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.
@JB you did? where? those two subsections and all the conclusions drawn from the framework in the remainder. i have been pretty clear on this from the get go you know... don't be shy johnny. i'm not interested in what the paper says anymore, i have laid that out multiple times. i am interested in what you think it is.
On January 30 2014 12:51 nunez wrote: @JB you did? where? those two subsections and all the conclusions drawn from the framework in the remainder. i have been pretty clear on this from the get go you know... don't be shy johnny. i'm not interested in what the paper says anymore, i have laid that out multiple times. i am interested in what you think it is.
No, it's the reverse. The framework is based off the research.
Linear jobs pay linearly. The example given is a pharmacist - pharmacists are easily interchangeable - there is little benefit from having them work long hours and so there is little pay premium for working long hours.
Non-linear jobs pay non-linearly. An example given is lawyer - you can't easily swap out a lawyer. Personal interactions matter, etc. and so there is a large pay premium for working long hours.
That forms the basis for the framework.
It's also observed that the non-linear professions generally have bigger gender gaps. That's where the idea that much of the residual gender gap comes from ignoring the non-linear pay dynamic.
I like how you refer to the House, in theory the closest branch to the people, as "sabotaging."
When he was re-elected, so was the House. When he was re-elected, the Constitution was not also up for election. That doesn't GO up for election. So yes, when he acts outside the bounds of the law for expediency, it concerns me. How can you trust ANY politician with that kind of power?
He's still far left. Just because he doesn't act to the astounding extent you apparently want him to doesn't mean he's not far left.
What laws is Obama breaking?
FYI, the Constitution IS law. So with that in mind...
Rewriting Obamacare deadlines, trying to violate the Recess Appointment Clause, passing a bill with the individual mandate, etc. I could give you more, but this would be the 184674 they've been laid out. These are just the most recent.
Also some of this stuff is nuanced, especially when it relates to more vague sections of the Constitution.
So when the supreme court says something is acceptable, what further basis is there for something to be illegal?
Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June).
I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again....
The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened.
So then why not just abolish all other branches of the government? I KNOW the mandate is the law, but I'm saying it's in violation of the Constitution.
Jefferson's fear of the Courts was well placed, I'm afraid.
you don't seem to know what 'left' means.
I mean American left.
Maybe you should give the supreme court justices a lesson then. What you say is an opinion. It does not make it fact, hell it does not even make it relevant.
If you want to change it try to get Republicans into power so they can get more conservative leaning judges into office. Or even better, work towards becoming a kickass lawyer/scholar in the field of law and get some major political backing/friends with power --> become a supreme court judge!
Boom, suddenly what you say has meaning because the constitution gives these individuals power to decide what's constitutional and what is not.
People are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
lol. spoken like a true Randroid.
I like Rand Paul, but I'm not a "Randroid." I don't hang on his every word, etc. I didn't even know he said something like that. (Also, I've had my views long before Rand came onto the scene.)
Again, I could go over this Obamacare thing again, it's one of my first set of posts in this thread.
I don't understand the fascination with judges speaking and THUS IT WAS SO. For example, the ACA case was decided 5-4. So clearly 5 or 4 of them are wrong! Hell, even within the majority there were stark differences! John Roberts used it to limit the Commerce Clause. Four other justices though the Commerce Clause WAS a justification. And they are all Ivy League educated! To call issues of that sort settled is absurd. The Court consists of 9 fallible, corruptible human beings. So please, defend the ACA with argument, don't just say "but the Court said!" Every time I've discussed the appropriate historical context, all its defenders do is just shout "majority says!" at me.
Progressives are anti-corruption, so yes. Not every progressive will be successful, but I think due to the nature of history we'll make progress eventually. Women got the right to vote, blacks became citizens and got the right to vote. People eventually realize some traditions are worth discarding and desire change.
Taxes aren't left/right, but of course they are political. Both the right and left could use taxes in favour of their agenda (left: basic/minimum income, right: consolidating or expanding the power of corporations or the government). You know he kept the great portion of the Bush tax cuts? ACA favours corporations. He's expanded drone strikes in other countries, spied on his own citizens, passed regulations that effectively do nothing. These make him the opposite of a leftist.
I referred you to EO count because you said obama is using more and more executive authority to prove he's a leftist, while clearly people who are the right-wing have used it more than him. Your point was countered successfully.
Why should someone be concerned if someone's got a pen and a phone? This is terrible fear mongering if that's what you're trying to accomplish. And no, I'm not a progressive/liberal. People need to stop labeling others by their political beliefs, it only serves to put them in a box and make it so the other person doesn't have to actually think issue by issue.
No I understand the left can be corrupt.
No, your point about EO was the number of them. (it wasn't really a point, it was just a mention that obama is doing more and more - a number - of EO).
The left is for the separation of powers, that's true, but I do not see how obama using a pen and a phone means he's dictator of the country, or that the constitution is burned up.
I'm not talking about relative left and right either, it's actually you who are doing that since your definition of both is relative to where you live or where we are discussing (in the US).
You said the left favours low taxes to expand government, I think that was a typo? When you say the left is the "party of the nanny state" you continue to show that you're trying again and again to force some convoluted definition of leftism on us. If anything the right would be the nanny state; as they are in favour of consolidation of power, monarchy, feudalism, and basically a general authoritarianism. Those all are usually in favour of high taxes. And as I said, either side could use high taxes to further their agenda.
Lastly I don't see how somehow the republicans are the only wall stopping Obama's liberal side. He has time and time again caved in and come out in favour of republican agendas. In other words he isn't a far left liberal who is simply being abated by congress. He's made many concessions, and if anything he's moved to the right and conservative simply because of being in power.
