance "we can't afford to give free health care to everyone" those who make "compassion for the suffering" their foundational principle will be outraged and say "you monster! you don't care about suffering!"

But it need not be the case that the skeptic doesn't care, they might care a great deal - but caring alone can make an impossible thing possible.

(Please note that I'm not arguing covering everyone is impossible, it was just an example)

The actual discussion should be "what can practically be done?" since there are, in point of fact, no monsters who want to see people suffer.

But so often that question doesn't get asked because both sides are too busy attacking each other's (presumed) motives.

QuoteYou want no healthcare, no education, no stoplights, no insurance, no this, no that, we should get out of your life -

An orderly society requires responsibility and rational thinking. You can not get something for nothing. Everything requires work, effort and a willingness to give of your time to the culture. If you are displeased with the culture you will not give. Force only promotes resistance. Many people bring on their own problems yet some others are in the wrong place at the wrong time. 50  percent of doing the right thing is not going to the wrong place. The other 50% is timing knowing what and when to do it. People who do not plan, research, and take action to improve their lives should not expect others to do it for them.  It does not take laws and government to plan everyone's lives. Families, and community groups have much power to improve lives of everyone. If individuals do not want to give time to those groups then they can expect  no one is going to give to them.  It is difficult to watch people destroy themselves but they have that right. It is better for everyone to leave a self destructive person to their own resources if they reject community help. Help does not last for ever. It is only a temporary band-aid to get people to help themselves. Let those die who have no redeeming attributes to offer society after the community sees the reality. Too many people are having children irresponsibly and dumping them on society. Limited resources would require rationing or just plan denial to people who abuse the system.

Alright, so I've been reading this thread for some time now; I'm actually starting to enjoy the back-and-forth conversation, even if neither side can agree with very much that the other is saying. I like to try to stay neutral; what seems to be an obvious hatred to a political opponent usually turns out to be just a misinformed opinion or a quote taken out of context (and the context is trickier than it first appears, as many groups on both sides appear to occupy worlds of their own). The opinions of the masses (not the protestors; those are usually people with exceptional interest...) generally fall into the same general line on many things.

I was even taking Lisagurl's comments with several grains of salt, thinking "Maybe that's just the way she speaks". When I read Laura's comments about how political philosophies don't translate well to nature, I agreed. In trying to fit Lisa's philosophy to the real world, we ran up against some problems, which may not be quite as unacceptable if we understand where she's coming from. The first half of the previous post makes some sense; few people want to help those who refuse to help themselves. A reasonable argument so far.

Then, of course, there was this.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 14, 2010, 04:49:44 PM
Let those die who have no redeeming attributes to offer society after the community sees the reality. [...] Limited resources would require rationing or just plan denial to people who abuse the system.

I'm trying to see this in a way that doesn't paint Lisagurl as misanthropic, but it's kinda not happening.

I'm sure that many of those who will post after me will ask the same question, but what kind of system is this? It seems open to all kinds of problems. Who gets to decide what 'redeeming attributes' will be? Do we allow for extenuating circumstances (say, a previously self-sufficient business owner becomes homeless when his business fails during a recession)? How will a democratic nation (which ostensibly serves the people to some extent) justify this course of action?

It's also only a small jump from "these people are useless, we should let them die" to "these people are useless, we should actively kill them". People will make this leap eventually. So it ends up as "anyone without 'redeeming attributes' deserves death", which has been tried multiple times already in the form of various wars. That's basically the underlying principle for most of the prejudice and violence in the world, which the masses tend to decry.

Overall, I would think that even the original method would be difficult to apply; this goes against most peoples' idea of 'morality', and the people who are so treated tend to resist.

Agreed, and thank you for such a substantial post. Lisagurl is illustrating quite beautifully for me the point I made earlier about the "diaper-changing" comment: all this talk about unhampered liberty too often goes hand-in-hand with the desire to conduct invasive, often theocratic moral arbitrage on society, deciding who gets to be pure and good and who is not. Lisagurl is displaying the "class purity" variety of right-wing "diaper-changing" tendencies: if people are impoverished, it's their own fault, and their being poor makes them less worthy in the eyes of society.

