|
|
On August 30 2012 01:24 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2012 00:59 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2012 00:37 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:25 stevarius wrote:
A dissappointed libertarian. Dey took err mevment. I blame palin and rush. Palin was too dumb to know what libertarian means, and Rush too smart to let it gain steam. What does this mean? The talk radio guys are all very pro-tea party. the tea party was initially a libertarian movement. rush noticed it gaining steam, and swung his crazies into it and rode the success -- transforming it into a far right movement instead of a libertarian movement. I disagree that the Tea Party is a "far right" movement to the extent that you mean that it is a socially conservative movement. The Tea Party is and always has been a fundamentally libertarian movement with regards to fiscal and economic issues. Yes, there are social conservatives in the Tea Party, but those people are there because they are libertarian on fiscal and economic issues and not because they are looking to co-opt the Tea Party and turn it into a social conservative movement. Quite frankly, "pure" libertarians should be thrilled to have the support of social conservatives because the popularity of the Tea Party has given libertarians a renewed and strengthened ideological platform. Take another look at the Republican Party platform and just try and tell me that there's no libertarian/Ron Paul influence in there. In short, I think you have it backwards. Libertarians have used the Tea Party as a vehicle to infiltrate and co-opt the Republican Party and social conservatives. Not the other way around. Infiltrate the Republican party? Have you seen the fallout from the RNC in regards to Ron Paul delegates? Republicans have made it clear that their issues that revolve around the horrific ideology of conservatives come first and that libertarian candidates stand no chance in the party.
Yes, I have. The RNC -- the "establishment republicans" -- is fully aware of the mass grassroots infiltration of the Republican Party that is the Tea Party and Ron Paul's supporters. And you're dead-wrong about the RNC looking to preserve the "horrific ideology of conservatism" at all costs. To the contrary, the RNC does everything that it can to lock up conservatism (like rigging election/primary rules) and ensure that candidate selection remains in the hands of the party elite.
EDIT: Just to be clear -- the RNC is not conservative. It is only inclined to be conservative to the extent that it needs to be in order to lock up its base. There has always been a huge rift between the moderates at the RNC and real conservative republicans.
|
On August 30 2012 01:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 01:24 stevarius wrote:On August 30 2012 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2012 00:59 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2012 00:37 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:25 stevarius wrote:
A dissappointed libertarian. Dey took err mevment. I blame palin and rush. Palin was too dumb to know what libertarian means, and Rush too smart to let it gain steam. What does this mean? The talk radio guys are all very pro-tea party. the tea party was initially a libertarian movement. rush noticed it gaining steam, and swung his crazies into it and rode the success -- transforming it into a far right movement instead of a libertarian movement. I disagree that the Tea Party is a "far right" movement to the extent that you mean that it is a socially conservative movement. The Tea Party is and always has been a fundamentally libertarian movement with regards to fiscal and economic issues. Yes, there are social conservatives in the Tea Party, but those people are there because they are libertarian on fiscal and economic issues and not because they are looking to co-opt the Tea Party and turn it into a social conservative movement. Quite frankly, "pure" libertarians should be thrilled to have the support of social conservatives because the popularity of the Tea Party has given libertarians a renewed and strengthened ideological platform. Take another look at the Republican Party platform and just try and tell me that there's no libertarian/Ron Paul influence in there. In short, I think you have it backwards. Libertarians have used the Tea Party as a vehicle to infiltrate and co-opt the Republican Party and social conservatives. Not the other way around. Infiltrate the Republican party? Have you seen the fallout from the RNC in regards to Ron Paul delegates? Republicans have made it clear that their issues that revolve around the horrific ideology of conservatives come first and that libertarian candidates stand no chance in the party. Yes, I have. The RNC -- the "establishment republicans" -- is fully aware of the mass grassroots infiltration of the Republican Party that is the Tea Party and Ron Paul's supporters. And you're dead-wrong about the RNC looking to preserve the "horrific ideology of conservatism" at all costs. To the contrary, the RNC does everything that it can to lock up conservatism (like rigging election/primary rules) and ensure that candidate selection remains in the hands of the party elite.