No, my point about EOs was NOT about the number of them, you brought that up.
When the president threatens to assume lawmaking power (Constitutionally placed squarely in the domain of the Congress) it is a violation of SOP. President's duty? To ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. The Congress' job? To make and pass laws. What's so hard about that?
ok, I'll clear up nanny state: The Progressive idea is an active government that provides for the basic needs of citizens and maintains order. The conservative view is that the government should provide only the most essential of services- military, lawmaking, settling disputes, etc. It's the exact opposite of everything you said the right is for. I am using these terms in the common understanding. How long have you been in Canada? We may just be speaking a different language here. When you say the right is the party of the nanny state you display that you really don't know what the term means in American politics. That entire paragraph shows you have no idea what each side actually stands for.
Where has he conceded? What Republican plan has he been in favor of?
There is no "fascination"... you yourself said "FYI, the Constitution is the law..." when somebody asked you which specific law Obama did break. And the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the final say on how to interpret Federal Constitutional Law. It's not always deciding unaninmously, but in such critical cases there is the rule that out of the 9 justices 5 have agree and then it's decided for good - at least until someone challenges it again.
Though that would only make sense after a while since Justices in the Supreme Court tend to stay there for quite some time - and they won't disagree with themselves I would wager or even consider ruling on something that has been already decided.
You can't have it both ways, like the Constitution yet not be "fascinated" by the Judges that are explicitly there to watch over it... A court room is very different from the political or public arena, though I will grant you that Justices too have beliefs and convictions and that also will influence their decisions - naturally.
You are making a number of assumptions.
The Courts assumed the power of interpretation. This is an IMPLIED power of the Court (since SOMEONE has do it) but it is NOT "in the Constitution." Nor are they supposed to intercede in every instance. The statement "Judges that are explicitly there to watch over it..." is simply false, it's hardly explicit. And it certainly does NOT mean they can reinvent certain sections of it on a whim. They were supposed to interpret it, not rewrite it.
And it's almost impossible to challenge decisions, or it takes decades. Wickard v. Filburn wasn't really undone until the 1990s, if I recall correctly. So did the Constitution change meaning when the Court ruled in the 40s, then again in the 90s? That's an absurd way to view the law. if you want to change the Constitution, do it in the legitimate ways laid out in Article V.
And I repeat, it's fascinating to see people who claim to love democracy so much and yet every time some leader or branch assumes more power, they rush to said branch's defense!
Why is it so hard to understand the difference between interpreting things based on the law and actually changing the meaning of said law?
FWIW, Obama's MyRA plan sounds pretty good. It's a little annoying to add to the alphabet soup of qualified retirement plans, but that's not a major complaint.
FYI, the Constitution IS law. So with that in mind...
Rewriting Obamacare deadlines, trying to violate the Recess Appointment Clause, passing a bill with the individual mandate, etc. I could give you more, but this would be the 184674 they've been laid out. These are just the most recent.
Also some of this stuff is nuanced, especially when it relates to more vague sections of the Constitution.
So when the supreme court says something is acceptable, what further basis is there for something to be illegal?
Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June).
I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again....
The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened.
So then why not just abolish all other branches of the government? I KNOW the mandate is the law, but I'm saying it's in violation of the Constitution.
Jefferson's fear of the Courts was well placed, I'm afraid.
you don't seem to know what 'left' means.
I mean American left.
Maybe you should give the supreme court justices a lesson then. What you say is an opinion. It does not make it fact, hell it does not even make it relevant.
If you want to change it try to get Republicans into power so they can get more conservative leaning judges into office. Or even better, work towards becoming a kickass lawyer/scholar in the field of law and get some major political backing/friends with power --> become a supreme court judge!
Boom, suddenly what you say has meaning because the constitution gives these individuals power to decide what's constitutional and what is not.
People are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
lol. spoken like a true Randroid.
I like Rand Paul, but I'm not a "Randroid." I don't hang on his every word, etc. I didn't even know he said something like that. (Also, I've had my views long before Rand came onto the scene.)
Again, I could go over this Obamacare thing again, it's one of my first set of posts in this thread.
I don't understand the fascination with judges speaking and THUS IT WAS SO. For example, the ACA case was decided 5-4. So clearly 5 or 4 of them are wrong! Hell, even within the majority there were stark differences! John Roberts used it to limit the Commerce Clause. Four other justices though the Commerce Clause WAS a justification. And they are all Ivy League educated! To call issues of that sort settled is absurd. The Court consists of 9 fallible, corruptible human beings. So please, defend the ACA with argument, don't just say "but the Court said!" Every time I've discussed the appropriate historical context, all its defenders do is just shout "majority says!" at me.
Progressives are anti-corruption, so yes. Not every progressive will be successful, but I think due to the nature of history we'll make progress eventually. Women got the right to vote, blacks became citizens and got the right to vote. People eventually realize some traditions are worth discarding and desire change.
Taxes aren't left/right, but of course they are political. Both the right and left could use taxes in favour of their agenda (left: basic/minimum income, right: consolidating or expanding the power of corporations or the government). You know he kept the great portion of the Bush tax cuts? ACA favours corporations. He's expanded drone strikes in other countries, spied on his own citizens, passed regulations that effectively do nothing. These make him the opposite of a leftist.
I referred you to EO count because you said obama is using more and more executive authority to prove he's a leftist, while clearly people who are the right-wing have used it more than him. Your point was countered successfully.
