On October 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote: And there is your problem: "When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance". "
Politics is not about "dominance" it's about compromise. If you can't or are against compromise your better off with a dictatorship. It's sad for you that your country isn't as conservative as you wish (or even think) it was but... just fucking deal with it.
Compromise is a nice word. But let's look at the last century and see how much "compromise" has gotten the conservatives. It got us Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon that grew the federal government more than their Democrat predecessors. It got us George HW Bush who dismantled all the gains we achieved during the Reagan years and it got us his son who fractured the Republican party almost beyond repair. It got us Obama and a super-majority which led to the monstrosity that is Obamacare. And it led us to this point where we have no choice but to shut down the fucking government and threaten default (God help us) in order to get the Democrats to move a fucking inch.
Funny how it's always the Republicans doing the compromising, and the losing. Democrats weren't falling all over themselves to compromise with Republicans when they had a super-majority and the Presidency. They were more than willing to cut us out and ride their wins. Sure, they compromised with the less liberal members of their own party, but they didn't even give lip service to Republicans, much less conservatives. Now that they don't have complete control they want compromise back? It would be ironical genius if it was fiction.
Politics is a dog-eat-dog world. God help us, since we seem to have forgotten that in the pipe-dream that is "compromise". We didn't learn our lesson from the legacy of Henry Clay's "compromise".
Maybe in some happier, sunnier time there will be room for compromising between the parties. But anyone with even a cursory knowledge of American politics knows that this shit has been brewing for decades. Partisanship and winner-takes-all is here to stay. I say let's let this tune play out until the next presidential election and see how the American people really feel about compromise.
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
This self-victimization is absolutely disingenuous and incongruous with the facts of the situation. Lose two presidential elections in a row and all of a sudden you've been "losing" for 20 years. Get out of your echo chambers.
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the original Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
Like, even if he is right what is his point exactly?
"We're really depressed that our ideals haven't been dominant for a long time so that justifies throwing a tantrum and trying to force those ideals on people we admit don't want them. In a democracy."
??
Not quite.
If you've been trying one strategy for a long, long time; and it's gotten you nowhere... wouldn't you start thinking about maybe changing your strategy? Republicans have tried working with the Democrats since before you or I were born and it's gotten us nothing but grief. And as soon as we start playing hard-ball, like the Democrats have been for a century, we get called out for being hard-liners and radicals. Sorry, but if you're gonna pull the victim card after ~30 hours of being pushed around then I'm gonna have to remind you that my side has been the victim for a lot longer than that.
Funny how forcing Obamacare through was perfectly fine (even though the people didn't want it) but repealing it isn't (even though the people want that.)
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
On what policy positions is Obama to the left of any of those listed? And if you think George W. Bush or his father were successes for the Republican party than you're insane and don't know jack shit about Republicanism. Our last real success was Reagan and even Reagan was a big-time spender. Shit, we haven't had an economically conservative president since the fucking Coolidge administration, almost a century ago. The country hasn't been economically conservative since before the fucking first Roosevelt presidency.
We've made gains, sure... all in public opinion. And all of them pretty inconsequential to the big picture. The last time we had the kind of power we wanted was when Democrats were still screaming: "The South will rise again!"
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
The Tea Party lost us the Senate and House in 2006? The Tea Party didn't exist in 2006. When the Tea Party came into real power was 2009-2010, and they won the House back and cut deep into the Senate.
We controlled the Congress in the 90s? We hadn't held a goddamn majority in the House in 42 years before '94. Before '94 we hadn't held both Houses since the fucking '30s. One fucking decade of control and all the sudden we DOMINATED the political landscape? Get your facts straight.
Your reading comprehension is not very good. I'm tired, and really just laughing now. As I said, there isn't a debate to be had. Get over it.
Yeah I said "left" instead of "right". I just noticed that. But the question still stands:
How is Obama to the right of any of those Presidents in his political ideology? In what he's accomplished? That's a different story, mainly because his predecessors did pretty well in establishing the welfare state before Obama was even old enough to vote.
Look at the country since the Great Depression and you'll see that it has been politically dominated by Democrats. For fucks sake, our own Great Communicator was a fucking New Deal Democrat who loved FDR! Sure, we made some gains with Reagan, and shit we even made some gains with Clinton. Of course, we also had some pretty massive losses. The existence of talk-radio and Fox news make up the majority of our "successes" and neither makes up a majority of the media that American's consume, much less have any direct political value. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, healthcare, education, immigration, regulation... we've lost on all these grounds. We've made gains in taxes, but only because they had grown to such ridiculous levels that even Democrats were willing to cut them down, and lo and behold, taxes are going back up.
