|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 23 2013 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America. No, that's conservatives. Tea Party says its evil and the equivalent of slavery. Which was what the discussion was actually about, if anyone cared to notice. But to be fair, intellectual honesty was never xDaunt's strong suit.
Actually, if you took the time to read my posts instead of posting the dribble about them that you repeatedly post, you'd see that I'm very intellectually honest and consistent.
EDIT: Seriously, half the time you don't even seem to understand what I am posting or you twist it to fit into whatever box that you want to put it into. Hell, your most recent reply about my comments regarding politicians leaving parties is a perfect example of this.
|
On October 22 2013 23:48 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America. Doesn't everyone agree on this? Are there people who think the system is working as intended?? I don't think this is only a Tea Party tenet, I thought the disagreements were on the solutions to these problems (reforming and expanding vs. abolishing the welfare state).
The only complaint that I hear from democrats about the welfare state is that it isn't big enough. That's not exactly where the Tea Party is going with their complaints.
|
On October 22 2013 23:47 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party. Interesting, I would very much like to follow this development. Either way, it would be quite the massive overhaul in the US political scene. Also, assuming the party is thoroughly revamped rather than split, how do you see it panning out? A thorough capitulation to the extreme right, or essentially purging the party of it's most ardent base?
It is more likely that the party will be reformed internally as opposed to fracturing. It's already happening at a state level. The new, younger candidates are more libertarian as opposed to conservative republican. That's the future of the party.
|
On October 23 2013 01:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America. No, that's conservatives. Tea Party says its evil and the equivalent of slavery. Which was what the discussion was actually about, if anyone cared to notice. But to be fair, intellectual honesty was never xDaunt's strong suit. Actually, if you took the time to read my posts instead of posting the dribble about them that you repeatedly post, you'd see that I'm very intellectually honest and consistent.
Consistent, sure. Intellectually honest? Please.
|
United States43563 Posts
On October 23 2013 01:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America. No, that's conservatives. Tea Party says its evil and the equivalent of slavery. Which was what the discussion was actually about, if anyone cared to notice. But to be fair, intellectual honesty was never xDaunt's strong suit. Actually, if you took the time to read my posts instead of posting the dribble about them that you repeatedly post, you'd see that I'm very intellectually honest and consistent.
Supporting xDaunt here, he's actually quite a reasonable chap as far as I recall. I remember some posts on healthcare that weren't especially driven by ideology or inhumane.
|
On October 23 2013 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America. No, that's conservatives. Tea Party says its evil and the equivalent of slavery. Which was what the discussion was actually about, if anyone cared to notice. But to be fair, intellectual honesty was never xDaunt's strong suit.
As long as we are going on intellectual honesty, let's take a look at what Allen West actually said:
Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today
He categorised welfare as species of slavery; as something lower in the taxonomic hierarchy. If I were to say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, it would be a similar misrepresentation to say: "MW thinks that sarcasm is witty."
Of course, I was going to complain about Rep. Allen West's poor metaphor, of his inability to draw out a conceit, but rhetoric is everywhere so clumsy nowadays, that it would almost seem selective indignation. Look after all, at our own wags go about it. So far as I am convinced, tl.net issues the most preposterous Tea-Party style hyperbole outside the Tea Party itself.
You have my permission to distort that statement however you please.
|
On October 23 2013 01:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 01:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2013 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America. No, that's conservatives. Tea Party says its evil and the equivalent of slavery. Which was what the discussion was actually about, if anyone cared to notice. But to be fair, intellectual honesty was never xDaunt's strong suit. Actually, if you took the time to read my posts instead of posting the dribble about them that you repeatedly post, you'd see that I'm very intellectually honest and consistent. Supporting xDaunt here, he's actually quite a reasonable chap as far as I recall. I remember some posts on healthcare that weren't especially driven by ideology or inhumane.
What, never seen a republican who thinks that some degree of universal healthcare is a good idea?
Regardless, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's political position and that person being intellectually dishonest.
|
On October 23 2013 01:15 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America. No, that's conservatives. Tea Party says its evil and the equivalent of slavery. Which was what the discussion was actually about, if anyone cared to notice. But to be fair, intellectual honesty was never xDaunt's strong suit. As long as we are going on intellectual honesty, let's take a look at what Allen West actually said: Show nested quote +Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today He categorised welfare as species of slavery; as something lower in the taxonomic hierarchy. If I were to say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, it would be a similar misrepresentation to say: "MW thinks that sarcasm is witty." Of course, I was going to complain about Rep. Allen West's poor metaphor, of his inability to draw out a conceit, but rhetoric is everywhere so clumsy nowadays, that it would almost seem selective indignation. Look after all, at our own wags go about it. So far as I am convinced, tl.net issues the most preposterous Tea-Party style hyperbole outside the Tea Party itself. You have my permission to distort that statement however you please.
What? Not lower at all. Most insidious. Its right fucking there. Hell, the lady on the daily show said it was WORSE than slavery.
Not even Alan West would agree with your nutsy interpretation. What is wrong with you?
Edit: I can link more people saying how the welfare state is evil later but really just google search it. All the tea party leaders have done so in one form or another.
|
So what are people's thoughts on McCutcheon v. FEC and the prospect of individual aggregate donation limits for candidates/committees being removed? It appears that the case comes down to Roberts again, just like Citizens United, you have to wonder if the flak they took for that case might have an impact on his decision, or if he feels he has to view it as precedent for this case.