Why should someone be concerned if someone's got a pen and a phone? This is terrible fear mongering if that's what you're trying to accomplish. And no, I'm not a progressive/liberal. People need to stop labeling others by their political beliefs, it only serves to put them in a box and make it so the other person doesn't have to actually think issue by issue.
No I understand the left can be corrupt.
No, your point about EO was the number of them. (it wasn't really a point, it was just a mention that obama is doing more and more - a number - of EO).
The left is for the separation of powers, that's true, but I do not see how obama using a pen and a phone means he's dictator of the country, or that the constitution is burned up.
I'm not talking about relative left and right either, it's actually you who are doing that since your definition of both is relative to where you live or where we are discussing (in the US).
You said the left favours low taxes to expand government, I think that was a typo? When you say the left is the "party of the nanny state" you continue to show that you're trying again and again to force some convoluted definition of leftism on us. If anything the right would be the nanny state; as they are in favour of consolidation of power, monarchy, feudalism, and basically a general authoritarianism. Those all are usually in favour of high taxes. And as I said, either side could use high taxes to further their agenda.
Lastly I don't see how somehow the republicans are the only wall stopping Obama's liberal side. He has time and time again caved in and come out in favour of republican agendas. In other words he isn't a far left liberal who is simply being abated by congress. He's made many concessions, and if anything he's moved to the right and conservative simply because of being in power.
ok, I'll clear up nanny state: The Progressive idea is an active government that provides for the basic needs of citizens and maintains order. The conservative view is that the government should provide only the most essential of services- military, lawmaking, settling disputes, etc. It's the exact opposite of everything you said the right is for. I am using these terms in the common understanding. How long have you been in Canada? We may just be speaking a different language here. When you say the right is the party of the nanny state you display that you really don't know what the term means in American politics. That entire paragraph shows you have no idea what each side actually stands for.
Um no, this paragraph means you have no idea what each side stands for. I've repeatedly told you the correct definition and ideology but you want to stick to this relativistic meaning that only applies in the US. The conservative view is to maintain the status quo, period. Change would be either progressive or reactionary (or some third way thing). When you say 'the conservative view' you mean people that identify as conservatives but don't believe in being conservative. I think that's the fundamental point that is keeping you from accepting a different definition. The 'nanny' state is mere rhetoric, either the state provides balance and justice and freedom from the people, or it administers order and tradition and consensus top-down, to the people.
FYI, the Constitution IS law. So with that in mind...
Rewriting Obamacare deadlines, trying to violate the Recess Appointment Clause, passing a bill with the individual mandate, etc. I could give you more, but this would be the 184674 they've been laid out. These are just the most recent.
Also some of this stuff is nuanced, especially when it relates to more vague sections of the Constitution.
So when the supreme court says something is acceptable, what further basis is there for something to be illegal?
Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June).
I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again....
The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened.
So then why not just abolish all other branches of the government? I KNOW the mandate is the law, but I'm saying it's in violation of the Constitution.
Jefferson's fear of the Courts was well placed, I'm afraid.
you don't seem to know what 'left' means.
I mean American left.
Maybe you should give the supreme court justices a lesson then. What you say is an opinion. It does not make it fact, hell it does not even make it relevant.
If you want to change it try to get Republicans into power so they can get more conservative leaning judges into office. Or even better, work towards becoming a kickass lawyer/scholar in the field of law and get some major political backing/friends with power --> become a supreme court judge!
Boom, suddenly what you say has meaning because the constitution gives these individuals power to decide what's constitutional and what is not.
People are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
lol. spoken like a true Randroid.
I like Rand Paul, but I'm not a "Randroid." I don't hang on his every word, etc. I didn't even know he said something like that. (Also, I've had my views long before Rand came onto the scene.)
Again, I could go over this Obamacare thing again, it's one of my first set of posts in this thread.
I don't understand the fascination with judges speaking and THUS IT WAS SO. For example, the ACA case was decided 5-4. So clearly 5 or 4 of them are wrong! Hell, even within the majority there were stark differences! John Roberts used it to limit the Commerce Clause. Four other justices though the Commerce Clause WAS a justification. And they are all Ivy League educated! To call issues of that sort settled is absurd. The Court consists of 9 fallible, corruptible human beings. So please, defend the ACA with argument, don't just say "but the Court said!" Every time I've discussed the appropriate historical context, all its defenders do is just shout "majority says!" at me.
Progressives are anti-corruption, so yes. Not every progressive will be successful, but I think due to the nature of history we'll make progress eventually. Women got the right to vote, blacks became citizens and got the right to vote. People eventually realize some traditions are worth discarding and desire change.
Taxes aren't left/right, but of course they are political. Both the right and left could use taxes in favour of their agenda (left: basic/minimum income, right: consolidating or expanding the power of corporations or the government). You know he kept the great portion of the Bush tax cuts? ACA favours corporations. He's expanded drone strikes in other countries, spied on his own citizens, passed regulations that effectively do nothing. These make him the opposite of a leftist.
I referred you to EO count because you said obama is using more and more executive authority to prove he's a leftist, while clearly people who are the right-wing have used it more than him. Your point was countered successfully.
Why should someone be concerned if someone's got a pen and a phone? This is terrible fear mongering if that's what you're trying to accomplish. And no, I'm not a progressive/liberal. People need to stop labeling others by their political beliefs, it only serves to put them in a box and make it so the other person doesn't have to actually think issue by issue.
No I understand the left can be corrupt.
No, your point about EO was the number of them. (it wasn't really a point, it was just a mention that obama is doing more and more - a number - of EO).
The left is for the separation of powers, that's true, but I do not see how obama using a pen and a phone means he's dictator of the country, or that the constitution is burned up.