When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance".
edit: Or maybe it's that you only want to look at the narrow decade-wide window of time? Yeah, sorry, doesn't work like that. The history of this party-conflict goes too deep to take a snapshot and try to extrapolate shit. I said two decades because the big hope after Reagan was that maybe we were on a real conservative swing... and we can all see where that went.
You know, on a side note, I just moved to Sweden, which has the second highest taxes in the world, and one of the two strongest social system, I can tell you, it's pretty much paradise.
Anyway, I let you dream of your pre Roosevelt 1920's fantasized America. I'm gonna read Steinbeck again, it's instructive.
Oh and among the battle you lost, you forgot about segregation, legalization of homosexuality etc etc etc... Too bad progress tends to win sometimes.
Is this the same Boehner from 2010? You want the constitutional remedy, come to the table Democrats. I don't know if his body is capable of this much conservatism at once, I hope he sits down ... it can be tough on those moderates.
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
On what policy positions is Obama to the left of any of those listed? And if you think George W. Bush or his father were successes for the Republican party than you're insane and don't know jack shit about Republicanism. Our last real success was Reagan and even Reagan was a big-time spender. Shit, we haven't had an economically conservative president since the fucking Coolidge administration, almost a century ago. The country hasn't been economically conservative since before the fucking first Roosevelt presidency.
We've made gains, sure... all in public opinion. And all of them pretty inconsequential to the big picture. The last time we had the kind of power we wanted was when Democrats were still screaming: "The South will rise again!"
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
The Tea Party lost us the Senate and House in 2006? The Tea Party didn't exist in 2006. When the Tea Party came into real power was 2009-2010, and they won the House back and cut deep into the Senate.
We controlled the Congress in the 90s? We hadn't held a goddamn majority in the House in 42 years before '94. Before '94 we hadn't held both Houses since the fucking '30s. One fucking decade of control and all the sudden we DOMINATED the political landscape? Get your facts straight.
Your reading comprehension is not very good. I'm tired, and really just laughing now. As I said, there isn't a debate to be had. Get over it.
Yeah I said "left" instead of "right". I just noticed that. But the question still stands:
How is Obama to the right of any of those Presidents in his political ideology? In what he's accomplished? That's a different story, mainly because his predecessors did pretty well in establishing the welfare state before Obama was even old enough to vote.
Look at the country since the Great Depression and you'll see that it has been politically dominated by Democrats. For fucks sake, our own Great Communicator was a fucking New Deal Democrat who loved FDR! Sure, we made some gains with Reagan, and shit we even made some gains with Clinton. Of course, we also had some pretty massive losses. The existence of talk-radio and Fox news make up the majority of our "successes" and neither makes up a majority of the media that American's consume, much less have any direct political value. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, healthcare, education, immigration, regulation... we've lost on all these grounds. We've made gains in taxes, but only because they had grown to such ridiculous levels that even Democrats were willing to cut them down, and lo and behold, taxes are going back up.
When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance".
edit: Or maybe it's that you only want to look at the narrow decade-wide window of time? Yeah, sorry, doesn't work like that. The history of this party-conflict goes too deep to take a snapshot and try to extrapolate shit. I said two decades because the big hope after Reagan was that maybe we were on a real conservative swing... and we can all see where that went.
Oh and among the battle you lost, you forgot about segregation, legalization of homosexuality etc etc etc... Too bad progress tends to win sometimes.
Yeah... it was the Republican who voted for desegregation. The Democrats came a little late to that party.
The legalization of homosexuality? That's a pretty broad definition, but even so, yes, the Republican party has not ALWAYS been on the forefront of every issue. Sadly, we came a little late to that party.
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
On what policy positions is Obama to the left of any of those listed? And if you think George W. Bush or his father were successes for the Republican party than you're insane and don't know jack shit about Republicanism. Our last real success was Reagan and even Reagan was a big-time spender. Shit, we haven't had an economically conservative president since the fucking Coolidge administration, almost a century ago. The country hasn't been economically conservative since before the fucking first Roosevelt presidency.
We've made gains, sure... all in public opinion. And all of them pretty inconsequential to the big picture. The last time we had the kind of power we wanted was when Democrats were still screaming: "The South will rise again!"
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
The Tea Party lost us the Senate and House in 2006? The Tea Party didn't exist in 2006. When the Tea Party came into real power was 2009-2010, and they won the House back and cut deep into the Senate.
We controlled the Congress in the 90s? We hadn't held a goddamn majority in the House in 42 years before '94. Before '94 we hadn't held both Houses since the fucking '30s. One fucking decade of control and all the sudden we DOMINATED the political landscape? Get your facts straight.
Your reading comprehension is not very good. I'm tired, and really just laughing now. As I said, there isn't a debate to be had. Get over it.