I think they're making their laughable platform pretty clear so far. It's still shit.
|
On August 30 2012 01:35 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 01:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2012 01:24 stevarius wrote:On August 30 2012 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2012 00:59 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2012 00:37 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:25 stevarius wrote:
A dissappointed libertarian. Dey took err mevment. I blame palin and rush. Palin was too dumb to know what libertarian means, and Rush too smart to let it gain steam. What does this mean? The talk radio guys are all very pro-tea party. the tea party was initially a libertarian movement. rush noticed it gaining steam, and swung his crazies into it and rode the success -- transforming it into a far right movement instead of a libertarian movement. I disagree that the Tea Party is a "far right" movement to the extent that you mean that it is a socially conservative movement. The Tea Party is and always has been a fundamentally libertarian movement with regards to fiscal and economic issues. Yes, there are social conservatives in the Tea Party, but those people are there because they are libertarian on fiscal and economic issues and not because they are looking to co-opt the Tea Party and turn it into a social conservative movement. Quite frankly, "pure" libertarians should be thrilled to have the support of social conservatives because the popularity of the Tea Party has given libertarians a renewed and strengthened ideological platform. Take another look at the Republican Party platform and just try and tell me that there's no libertarian/Ron Paul influence in there. In short, I think you have it backwards. Libertarians have used the Tea Party as a vehicle to infiltrate and co-opt the Republican Party and social conservatives. Not the other way around. Infiltrate the Republican party? Have you seen the fallout from the RNC in regards to Ron Paul delegates? Republicans have made it clear that their issues that revolve around the horrific ideology of conservatives come first and that libertarian candidates stand no chance in the party. Yes, I have. The RNC -- the "establishment republicans" -- is fully aware of the mass grassroots infiltration of the Republican Party that is the Tea Party and Ron Paul's supporters. And you're dead-wrong about the RNC looking to preserve the "horrific ideology of conservatism" at all costs. To the contrary, the RNC does everything that it can to lock up conservatism (like rigging election/primary rules) and ensure that candidate selection remains in the hands of the party elite. I think they made their ideology pretty clear when they decided on their platform. It's still shit.
The platform is not the platform of the RNC. The platform was decided by the delegates, which predominantly come from the grassroots republicans.
You should take the time to at least understand the various competing factions within the republican party. If you are a true libertarian, you should be very happy with how things are going in the republican party, because people with your train of thought are winning the internal debate.
|
For the most part, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are the same people. While the libertarian movement is growing, it's still a pretty small chunk of the electorate. I think a lot of us probably experience more of that than is really representative of the population, as libertarianism is more appealing to younger and better-educated conservatives than the standard Republican stances. Remember, if more than 25-30% of your friends have a college degree, that's higher than the national average.
The Tea Party heavily utilizes libertarian rhetoric and emphasizes their fiscal stances more than their social stances, but most politicians (and policies) that the Tea Party endorses end up being far right rather than libertarian.
This summary by Pew Research does a decent job laying out the main competing ideological groups in this country. The Tea Party is mostly supported by "staunch conservatives" even though libertarians support it too (and it started as a Ron Paul thing in late 2007).
http://www.people-press.org/typology/
|
On August 29 2012 17:19 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 15:53 Leporello wrote:
When in reality, looking at the policies our country has experimented with over the years, decades, and centuries, Obama is close to exactly the same as Bush. Even Clinton presided over a more left-wing government than we have now. Obama is more right-wing than any Democratic president in the past few decades. He is, in fact, a centrist who has pretty much maintained the status-quo of things with a few exceptions. And yet, he is still maligned by people on both sides who want to label him as an "extremist" to further their own, actual extremist ideas of what government should look like. I am equally shocked, amazed, and frightened that anyone could believe that nonsense. Obama's done everything from big (subjugating the health care industry and strangling the real energy sector) to small (undoing Clinton era welfare reform and ending school choice in DC) while running up $5 trillion dollars in debt and printing dollars like it was Monopoly money and you think he's right-wing? The extent to which he has left things as status quo (a defining personality trait of voting Present to avoid any responsibility himself) it's because he couldn't get enough Democrats in 2009 and 2010 to vote for the things he wanted such as obvious tax raises (though there's plenty hidden in ObamaCare), single-payer health care, and bringing Gitmo terrorists into American criminal courts. Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are considered the real extremists in America because they have this crazy idea that our government spends too much money. Why can't anyone explain to them that raising taxes on the 1% richest Americans might raise another $40 billion dollars a year and save us from the over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year for the last four years! They're rich. They don't really need that money. The government needs it! Wow. You genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
I'm guessing you got a PhD in Debate and you've been doing it professionally for at least a decade. The way you present your arguments and facts! Much too powerful for me.