I'm not talking about relative left and right either, it's actually you who are doing that since your definition of both is relative to where you live or where we are discussing (in the US).
You said the left favours low taxes to expand government, I think that was a typo? When you say the left is the "party of the nanny state" you continue to show that you're trying again and again to force some convoluted definition of leftism on us. If anything the right would be the nanny state; as they are in favour of consolidation of power, monarchy, feudalism, and basically a general authoritarianism. Those all are usually in favour of high taxes. And as I said, either side could use high taxes to further their agenda.
Lastly I don't see how somehow the republicans are the only wall stopping Obama's liberal side. He has time and time again caved in and come out in favour of republican agendas. In other words he isn't a far left liberal who is simply being abated by congress. He's made many concessions, and if anything he's moved to the right and conservative simply because of being in power.
ok, I'll clear up nanny state: The Progressive idea is an active government that provides for the basic needs of citizens and maintains order. The conservative view is that the government should provide only the most essential of services- military, lawmaking, settling disputes, etc. It's the exact opposite of everything you said the right is for. I am using these terms in the common understanding. How long have you been in Canada? We may just be speaking a different language here. When you say the right is the party of the nanny state you display that you really don't know what the term means in American politics. That entire paragraph shows you have no idea what each side actually stands for.
Um no, this paragraph means you have no idea what each side stands for. I've repeatedly told you the correct definition and ideology but you want to stick to this relativistic meaning that only applies in the US. The conservative view is to maintain the status quo, period. Change would be either progressive or reactionary (or some third way thing). When you say 'the conservative view' you mean people that identify as conservatives but don't believe in being conservative. I think that's the fundamental point that is keeping you from accepting a different definition. The 'nanny' state is mere rhetoric, either the state provides balance and justice and freedom from the people, or it administers order and tradition and consensus top-down, to the people.
Actually, you haven't. You said that conservatives stand for monarchy and are generally totalitarian. You must be referring to Conservatives around the time of the revolution? All these words change meaning, and in the American politcal lexicon it doesn't mean monarchy. It means small government. It means returning to Constitutional princple, not Constitutional times.
No, nanny state means the government acts as a nanny, hence the term.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's (R) re-election campaign kept a list of swing towns -- referred to collectively as "the Top 100" and individually as mini-Ohios or mini-Floridas -- that Christie wanted to win in 2013 in order to bolster his image for 2016, according to The New York Times.
The Times reported on Wednesday that staff members in the governor's office "created tabbed and color-coded dossiers on the mayors of each town — who their friends and enemies were, the policies and projects that were dear to them — that were bound in notebooks for the governor to review in his S.U.V. between events."
The effort, known as "intergovernmental affairs," was led first by Bill Stepien, Christie's campaign manager and deputy chief of staff, and then by Bridget Kelly, who succeeded Stepien as deputy chief of staff. Following the revelations that his staff was involved in discussions about the George Washington Bridge lane closures, Christie fired Kelly and asked Stepien to remove his name from the running to be chairman of the New Jersey Republican Party.
Some Democrats in New Jersey have alleged the lane closures were done in retaliation against the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who declined to endorse Christie's re-election bid and whose city saw days of gridlock because of the closures.
The Times also detailed the loyalists that surrounded Christie, and the way the policy team and the political team began to merge after Christie began receiving national attention.
It's the 2016 Presidential Primaries/Election, early bird special. Christie seemed tough and something of a frontrunner candidate, then this scandal broke (not exactly IRS/Benghazi potential strength, but it's all what the media makes of it).
Myself and my fellow Tea Party compatriots didn't really like Christie anyways since his Obamacare positioning, but we have not been reveling at the forks and knives coming out to sink this guy. If all the allegations are false and some group of his staff really screwed up, it's certainly a sad injustice. If he actually did knowingly manipulate traffic to political ends, then let the investigation sink him. If this new NYT report is truthful, same story.
On January 30 2014 17:34 Danglars wrote: It's the 2016 Presidential Primaries/Election, early bird special. Christie seemed tough and something of a frontrunner candidate, then this scandal broke (not exactly IRS/Benghazi potential strength, but it's all what the media makes of it).
Myself and my fellow Tea Party compatriots didn't really like Christie anyways since his Obamacare positioning, but we have not been reveling at the forks and knives coming out to sink this guy. If all the allegations are false and some group of his staff really screwed up, it's certainly a sad injustice. If he actually did knowingly manipulate traffic to political ends, then let the investigation sink him. If this new NYT report is truthful, same story.
Bigger then the first since that turned out to be completely false but I would say certainly not bigger then the second but then again if there was an actual intent to break the law I would call it bigger because you could point at Christy and go "he intended to break the law for his own benefit" which non of these other scandals could do (IRS one attempted to but was eventually debunked).
Edit: The first part of that recent Christy leak though isn't that shocking to me I would assume he would have a country by country breakdown and know who his allies are so he knows who he can make appearances with and then an "enemy" list so he can know who he has to either avoid mentioning in a positive light or who he has to call up and try to get endorsement of.
On January 30 2014 17:34 Danglars wrote: It's the 2016 Presidential Primaries/Election, early bird special. Christie seemed tough and something of a frontrunner candidate, then this scandal broke (not exactly IRS/Benghazi potential strength, but it's all what the media makes of it).
Myself and my fellow Tea Party compatriots didn't really like Christie anyways since his Obamacare positioning, but we have not been reveling at the forks and knives coming out to sink this guy. If all the allegations are false and some group of his staff really screwed up, it's certainly a sad injustice. If he actually did knowingly manipulate traffic to political ends, then let the investigation sink him. If this new NYT report is truthful, same story.
