President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1484

On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:

That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them.

Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation.

On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:
(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)

News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.

However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it.



As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.

This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.

I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?

My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians.

+ Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +

On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:
(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)

News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.

However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it.



As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.

This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.

I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?

My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians.

+ Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +

On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:
(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)

News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.

However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it.



As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.

This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.

I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?

My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians.

+ Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +

On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:


Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.

On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote:
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.

on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs.

On November 15 2012 05:08 cLAN.Anax wrote:


Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)?

On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote:
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.

on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs.

On November 15 2012 04:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-intellectual?region=us&q=anti-intellectualism#anti-intellectual__6

"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."

Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.

On November 15 2012 05:08 cLAN.Anax wrote:


Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)?

On November 15 2012 05:05 kmillz wrote:


Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.

On November 15 2012 05:21 HunterX11 wrote:


Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.

In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.

On November 15 2012 05:21 HunterX11 wrote:


Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.

In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.

On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:


Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.

On November 15 2012 05:34 kmillz wrote:


I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.