I'm tired of this, as she is as well, I'm sure.

Quoteif people are impoverished, it's their own fault, and their being poor makes them less worthy in the eyes of society.

If you read " A Theory of Justice " By Rawls you will see he paints justice by the individual not knowing anything about their selves or their status. If you have no personal benefit and could be rich or poor how would you define a system? If you put humanity first before individual lives the first priority is survival of the people. If you have limited resources such as we have how do you insure survival and prevent over use and over population? Would suffering be a priority? What about how long people live? What about those vegetables that only consume and do not contribute? Reality many sound harsh but these are real problems which in the name of emotions people do not want to face because no choice is completely moral or empathic.  The Greeks thought about these problems read Plato and Aristotle. It is not a matter of what you would like to do but what can be done with a high probability.

There are political philosophers and economists to support practically every bad idea under the sun, Lisagurl - from the extremely minimal government you seem to favor (J.S. Mill, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman) right up to completely government-managed command economies (Marx, Lenin, Trotsky), or no authority or state at all (Kropotkin, Bakunin, Chomsky). None of these arguments are new, and citing philosophers isn't particularly impressive to anyone but the most naive and uneducated. You might as well, by the way, have cited a philosopher a good deal stronger in your positions than Rawls. How about Murray Rothbard, the Anarcho-Capitalist? You know, "government is the problem - get rid of government, and the free market can function properly." Idiocy loves company, I guess.

Did you think, perhaps, that I had never read any political philosophy? I actually like several libertarian/classical liberal philosophers, John Stuart Mill especially, although I think they're wrong on their economic positions. J.S. Mill was one of the first out the gate with a philosophical defense of the equality of women with men. How can I not love that?
If you're going to argue from such difficult to validate positions, perhaps you should learn to argue your points better. You don't come off as a libertarian so much as you come off as a sociopath.

Gosh I go away for a week and you're still at it.


it seems to me that often a political philosophy is built on a foundation of wonderful intentions, and laudable goals, but has the unfortunate flaw of being wholly impractical to actually apply to real human nature.
That's pretty much why people who actually work in government, or in policy tend to discuss policy (what can be done and how is it to be done and who is it going to be done for/to) and not political philosophy. 

Politics, and I'm pretty sure that this is the reason so many people don't like it is really the art of the possible.  There is no perfect world, and even if there was the first thing that would happen is you'd no longer have people walking around thinking 'if it were a perfect world.'  Good enough is often way better then nothing.  Holding out for perfection - and that's what political philosophy in its quest for purity involves - ain't ever got nobody anywhere.

Quote from: Julie Marie on April 02, 2010, 02:47:37 PM
Walk into a christian church and right there, front and center, is a crucifix, and that crucifix may also have an emaciated man hanging on it with nails pounded through his hands and feet, a stab wound in his side and a thorny crown pushed into his skull.  Some will even have this in living color, complete with blood pouring from the wounds.

Just image what the symbol would look like if they had Jesus torn apart by dogs.

Quote from: Julie Marie on April 02, 2010, 02:47:37 PM
BTW, Palin is appealing to them also because she conveys this image she's a good christian woman.  Then dresses like a bad girl.  (note the leather jacket)  I think that dual image on an attractive woman appeals to a lot conservatives who are too uptight to let loose.

If you listen to Palin, she appeals entirely to emotion. There is little, if anything, of constructive ideas in her speeches. People need to turn of their emotions when listening to these empty speeches.


As usual, I agree with Tekla on about everything.

For those looking for a civil war, it ain't gonna be yer great grand pappy's war. It's going to be Bosnia. Not that it will ever happen. And besides, the militias will be put down by the states national guards and reserves who happen to have bigger weapons.

There is nothing to fear. the world is better than you think. If you feel panicked, scared, or anxious, go see a good counselor.