Bigger then the first since that turned out to be completely false but I would say certainly not bigger then the second but then again if there was an actual intent to break the law I would call it bigger because you could point at Christy and go "he intended to break the law for his own benefit" which non of these other scandals could do (IRS one attempted to but was eventually debunked).
Edit: The first part of that recent Christy leak though isn't that shocking to me I would assume he would have a country by country breakdown and know who his allies are so he knows who he can make appearances with and then an "enemy" list so he can know who he has to either avoid mentioning in a positive light or who he has to call up and try to get endorsement of.
The IRS under the Obama administration held up nonprofits in the period leading up to the 2012 election. It still smells funny. Lois Lerner testimony (Plead the fifth after defending innocence), Sarah Hall Ingram. Regardless.
I'm just saying, a Bush administration would never get away with appointing major donors to investigate misbehavior from his own administration. There would be reporters camped out waiting for the announcement of an independent investigation. But I digress. The big official broom has done good work sweeping it under the rug. Now, if he had some employees acting on his behalf turn up dead, then it might rise to a Benghazi. As it stands, it's a major scandal for him, and I hope he did not stoop to manipulate traffic on that bridge for political ends. I'm not shedding many tears for his diminished presidential ambitions.
On January 30 2014 17:34 Danglars wrote: It's the 2016 Presidential Primaries/Election, early bird special. Christie seemed tough and something of a frontrunner candidate, then this scandal broke (not exactly IRS/Benghazi potential strength, but it's all what the media makes of it).
Myself and my fellow Tea Party compatriots didn't really like Christie anyways since his Obamacare positioning, but we have not been reveling at the forks and knives coming out to sink this guy. If all the allegations are false and some group of his staff really screwed up, it's certainly a sad injustice. If he actually did knowingly manipulate traffic to political ends, then let the investigation sink him. If this new NYT report is truthful, same story.
Bigger then the first since that turned out to be completely false but I would say certainly not bigger then the second but then again if there was an actual intent to break the law I would call it bigger because you could point at Christy and go "he intended to break the law for his own benefit" which non of these other scandals could do (IRS one attempted to but was eventually debunked).
Edit: The first part of that recent Christy leak though isn't that shocking to me I would assume he would have a country by country breakdown and know who his allies are so he knows who he can make appearances with and then an "enemy" list so he can know who he has to either avoid mentioning in a positive light or who he has to call up and try to get endorsement of.
The IRS under the Obama administration held up nonprofits in the period leading up to the 2012 election. It still smells funny. Lois Lerner testimony (Plead the fifth after defending innocence), Sarah Hall Ingram. Regardless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXnzZzLyCnQ
I'm just saying, a Bush administration would never get away with appointing major donors to investigate misbehavior from his own administration. There would be reporters camped out waiting for the announcement of an independent investigation. But I digress. The big official broom has done good work sweeping it under the rug. Now, if he had some employees acting on his behalf turn up dead, then it might rise to a Benghazi. As it stands, it's a major scandal for him, and I hope he did not stoop to manipulate traffic on that bridge for political ends. I'm not shedding many tears for his diminished presidential ambitions.
In the end though when the investigation concluded it was basically discovered that the law was applied even handily to both democratic and republican non profits applying at the time and the phrasing in question "the primary purpose must not be for political" (or something along those lines its been like 6 months) was just applied more strictly by that branch but it was applied fairly.
There were no real ties to a government conspiracy there was no grand scale deception it was a strict interpretation of the law by that division which is honestly something I can respect since a lot of these "non profits" are basically political organizations just applying for it but they skate by on that primary purpose bit even if in many cases it clearly is.
On January 30 2014 21:54 Danglars wrote: I'm just saying, a Bush administration would never get away with appointing major donors to investigate misbehavior from his own administration.
So when the supreme court says something is acceptable, what further basis is there for something to be illegal?
Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June).
I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again....
The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened.
So then why not just abolish all other branches of the government? I KNOW the mandate is the law, but I'm saying it's in violation of the Constitution.
Jefferson's fear of the Courts was well placed, I'm afraid.
you don't seem to know what 'left' means.
I mean American left.
Maybe you should give the supreme court justices a lesson then. What you say is an opinion. It does not make it fact, hell it does not even make it relevant.
If you want to change it try to get Republicans into power so they can get more conservative leaning judges into office. Or even better, work towards becoming a kickass lawyer/scholar in the field of law and get some major political backing/friends with power --> become a supreme court judge!
Boom, suddenly what you say has meaning because the constitution gives these individuals power to decide what's constitutional and what is not.
People are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
lol. spoken like a true Randroid.
I like Rand Paul, but I'm not a "Randroid." I don't hang on his every word, etc. I didn't even know he said something like that. (Also, I've had my views long before Rand came onto the scene.)
Again, I could go over this Obamacare thing again, it's one of my first set of posts in this thread.
I don't understand the fascination with judges speaking and THUS IT WAS SO. For example, the ACA case was decided 5-4. So clearly 5 or 4 of them are wrong! Hell, even within the majority there were stark differences! John Roberts used it to limit the Commerce Clause. Four other justices though the Commerce Clause WAS a justification. And they are all Ivy League educated! To call issues of that sort settled is absurd. The Court consists of 9 fallible, corruptible human beings. So please, defend the ACA with argument, don't just say "but the Court said!" Every time I've discussed the appropriate historical context, all its defenders do is just shout "majority says!" at me.