Personally I feel that we already have too much money in our political system, and would prefer to move to something similar to the UK's model, though that is of course highly unlikely. About the case itself, I really don't know how he will rule, but I'm worried he might rule with the other conservative-leaning justices.
scotusblog link
|
What, never seen a republican who thinks that some degree of universal healthcare is a good idea?
Regardless, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's political position and that person being intellectually dishonest.
And there is a difference between disagreeing with someone's political position, being intellectually dishonest, and nitpicking to score cheap shots because you really really dislike that person.
What? Not lower at all. Most insidious. Its right fucking there.
When X is a form of Y it is said to be taxonomically inferior, by definition.
Mr. West's superlative was spoken with the qualification of "remaining in the world" by which he presumably excludes such things as chattel slavery. Ergo: Mr. West does not think that welfare is morally equivalent to chattel slavery. That's your intellectual dishonesty at work there, Mr. Reed.
As for what's wrong with me, refer to And there is a difference between disagreeing with someone's political position, being intellectually dishonest, and nitpicking to score cheap shots because you really really dislike that person. 
|
|
|
On October 23 2013 01:45 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +What, never seen a republican who thinks that some degree of universal healthcare is a good idea?
Regardless, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's political position and that person being intellectually dishonest. And there is a difference between disagreeing with someone's political position, being intellectually dishonest, and nitpicking to score cheap shots because you really really dislike that person. When X is a form of Y it is said to be taxonomically inferior, by definition. Mr. West's superlative was spoken with the qualification of "remaining in the world" by which he presumably excludes such things as chattel slavery. Ergo: Mr. West does not think that welfare is morally equivalent to chattel slavery. That's your intellectual dishonesty at work there, Mr. Reed. As for what's wrong with me, refer to Show nested quote +And there is a difference between disagreeing with someone's political position, being intellectually dishonest, and nitpicking to score cheap shots because you really really dislike that person.
No its making an equivalence. What are you talking about?
Seriously spend two minutes on google, or watch the daily show. There's tons of examples.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
actual republicans i know...a lot. though i've read stuff like the national review and commentary for far too long
|
Wait....you know a lot of Republicans or you read a lot of Republicans through the National Review?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
my dad is a republican. i was also spectating le federalist society meetings at uchicago for a while.
|
Trains Running Again In San Francisco As BART Strike Ends
Commuters in the San Francisco area should see things start returning to normal Tuesday, thanks to an overnight agreement that has ended a strike by workers at the transit system known as BART.
The walkout began Friday. Around 10:30 p.m. local time Monday (1:30 a.m. ET Tuesday), Bay Area Rapid Transit management and representatives of the workers' unions announced they had reached a deal. ...
Link
It's good to hear that the BART union is no longer holding the city hostage and putting a gun to commuter's heads 
|
On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party.
Now I'm confused you assented to me early that the Republican party has not changed platform wise since Reagan, I didn't dispute that fact. I instead said that the platform might not have changed but the party has and has since moved further right dragging the Dem's with them. I brought up the example of Dole's proposed healthcare reform which was essentially Obamacara as an example of this. As in Dole a Republican running for president was willing to make this compromise. He had the support of his party on this, it was acceptable to the party back then. That was 1996, it was acceptable back then, move to 2013 and it is completely unacceptable. Either the party has changed without changing its platform, or I've missed something.
Were you arguing with me for the sake of arguing when you agreed with someone saying I don't know much about the history of the GOP? I'm not going to lie and say I know every piece of policy made since Reagan; I have however been paying attention since 2000 and the party starting with Bush seems to have moved and become further right by the year. So much so that old Republican right of center policies are now too liberal for them Ie. Obamacare.
|
On October 23 2013 02:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Trains Running Again In San Francisco As BART Strike Ends
Commuters in the San Francisco area should see things start returning to normal Tuesday, thanks to an overnight agreement that has ended a strike by workers at the transit system known as BART.
The walkout began Friday. Around 10:30 p.m. local time Monday (1:30 a.m. ET Tuesday), Bay Area Rapid Transit management and representatives of the workers' unions announced they had reached a deal. ... LinkIt's good to hear that the BART union is no longer holding the city hostage and putting a gun to commuter's heads
Nice attempt tho somewhat falling flat considering the unions demands were not nearly as unrealistic as those made by the Republicans.
|
On October 23 2013 02:05 B_Type13X2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party. Now I'm confused you assented to me early that the Republican party has not changed platform wise since Reagan, I didn't dispute that fact. I instead said that the platform might not have changed but the party has and has since moved further right dragging the Dem's with them. I brought up the example of Dole's proposed healthcare reform which was essentially Obamacara as an example of this. As in Dole a Republican running for president was willing to make this compromise. He had the support of his party on this, it was acceptable to the party back then. That was 1996, it was acceptable back then, move to 2013 and it is completely unacceptable. Either the party has changed without changing its platform, or I've missed something. Were you arguing with me for the sake of arguing when you agreed with someone saying I don't know much about the history of the GOP? I'm not going to lie and say I know every piece of policy made since Reagan; I have however been paying attention since 2000 and the party starting with Bush seems to have moved and become further right by the year. So much so that old Republican right of center policies are now too liberal for them Ie. Obamacare.
Why are you singling out one issue? More specifically, why are you singling out one issue that not even all republicans agreed upon back in 1996? You're confused because you're applying a flawed methodology.
|
On October 23 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:From the WHO - Cities with the worst air pollution: + Show Spoiler +Link
Was I the only one who laughed out loud at bakersfield being the top for the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/air-pollution-by-city%20%28311x640%29.jpg)