What if Jesus were strangled? Would we have to look at sculptures of some Roman garroting him?  Just wondering.


your old foe,

Rebis

QuoteYou don't come off as a libertarian so much as you come off as a sociopath

I am neither. I prefer independent. The Government has a poor track record. The president has more international power than domestic. World problems are much more involved than most care to investigate and Obama is doing just what Bush did. National problems are mostly due to the nature of our country. We are not one peoples but United States of different beliefs. The Nation has watched the California political philosophy blow up in their face. We do not want to ruin the country with policy that is not feasible. Sure a utopia is just in people's heads like Rawls admits. In the physical reality there is going to be discrimination, poverty, crime, corruption and inequities. Face those facts and you will see that an individual has more power to change things when self motivation is permitted than being forced by threat of Government punishment. 

Lisagurl, what part of "California is not a left-wing paradise" do you not understand? Many of the defining budgetary policies in this state were created by Republicans. Our governor is a Republican, as have been some of the most significant governors in the state's history. FFS, we passed Prop. 8, the anti-gay marriage proposition! That doesn't strike me as particularly lefty. The urban populations here in the San Francisco Bay Area may lean to the left, but state's large suburban populations don't, and the rural voters of the Central Valley are staunchly right-wing and impossible to sway by any measure.

The bottom line is that you don't know a damned thing about my state, and you ought to, to quote Wm. F. Buckley (a sociopath you'd get along with!), "shut up a little" about California politics and policy until such time as you actually know what you're talking about. This state is not a leftist utopia, never has been and probably never will be.

But the system is not doing all it can be, it isn't doing what should be done, and there are tons of bureaucratic excuses why things cannot be done better. If you have any will to save your country left, rise up!

And I know that schools have taken on the welfare of their students because families have fallen down on the job. The sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's, the "ME" generation of the 80's - these didn't exactly contribute to family stability. Divorce is the norm. Step parents are the norm, and not all of them found peace and joy with their new blended families. Go back a bit, and remember when the government had to convince minorities to take welfare. Forcing welfare on minorities was a brilliant move in all of this, too. This broke down the family structure in huge segments of our society, leading to all sorts of problems with an ongoing cycle of poverty, with the subsequent ongoing cycles of crime, incarceration, absent fathers, multiple "partners" going through the lives of single mothers, physical and sexual abuse - which led in turn to high needs for schools and governments to intervene between family and children. Brilliant move. A tragedy of holocaust proportions was visited on our poor, so that today the government can justify its intrusion into private lives, and further alienation between children and parents by the sheer magnitude of TIME they claim that it takes to properly educate our children....they play on our fears that our children will not be able to make in in this economy that they've broken with overspending.

I think, if for no other reason, the reason we need to resist federal mandates is because they destroy us at the local level. By offering us/forcing on us new federal guidelines and mandates, rules and regulations, it puts us in a similar situation as a single, welfare mother. Dependent, and at risk for losing something we think we need if we make waves.

Many of my ancestors were killed in the Holocaust. My great-grandmother Chinka fled on foot across Europe, from Southern Ukraine to Amsterdam, carrying four small children in order to escape the pogroms. Two of those children died on the way. She was lucky; while she and my grandfather were struggling to make ends meet in New York, most of the family members who remained in Europe ended up in concentration camps.

You can take your false analogy between the imagined negative effects of government intervention on the poor and the worst genocide in human history and stuff it.
It is valid to argue the merits of public policy, but making analogies between government social programs and the Holocaust is not and will never be valid argument. Ever. Got it?

You've just ended this discussion. Come back to me when you've learned to use civil debating tactics.

QuoteEver. Got it?

Then you have a place in this world it is called a  kibbutz.

QuoteCome back to me when you've learned to use civil debating tactics.

LOL read "Freakonomics" (A Rogue Economist Explores The Hidden Side of Everything) The statistics are there. I do not care to live in a socialist nation any more than your relatives wanted a fascist one. Limited resources that go unchecked by Government spending  will lead to genocide. It happened in many places such as Rwanda.

Have a nice life.