Progressives are anti-corruption, so yes. Not every progressive will be successful, but I think due to the nature of history we'll make progress eventually. Women got the right to vote, blacks became citizens and got the right to vote. People eventually realize some traditions are worth discarding and desire change.
Taxes aren't left/right, but of course they are political. Both the right and left could use taxes in favour of their agenda (left: basic/minimum income, right: consolidating or expanding the power of corporations or the government). You know he kept the great portion of the Bush tax cuts? ACA favours corporations. He's expanded drone strikes in other countries, spied on his own citizens, passed regulations that effectively do nothing. These make him the opposite of a leftist.
I referred you to EO count because you said obama is using more and more executive authority to prove he's a leftist, while clearly people who are the right-wing have used it more than him. Your point was countered successfully.
Why should someone be concerned if someone's got a pen and a phone? This is terrible fear mongering if that's what you're trying to accomplish. And no, I'm not a progressive/liberal. People need to stop labeling others by their political beliefs, it only serves to put them in a box and make it so the other person doesn't have to actually think issue by issue.
No I understand the left can be corrupt.
No, your point about EO was the number of them. (it wasn't really a point, it was just a mention that obama is doing more and more - a number - of EO).
The left is for the separation of powers, that's true, but I do not see how obama using a pen and a phone means he's dictator of the country, or that the constitution is burned up.
I'm not talking about relative left and right either, it's actually you who are doing that since your definition of both is relative to where you live or where we are discussing (in the US).
You said the left favours low taxes to expand government, I think that was a typo? When you say the left is the "party of the nanny state" you continue to show that you're trying again and again to force some convoluted definition of leftism on us. If anything the right would be the nanny state; as they are in favour of consolidation of power, monarchy, feudalism, and basically a general authoritarianism. Those all are usually in favour of high taxes. And as I said, either side could use high taxes to further their agenda.
Lastly I don't see how somehow the republicans are the only wall stopping Obama's liberal side. He has time and time again caved in and come out in favour of republican agendas. In other words he isn't a far left liberal who is simply being abated by congress. He's made many concessions, and if anything he's moved to the right and conservative simply because of being in power.
ok, I'll clear up nanny state: The Progressive idea is an active government that provides for the basic needs of citizens and maintains order. The conservative view is that the government should provide only the most essential of services- military, lawmaking, settling disputes, etc. It's the exact opposite of everything you said the right is for. I am using these terms in the common understanding. How long have you been in Canada? We may just be speaking a different language here. When you say the right is the party of the nanny state you display that you really don't know what the term means in American politics. That entire paragraph shows you have no idea what each side actually stands for.
Um no, this paragraph means you have no idea what each side stands for. I've repeatedly told you the correct definition and ideology but you want to stick to this relativistic meaning that only applies in the US. The conservative view is to maintain the status quo, period. Change would be either progressive or reactionary (or some third way thing). When you say 'the conservative view' you mean people that identify as conservatives but don't believe in being conservative. I think that's the fundamental point that is keeping you from accepting a different definition. The 'nanny' state is mere rhetoric, either the state provides balance and justice and freedom from the people, or it administers order and tradition and consensus top-down, to the people.
Actually, you haven't. You said that conservatives stand for monarchy and are generally totalitarian. You must be referring to Conservatives around the time of the revolution? All these words change meaning, and in the American politcal lexicon it doesn't mean monarchy. It means small government. It means returning to Constitutional princple, not Constitutional times.
No, nanny state means the government acts as a nanny, hence the term.
No I didn't. I said the right-wing does. Conservative/liberal is relative to the status quo.
Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June).
I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again....
The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened.
So then why not just abolish all other branches of the government? I KNOW the mandate is the law, but I'm saying it's in violation of the Constitution.
Jefferson's fear of the Courts was well placed, I'm afraid.
you don't seem to know what 'left' means.
I mean American left.
Maybe you should give the supreme court justices a lesson then. What you say is an opinion. It does not make it fact, hell it does not even make it relevant.
If you want to change it try to get Republicans into power so they can get more conservative leaning judges into office. Or even better, work towards becoming a kickass lawyer/scholar in the field of law and get some major political backing/friends with power --> become a supreme court judge!
Boom, suddenly what you say has meaning because the constitution gives these individuals power to decide what's constitutional and what is not.
People are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
lol. spoken like a true Randroid.
I like Rand Paul, but I'm not a "Randroid." I don't hang on his every word, etc. I didn't even know he said something like that. (Also, I've had my views long before Rand came onto the scene.)
Again, I could go over this Obamacare thing again, it's one of my first set of posts in this thread.
I don't understand the fascination with judges speaking and THUS IT WAS SO. For example, the ACA case was decided 5-4. So clearly 5 or 4 of them are wrong! Hell, even within the majority there were stark differences! John Roberts used it to limit the Commerce Clause. Four other justices though the Commerce Clause WAS a justification. And they are all Ivy League educated! To call issues of that sort settled is absurd. The Court consists of 9 fallible, corruptible human beings. So please, defend the ACA with argument, don't just say "but the Court said!" Every time I've discussed the appropriate historical context, all its defenders do is just shout "majority says!" at me.
Progressives are anti-corruption, so yes. Not every progressive will be successful, but I think due to the nature of history we'll make progress eventually. Women got the right to vote, blacks became citizens and got the right to vote. People eventually realize some traditions are worth discarding and desire change.
Taxes aren't left/right, but of course they are political. Both the right and left could use taxes in favour of their agenda (left: basic/minimum income, right: consolidating or expanding the power of corporations or the government). You know he kept the great portion of the Bush tax cuts? ACA favours corporations. He's expanded drone strikes in other countries, spied on his own citizens, passed regulations that effectively do nothing. These make him the opposite of a leftist.