But perhaps you can help me. What's the official spelling of "nuh-uh"? I know I'm not on your level and that might be too advanced a technique for me and should only be left to Master debaters like you but if you can tell me I feel like it would be a small step in my climb up the mountain of wisdom and one day I might be able to counter your grand eloquent arguments.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 30 2012 01:43 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 17:19 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 15:53 Leporello wrote:
When in reality, looking at the policies our country has experimented with over the years, decades, and centuries, Obama is close to exactly the same as Bush. Even Clinton presided over a more left-wing government than we have now. Obama is more right-wing than any Democratic president in the past few decades. He is, in fact, a centrist who has pretty much maintained the status-quo of things with a few exceptions. And yet, he is still maligned by people on both sides who want to label him as an "extremist" to further their own, actual extremist ideas of what government should look like. I am equally shocked, amazed, and frightened that anyone could believe that nonsense. Obama's done everything from big (subjugating the health care industry and strangling the real energy sector) to small (undoing Clinton era welfare reform and ending school choice in DC) while running up $5 trillion dollars in debt and printing dollars like it was Monopoly money and you think he's right-wing? The extent to which he has left things as status quo (a defining personality trait of voting Present to avoid any responsibility himself) it's because he couldn't get enough Democrats in 2009 and 2010 to vote for the things he wanted such as obvious tax raises (though there's plenty hidden in ObamaCare), single-payer health care, and bringing Gitmo terrorists into American criminal courts. Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are considered the real extremists in America because they have this crazy idea that our government spends too much money. Why can't anyone explain to them that raising taxes on the 1% richest Americans might raise another $40 billion dollars a year and save us from the over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year for the last four years! They're rich. They don't really need that money. The government needs it! Wow. You genuinely don't know what you're talking about. I'm guessing you got a PhD in Debate and you've been doing it professionally for at least a decade. The way you present your arguments and facts! Much too powerful for me. But perhaps you can help me. What's the official spelling of "nuh-uh"? I know I'm not on your level and that might be too advanced a technique for me and should only be left to Master debaters like you but if you can tell me I feel like it would be a small step in my climb up the mountain of wisdom and one day I might be able to counter your grand eloquent arguments.
He was referring to your depth of knowledge on the issues, not argumentative methods.
|
On August 29 2012 22:50 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 17:28 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:
Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are considered the real extremists in America because they have this crazy idea that our government spends too much money. Why can't anyone explain to them that raising taxes on the 1% richest Americans might raise another $40 billion dollars a year and save us from the over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year for the last four years! They're rich. They don't really need that money. The government needs it! Actually, I think these actual photos from Tea Party rallies are why the Tea Party is considered extremist. Nobody has ever contended that the Tea Party doesn't have some crazies in there. But you can't say that everyone who cares about the environment is therefore an eco-terrorist because a few who care about the environment are eco-terrorists. Yes, racists hide in the Tea Party, but the vast majority of them are not racist. You are stereotyping.
It's in both parties best interest to scrub the crazies out their parties.
It's the reason why it's distasteful when Romney makes a joke like, "No one asked me for my birth certificate because -- wink, wink -- I'm a good ol' White American and Obama isn't." It's just pandering to racists that would rather believe in a conspiracy than a legitimate Black presidency.
Seriously -- does either party REALLY need the crazy-person vote?
It goes both ways. I'd be outraged if Obama said something like, "No one accuse me of killing a man's wife ... ."
|
When or how did racist-paranoid nutbars co-opt the Tea Party or infiltrate the libertarian movement?
|
On August 30 2012 02:23 Defacer wrote:
It's the reason why it's distasteful when Romney makes a joke like, "No one asked me for my birth certificate because -- wink, wink -- I'm a good ol' White American and Obama isn't." It's just pandering to racists that would rather believe in a conspiracy than a legitimate Black presidency.
Are you quoting Romney as actually having said "... I'm a good ol' White American and Obama isn't." If you have to make up quotes to discredit people, then you must not have any actual valid reasons.
|
On August 30 2012 02:35 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:23 Defacer wrote:
It's the reason why it's distasteful when Romney makes a joke like, "No one asked me for my birth certificate because -- wink, wink -- I'm a good ol' White American and Obama isn't." It's just pandering to racists that would rather believe in a conspiracy than a legitimate Black presidency.
Are you quoting Romney as actually having said "... I'm a good ol' White American and Obama isn't." If you have to make up quotes to discredit people, then you must not have any actual valid reasons.
Actually, the implication or subtext of the joke is obvious, which is why the looney tunes at his rally cheered.
Just to be clear, I don't think Romney is a racist, or intended to be racist. Personally, I think he was just trying to bring some levity to a rally. But the only reason a joke like even works is because he's White and Obama isn't.
It's the kind of thing that sounds worse than it actually because of the way the audience reacts to it. It's not evil, but still a dumbass-thing to say in election where a single gaffe can be used to rebrand you entire campaign.
|
On August 30 2012 01:40 Signet wrote:For the most part, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are the same people. While the libertarian movement is growing, it's still a pretty small chunk of the electorate. I think a lot of us probably experience more of that than is really representative of the population, as libertarianism is more appealing to younger and better-educated conservatives than the standard Republican stances. Remember, if more than 25-30% of your friends have a college degree, that's higher than the national average. The Tea Party heavily utilizes libertarian rhetoric and emphasizes their fiscal stances more than their social stances, but most politicians (and policies) that the Tea Party endorses end up being far right rather than libertarian. This summary by Pew Research does a decent job laying out the main competing ideological groups in this country. The Tea Party is mostly supported by "staunch conservatives" even though libertarians support it too (and it started as a Ron Paul thing in late 2007). http://www.people-press.org/typology/
I don't really disagree with this, but I want to emphasize that many are missing the point of the Tea Party. Its unifying element is fiscal and economic libertarianism, regardless of what other positions that its constituents adopt. The importance of this is that the Tea Party has given libertarians an "in" into the Republican Party. You can already the differences in the new generation of prominent politicians in the party, and those that are on deck will move the party even further in that direction.
Anyway, to circle around to the original point, the Tea Party has not been co-opted by the RNC or establishment republicans as some have previously said. It's the other way around.
|
And yes, republicans are definitely the racists in the American electorate.
Tuesday night after rising GOP star Mia Love brought down the house with her inspiring convention speech, the stomach-turning Left labeled the black conservative a “token” and an “Aunt Tom.”
Meanwhile, revoltingly racist, woman-hating Wikipedia vandals were hard at work updating her entry with disgusting slurs like “House Nigger” and “dirty, worthless whore.” The page called her a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”
Source.
It seems like the left does this to every prominent minority republican.
|
On August 30 2012 03:12 xDaunt wrote:And yes, republicans are definitely the racists in the American electorate. Show nested quote +Tuesday night after rising GOP star Mia Love brought down the house with her inspiring convention speech, the stomach-turning Left labeled the black conservative a “token” and an “Aunt Tom.”
Meanwhile, revoltingly racist, woman-hating Wikipedia vandals were hard at work updating her entry with disgusting slurs like “House Nigger” and “dirty, worthless whore.” The page called her a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.” Source. It seems like the left does this to every prominent minority republican.
What the fuck. That is disgusting.
Edit: People like Rubio. And Colin Powell. Even Condoleeza Rice.
|
Andrew Sabl debunks Ann Romney's quaint anecdote about her and Mitt 'struggling' through college, and well, lays into her.
Poor little rich girl neglects to mention the stock portfolio that paid for the tuna fish
by Andrew Sabl
I couldn’t believe it when I heard that Ann Romney’s convention speech doubled down on a gaffe from her past: the claim that she and Mitt had very little money when they were going to college:
We were very young. Both still in college. There were many reasons to delay marriage, and you know? We just didn’t care. We got married and moved into a basement apartment. We walked to class together, shared the housekeeping, and ate a lot of pasta and tuna fish. Our desk was a door propped up on sawhorses. Our dining room table was a fold down ironing board in the kitchen. Those were very special days.
As Mitt might say, she’s got to be gosh-darned kidding me. As I blogged a few months ago, the way she and Mitt paid for their pasta and tuna fish, and the desk that was a door, was by SELLING STOCK, given to them by his family, that on a conservative calculation was worth in current money almost FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. The only difference between the disastrous interview that helped lose Mitt his first election and the convention speech was that the story contained in the latter conveniently left out the huge nest egg. But the nest egg matters more than a little. Its presence guaranteed that this family’s early life would be the antonym of struggling.