I referred you to EO count because you said obama is using more and more executive authority to prove he's a leftist, while clearly people who are the right-wing have used it more than him. Your point was countered successfully.
Why should someone be concerned if someone's got a pen and a phone? This is terrible fear mongering if that's what you're trying to accomplish. And no, I'm not a progressive/liberal. People need to stop labeling others by their political beliefs, it only serves to put them in a box and make it so the other person doesn't have to actually think issue by issue.
No I understand the left can be corrupt.
No, your point about EO was the number of them. (it wasn't really a point, it was just a mention that obama is doing more and more - a number - of EO).
The left is for the separation of powers, that's true, but I do not see how obama using a pen and a phone means he's dictator of the country, or that the constitution is burned up.
I'm not talking about relative left and right either, it's actually you who are doing that since your definition of both is relative to where you live or where we are discussing (in the US).
You said the left favours low taxes to expand government, I think that was a typo? When you say the left is the "party of the nanny state" you continue to show that you're trying again and again to force some convoluted definition of leftism on us. If anything the right would be the nanny state; as they are in favour of consolidation of power, monarchy, feudalism, and basically a general authoritarianism. Those all are usually in favour of high taxes. And as I said, either side could use high taxes to further their agenda.
Lastly I don't see how somehow the republicans are the only wall stopping Obama's liberal side. He has time and time again caved in and come out in favour of republican agendas. In other words he isn't a far left liberal who is simply being abated by congress. He's made many concessions, and if anything he's moved to the right and conservative simply because of being in power.
ok, I'll clear up nanny state: The Progressive idea is an active government that provides for the basic needs of citizens and maintains order. The conservative view is that the government should provide only the most essential of services- military, lawmaking, settling disputes, etc. It's the exact opposite of everything you said the right is for. I am using these terms in the common understanding. How long have you been in Canada? We may just be speaking a different language here. When you say the right is the party of the nanny state you display that you really don't know what the term means in American politics. That entire paragraph shows you have no idea what each side actually stands for.
Um no, this paragraph means you have no idea what each side stands for. I've repeatedly told you the correct definition and ideology but you want to stick to this relativistic meaning that only applies in the US. The conservative view is to maintain the status quo, period. Change would be either progressive or reactionary (or some third way thing). When you say 'the conservative view' you mean people that identify as conservatives but don't believe in being conservative. I think that's the fundamental point that is keeping you from accepting a different definition. The 'nanny' state is mere rhetoric, either the state provides balance and justice and freedom from the people, or it administers order and tradition and consensus top-down, to the people.
Actually, you haven't. You said that conservatives stand for monarchy and are generally totalitarian. You must be referring to Conservatives around the time of the revolution? All these words change meaning, and in the American politcal lexicon it doesn't mean monarchy. It means small government. It means returning to Constitutional princple, not Constitutional times.
No, nanny state means the government acts as a nanny, hence the term.
No I didn't. I said the right-wing does. Conservative/liberal is relative to the status quo.
You said
If anything the right would be the nanny state; as they are in favour of consolidation of power, monarchy, feudalism, and basically a general authoritarianism. Those all are usually in favour of high taxes.
Ignoring the fact that everyone who uses the word "conservatives" knows they aren't for higher taxes...
In the US, "conservative" and "right-wing," are almost entirely synonymous things (or at least are used interchangeably). The difference is that "right wing" is usually the derogatory form. You could make the status quo argument on the social issues front, but broadly speaking Conservative does NOT mean status quo in America. You are simply displaying your ignorance of the language used in the US.
The parties are for status quo, however.
Edit: Just FYI, if you were to bring up libertarians, it should be noted that they generally aren't put into either category, though they CAN fit the right-wing classification, yet not the conservative one. They are generally referred to separately, however.
Edit #2:
Actually, nanny state is a pejorative term used largely as propaganda. It is primarily used to gather the support of people who like to think that they want less government, but don't actually know what they want less of. See 'free market' and 'job creators'.
Of course it's a pejorative term. But I could list what I want less of, and have time and time again. Am I allowed to use it now?
So when the supreme court says something is acceptable, what further basis is there for something to be illegal?
Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June).
I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again....
The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened.
So then why not just abolish all other branches of the government? I KNOW the mandate is the law, but I'm saying it's in violation of the Constitution.
Jefferson's fear of the Courts was well placed, I'm afraid.
you don't seem to know what 'left' means.
I mean American left.
Maybe you should give the supreme court justices a lesson then. What you say is an opinion. It does not make it fact, hell it does not even make it relevant.
If you want to change it try to get Republicans into power so they can get more conservative leaning judges into office. Or even better, work towards becoming a kickass lawyer/scholar in the field of law and get some major political backing/friends with power --> become a supreme court judge!
Boom, suddenly what you say has meaning because the constitution gives these individuals power to decide what's constitutional and what is not.
People are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
lol. spoken like a true Randroid.
I like Rand Paul, but I'm not a "Randroid." I don't hang on his every word, etc. I didn't even know he said something like that. (Also, I've had my views long before Rand came onto the scene.)
Again, I could go over this Obamacare thing again, it's one of my first set of posts in this thread.
I don't understand the fascination with judges speaking and THUS IT WAS SO. For example, the ACA case was decided 5-4. So clearly 5 or 4 of them are wrong! Hell, even within the majority there were stark differences! John Roberts used it to limit the Commerce Clause. Four other justices though the Commerce Clause WAS a justification. And they are all Ivy League educated! To call issues of that sort settled is absurd. The Court consists of 9 fallible, corruptible human beings. So please, defend the ACA with argument, don't just say "but the Court said!" Every time I've discussed the appropriate historical context, all its defenders do is just shout "majority says!" at me.