Reminding viewers of the facts ought to be the press’ job. But it’s not doing it. The reports I’ve seen—including the New York Times—have made no mention of Ann and Mitt’s vast gifted wealth (and the much vaster wealth that they could of course have drawn on if in trouble). A speech eagerly reported as humanizing and successful actually had a fabricated reality at its center. Self-styled journalists who are letting Ann get away with this ought to be deeply ashamed of their alleged selves.
Worse: I doubt that Ann realizes that her tale of struggle is a fabrication. She probably really believes that living relatively frugally on a huge stock portfolio counts as economic struggle and anxiety about one’s prospects. No wonder she and her husband are so insouciant about slashing programs to benefit the poor. If I thought that’s what poverty was, I’d slash aid to me too.
|
On August 30 2012 03:19 Defacer wrote:Andrew Sabl debunks Ann Romney's quaint anecdote about her and Mitt 'struggling' through college, and well, lays into her. Show nested quote +Poor little rich girl neglects to mention the stock portfolio that paid for the tuna fish
by Andrew Sabl
I couldn’t believe it when I heard that Ann Romney’s convention speech doubled down on a gaffe from her past: the claim that she and Mitt had very little money when they were going to college:
We were very young. Both still in college. There were many reasons to delay marriage, and you know? We just didn’t care. We got married and moved into a basement apartment. We walked to class together, shared the housekeeping, and ate a lot of pasta and tuna fish. Our desk was a door propped up on sawhorses. Our dining room table was a fold down ironing board in the kitchen. Those were very special days.
As Mitt might say, she’s got to be gosh-darned kidding me. As I blogged a few months ago, the way she and Mitt paid for their pasta and tuna fish, and the desk that was a door, was by SELLING STOCK, given to them by his family, that on a conservative calculation was worth in current money almost FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. The only difference between the disastrous interview that helped lose Mitt his first election and the convention speech was that the story contained in the latter conveniently left out the huge nest egg. But the nest egg matters more than a little. Its presence guaranteed that this family’s early life would be the antonym of struggling.
Reminding viewers of the facts ought to be the press’ job. But it’s not doing it. The reports I’ve seen—including the New York Times—have made no mention of Ann and Mitt’s vast gifted wealth (and the much vaster wealth that they could of course have drawn on if in trouble). A speech eagerly reported as humanizing and successful actually had a fabricated reality at its center. Self-styled journalists who are letting Ann get away with this ought to be deeply ashamed of their alleged selves.
Worse: I doubt that Ann realizes that her tale of struggle is a fabrication. She probably really believes that living relatively frugally on a huge stock portfolio counts as economic struggle and anxiety about one’s prospects. No wonder she and her husband are so insouciant about slashing programs to benefit the poor. If I thought that’s what poverty was, I’d slash aid to me too.
This is disgusting. Almost as much as the fact that they're batshit insane fundies. But deceit is the name of the game in politics. Of course, 90% (not a bad estimate imo) of people won't know the truth of the romneys' history and even if they did hear about it, they wouldn't even consider it. They are easily dissuaded by the lies told by the politicians (and their families too apparently) because most people in our society are too naive.
The election/campaigning process is a joke, and I know my vote won't mean much seeing how the system's full of crookedness (sorry partisans, but your party isn't Good while the other is Evil; they're both full of shit), but choosing between a crazy guy hellbent on screwing over the screwed-over even more, and someone who on occasion has some tincture of intelligence, I think I'll go with the latter.