Progressives are anti-corruption, so yes. Not every progressive will be successful, but I think due to the nature of history we'll make progress eventually. Women got the right to vote, blacks became citizens and got the right to vote. People eventually realize some traditions are worth discarding and desire change.
Taxes aren't left/right, but of course they are political. Both the right and left could use taxes in favour of their agenda (left: basic/minimum income, right: consolidating or expanding the power of corporations or the government). You know he kept the great portion of the Bush tax cuts? ACA favours corporations. He's expanded drone strikes in other countries, spied on his own citizens, passed regulations that effectively do nothing. These make him the opposite of a leftist.
I referred you to EO count because you said obama is using more and more executive authority to prove he's a leftist, while clearly people who are the right-wing have used it more than him. Your point was countered successfully.
Why should someone be concerned if someone's got a pen and a phone? This is terrible fear mongering if that's what you're trying to accomplish. And no, I'm not a progressive/liberal. People need to stop labeling others by their political beliefs, it only serves to put them in a box and make it so the other person doesn't have to actually think issue by issue.
No I understand the left can be corrupt.
No, your point about EO was the number of them. (it wasn't really a point, it was just a mention that obama is doing more and more - a number - of EO).
The left is for the separation of powers, that's true, but I do not see how obama using a pen and a phone means he's dictator of the country, or that the constitution is burned up.
I'm not talking about relative left and right either, it's actually you who are doing that since your definition of both is relative to where you live or where we are discussing (in the US).
You said the left favours low taxes to expand government, I think that was a typo? When you say the left is the "party of the nanny state" you continue to show that you're trying again and again to force some convoluted definition of leftism on us. If anything the right would be the nanny state; as they are in favour of consolidation of power, monarchy, feudalism, and basically a general authoritarianism. Those all are usually in favour of high taxes. And as I said, either side could use high taxes to further their agenda.
Lastly I don't see how somehow the republicans are the only wall stopping Obama's liberal side. He has time and time again caved in and come out in favour of republican agendas. In other words he isn't a far left liberal who is simply being abated by congress. He's made many concessions, and if anything he's moved to the right and conservative simply because of being in power.
ok, I'll clear up nanny state: The Progressive idea is an active government that provides for the basic needs of citizens and maintains order. The conservative view is that the government should provide only the most essential of services- military, lawmaking, settling disputes, etc. It's the exact opposite of everything you said the right is for. I am using these terms in the common understanding. How long have you been in Canada? We may just be speaking a different language here. When you say the right is the party of the nanny state you display that you really don't know what the term means in American politics. That entire paragraph shows you have no idea what each side actually stands for.
Um no, this paragraph means you have no idea what each side stands for. I've repeatedly told you the correct definition and ideology but you want to stick to this relativistic meaning that only applies in the US. The conservative view is to maintain the status quo, period. Change would be either progressive or reactionary (or some third way thing). When you say 'the conservative view' you mean people that identify as conservatives but don't believe in being conservative. I think that's the fundamental point that is keeping you from accepting a different definition. The 'nanny' state is mere rhetoric, either the state provides balance and justice and freedom from the people, or it administers order and tradition and consensus top-down, to the people.
Actually, you haven't. You said that conservatives stand for monarchy and are generally totalitarian. You must be referring to Conservatives around the time of the revolution? All these words change meaning, and in the American politcal lexicon it doesn't mean monarchy. It means small government. It means returning to Constitutional princple, not Constitutional times.
No, nanny state means the government acts as a nanny, hence the term.
Actually, nanny state is a pejorative term used largely as propaganda. It is primarily used to gather the support of people who like to think that they want less government, but don't actually know what they want less of. See 'free market' and 'job creators'.
In the US, "conservative" and "right-wing," are almost entirely synonymous things (or at least are used interchangeably). The difference is that "right wing" is usually the derogatory form. You could make the status quo argument on the social issues front, but broadly speaking Conservative does NOT mean status quo in America. You are simply displaying your ignorance of the language used in the US.
The parties are for status quo, however.
Edit: Just FYI, if you were to bring up libertarians, it should be noted that they generally aren't put into either category, though they CAN fit the right-wing classification, yet not the conservative one. They are generally referred to separately, however.
So they're used synonimously, yet there are people who fit in one category but not the other ? Great logic right here !
In the US, "conservative" and "right-wing," are almost entirely synonymous things (or at least are used interchangeably). The difference is that "right wing" is usually the derogatory form. You could make the status quo argument on the social issues front, but broadly speaking Conservative does NOT mean status quo in America. You are simply displaying your ignorance of the language used in the US.
The parties are for status quo, however.
Edit: Just FYI, if you were to bring up libertarians, it should be noted that they generally aren't put into either category, though they CAN fit the right-wing classification, yet not the conservative one. They are generally referred to separately, however.
So they're used synonimously, yet there are people who fit in one category but not the other ? Great logic right here !
Yes. Language is a complicated thing, especially when people say things without really thinking about them or making clear distinctions.
In the common usage, conservative and right-wing are almost always used interchangeably. I occasionally hear of libertarians as "right-wing" but they are generally referred to separately while being lumped with the other small government types.
A better way to say it would be that Libertarians can/are referred to as "right-wing types," while Conservatives are merely "right-wingers." There is an extra, qualifying word or phrase.
Edit: By the way, this is all off topic from what were originally discussing, which was separation of powers.
EPT