|
On August 30 2012 01:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 01:43 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 17:19 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 15:53 Leporello wrote:
When in reality, looking at the policies our country has experimented with over the years, decades, and centuries, Obama is close to exactly the same as Bush. Even Clinton presided over a more left-wing government than we have now. Obama is more right-wing than any Democratic president in the past few decades. He is, in fact, a centrist who has pretty much maintained the status-quo of things with a few exceptions. And yet, he is still maligned by people on both sides who want to label him as an "extremist" to further their own, actual extremist ideas of what government should look like. I am equally shocked, amazed, and frightened that anyone could believe that nonsense. Obama's done everything from big (subjugating the health care industry and strangling the real energy sector) to small (undoing Clinton era welfare reform and ending school choice in DC) while running up $5 trillion dollars in debt and printing dollars like it was Monopoly money and you think he's right-wing? The extent to which he has left things as status quo (a defining personality trait of voting Present to avoid any responsibility himself) it's because he couldn't get enough Democrats in 2009 and 2010 to vote for the things he wanted such as obvious tax raises (though there's plenty hidden in ObamaCare), single-payer health care, and bringing Gitmo terrorists into American criminal courts. Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are considered the real extremists in America because they have this crazy idea that our government spends too much money. Why can't anyone explain to them that raising taxes on the 1% richest Americans might raise another $40 billion dollars a year and save us from the over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year for the last four years! They're rich. They don't really need that money. The government needs it! Wow. You genuinely don't know what you're talking about. I'm guessing you got a PhD in Debate and you've been doing it professionally for at least a decade. The way you present your arguments and facts! Much too powerful for me. But perhaps you can help me. What's the official spelling of "nuh-uh"? I know I'm not on your level and that might be too advanced a technique for me and should only be left to Master debaters like you but if you can tell me I feel like it would be a small step in my climb up the mountain of wisdom and one day I might be able to counter your grand eloquent arguments. He was referring to your depth of knowledge on the issues, not argumentative methods.
Wow. You genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
|
On August 30 2012 03:46 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 01:49 Mohdoo wrote:On August 30 2012 01:43 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 17:19 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 15:53 Leporello wrote:
When in reality, looking at the policies our country has experimented with over the years, decades, and centuries, Obama is close to exactly the same as Bush. Even Clinton presided over a more left-wing government than we have now. Obama is more right-wing than any Democratic president in the past few decades. He is, in fact, a centrist who has pretty much maintained the status-quo of things with a few exceptions. And yet, he is still maligned by people on both sides who want to label him as an "extremist" to further their own, actual extremist ideas of what government should look like. I am equally shocked, amazed, and frightened that anyone could believe that nonsense. Obama's done everything from big (subjugating the health care industry and strangling the real energy sector) to small (undoing Clinton era welfare reform and ending school choice in DC) while running up $5 trillion dollars in debt and printing dollars like it was Monopoly money and you think he's right-wing? The extent to which he has left things as status quo (a defining personality trait of voting Present to avoid any responsibility himself) it's because he couldn't get enough Democrats in 2009 and 2010 to vote for the things he wanted such as obvious tax raises (though there's plenty hidden in ObamaCare), single-payer health care, and bringing Gitmo terrorists into American criminal courts. Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are considered the real extremists in America because they have this crazy idea that our government spends too much money. Why can't anyone explain to them that raising taxes on the 1% richest Americans might raise another $40 billion dollars a year and save us from the over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year for the last four years! They're rich. They don't really need that money. The government needs it! Wow. You genuinely don't know what you're talking about. I'm guessing you got a PhD in Debate and you've been doing it professionally for at least a decade. The way you present your arguments and facts! Much too powerful for me. But perhaps you can help me. What's the official spelling of "nuh-uh"? I know I'm not on your level and that might be too advanced a technique for me and should only be left to Master debaters like you but if you can tell me I feel like it would be a small step in my climb up the mountain of wisdom and one day I might be able to counter your grand eloquent arguments. He was referring to your depth of knowledge on the issues, not argumentative methods. Wow. You genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
No, seriously, you need to read more. Why in the world would I want to debate someone that is recycling misleading talking points that have long been refuted? You've been watching too many campaign ads.
There's a lot of people in this thread I disagree with that at least have the sense to introduce new arguments or bring new ideas to the discussion, and there's a reason why very few of these guys are rushing to defend your positions -- they've argued them 100 pages ago and know that they are weak or over-simplified.
Guys like xDaunt and Blue Panther are frankly smarter than you.
There's some nice conservative voices on The Daily Beast, The American Conservative and the The New Republic. The Economist is always good for a more global perspective. I'm a David Frum/Andrew Sullivan-man myself. Buzzfeed and Huffington Post are good for keeping up with the news cycle, because all they do is mine other websites (won't put too much stock in their editorials or analysis though).
|
On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:
I am equally shocked, amazed, and frightened that anyone could believe that nonsense. Obama's done everything from big (subjugating the health care industry and strangling the real energy sector) to small (undoing Clinton era welfare reform and ending school choice in DC) while running up $5 trillion dollars in debt and printing dollars like it was Monopoly money and you think he's right-wing? The extent to which he has left things as status quo (a defining personality trait of voting Present to avoid any responsibility himself) it's because he couldn't get enough Democrats in 2009 and 2010 to vote for the things he wanted such as obvious tax raises (though there's plenty hidden in ObamaCare), single-payer health care, and bringing Gitmo terrorists into American criminal courts.
Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are considered the real extremists in America because they have this crazy idea that our government spends too much money. Why can't anyone explain to them that raising taxes on the 1% richest Americans might raise another $40 billion dollars a year and save us from the over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year for the last four years! They're rich. They don't really need that money. The government needs it!
So much cluttered talking-points, absolutely devoid of sources and verifiable data. I'll do my best to address them.
I am equally shocked, amazed, and frightened that anyone could believe that nonsense. Obama's done everything from big (subjugating the health care industry and strangling the real energy sector) to small (undoing Clinton era welfare reform and ending school choice in DC) I admit I had to look up the exact definition of "subjucate". If Obama's plan has anyone "subjucating" themselves to anything, it is to the insurance companies, not to the government. The fact is, his insurance-mandating was, but a few years ago, considered a Republican, conservative answer to our country's real healthcare problem. The "real energy sector" you speak of has never been better. Obama has opened up more oil drilling than any president before him. He has, however, increased safety regulations. I guess I just see that as a good thing.
while running up $5 trillion dollars in debt Bush ran up the debt more than anyone before him, and Obama's presidency has pretty much just been using Bush's tax plan. It's all pretty much the same. Romney's answer is to cut taxes. didn't work for Bush, absolutely no reason to think it'll increase revenue this time around. No reason to think it'll create jobs either. It's just pure idealism at this point, not practical thinking. I'm not crazy about Obama's handling of the economy, but I'd be even less enthused by Romney's Republican-pandered ideas. and printing dollars like it was Monopoly money
Do you think the President of the United States is in charge of the Fed? Or are you claiming Obama is running a criminal underground counterfeit operation? Or do you really, in fact, have no idea what you're talking about?
and you think he's right-wing? I didn't call Obama right-wing once, don't put words in my mouth. I called him a centrist, and anyone taking any sort of unbiased look at our country's policies over the past few decades, really couldn't dispute the fact that Obama is a centrist. He didn't raise income taxes, despite Democrat pressure. He didn't institute any sort of socialized medicine, just made it mandatory for people to buy over-priced health-insurance while making it more affordable for the poor. That is how "crazy" and "extreme" left-wing he is. I hear people like you talk about Obama, and it's completely detached from reality. He's been a very centrist president, and the Republicans have thanked him for that by claiming that his policies -- policies that the Republican party once stood by -- are too left-wing. Hopefully Obama has learned from this and will institute some policies over the next four years to give people like you something worth complaining about for once.The extent to which he has left things as status quo (a defining personality trait of voting Present to avoid any responsibility himself) it's because he couldn't get enough Democrats in 2009 and 2010 to vote for the things he wanted such as obvious tax raises (though there's plenty hidden in ObamaCare), single-payer health care, and bringing Gitmo terrorists into American criminal courts. Look at all those details. Hard to argue with complete made-up nonsense. Obama didn't propose any tax raises in 2009 and 2010. I wish he would have. He didn't fight for single-payer health-care. He never even suggested it. Some Democrats have fought for single-payer, but not him.
Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are considered the real extremists in America because they have this crazy idea that our government spends too much money. Why can't anyone explain to them that raising taxes on the 1% richest Americans might raise another $40 billion dollars a year and save us from the over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year for the last four years! They're rich. They don't really need that money. The government needs it! Tea partiers are considered crazy basically for the same reasons I think you're crazy -- you spout talking-points at a mile-a-minute and think you're in the right because no one has the patience to sift through your garbage. You mix in a made-up fact or two in a mountain of pure rhetoric and vitriol.
And yes, we should raise the taxes on the upper-tax bracket. It's a pretty obvious decision to make at this point. Government needs revenue. The upper-class has money to invest in creating American jobs if they wanted to -- but they aren't. They don't need lucrative, coddling tax breaks, they need to start paying more of their share.
|
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
|
On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place). While people might feel like they deserve it, that's not how the system works and eventual cutbacks on social security are simply unavoidable, even with tax increases. That's pretty much true for any developed nation in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