Yeah I said "left" instead of "right". I just noticed that. But the question still stands:
How is Obama to the right of any of those Presidents in his political ideology? In what he's accomplished? That's a different story, mainly because his predecessors did pretty well in establishing the welfare state before Obama was even old enough to vote.
Look at the country since the Great Depression and you'll see that it has been politically dominated by Democrats. For fucks sake, our own Great Communicator was a fucking New Deal Democrat who loved FDR! Sure, we made some gains with Reagan, and shit we even made some gains with Clinton. Of course, we also had some pretty massive losses. The existence of talk-radio and Fox news make up the majority of our "successes" and neither makes up a majority of the media that American's consume, much less have any direct political value. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, healthcare, education, immigration, regulation... we've lost on all these grounds. We've made gains in taxes, but only because they had grown to such ridiculous levels that even Democrats were willing to cut them down, and lo and behold, taxes are going back up.
When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance".
edit: Or maybe it's that you only want to look at the narrow decade-wide window of time? Yeah, sorry, doesn't work like that. The history of this party-conflict goes too deep to take a snapshot and try to extrapolate shit. I said two decades because the big hope after Reagan was that maybe we were on a real conservative swing... and we can all see where that went.
I was going to praise you for your sincerity about why Republicans are throwing/celebrating the political tantrum congress and the senate has been throwing.
Theeeeen I got to the post when you potentially exposed your bigoted core sooooo.... I'll still give you credit for your response to my question but, I have to sincerely doubt your benevolence.
I want to give you an opportunity to redeem yourself in my eyes (and I imagine many in this community)...
If you are a church goer would you welcome an openly gay/lesbian couple into your church and if so, would you be ok with them getting married there?
Or to make it more topic relevant....
Do you believe that the federal government should recognize (regardless of legislation/Supreme Court Decisions i.e. your personal opinion) homosexual marriages as marriages when dealing with things like conferring familial benefits/responsibilities for insurance and other healthcare issues like hospital visits, survivors benefits, tax purposes(for tax credits in the PPAFA) etc...?
On October 02 2013 19:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:08 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:37 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
On what policy positions is Obama to the left of any of those listed? And if you think George W. Bush or his father were successes for the Republican party than you're insane and don't know jack shit about Republicanism. Our last real success was Reagan and even Reagan was a big-time spender. Shit, we haven't had an economically conservative president since the fucking Coolidge administration, almost a century ago. The country hasn't been economically conservative since before the fucking first Roosevelt presidency.
We've made gains, sure... all in public opinion. And all of them pretty inconsequential to the big picture. The last time we had the kind of power we wanted was when Democrats were still screaming: "The South will rise again!"
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
The Tea Party lost us the Senate and House in 2006? The Tea Party didn't exist in 2006. When the Tea Party came into real power was 2009-2010, and they won the House back and cut deep into the Senate.
We controlled the Congress in the 90s? We hadn't held a goddamn majority in the House in 42 years before '94. Before '94 we hadn't held both Houses since the fucking '30s. One fucking decade of control and all the sudden we DOMINATED the political landscape? Get your facts straight.
Your reading comprehension is not very good. I'm tired, and really just laughing now. As I said, there isn't a debate to be had. Get over it.
Yeah I said "left" instead of "right". I just noticed that. But the question still stands:
How is Obama to the right of any of those Presidents in his political ideology? In what he's accomplished? That's a different story, mainly because his predecessors did pretty well in establishing the welfare state before Obama was even old enough to vote.
Look at the country since the Great Depression and you'll see that it has been politically dominated by Democrats. For fucks sake, our own Great Communicator was a fucking New Deal Democrat who loved FDR! Sure, we made some gains with Reagan, and shit we even made some gains with Clinton. Of course, we also had some pretty massive losses. The existence of talk-radio and Fox news make up the majority of our "successes" and neither makes up a majority of the media that American's consume, much less have any direct political value. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, healthcare, education, immigration, regulation... we've lost on all these grounds. We've made gains in taxes, but only because they had grown to such ridiculous levels that even Democrats were willing to cut them down, and lo and behold, taxes are going back up.
When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance".
edit: Or maybe it's that you only want to look at the narrow decade-wide window of time? Yeah, sorry, doesn't work like that. The history of this party-conflict goes too deep to take a snapshot and try to extrapolate shit. I said two decades because the big hope after Reagan was that maybe we were on a real conservative swing... and we can all see where that went.
Oh and among the battle you lost, you forgot about segregation, legalization of homosexuality etc etc etc... Too bad progress tends to win sometimes.
Yeah... it was the Republican who voted for desegregation. The Democrats came a little late to that party.
The legalization of homosexuality? That's a pretty broad definition, but even so, yes, the Republican party has not ALWAYS been on the forefront of every issue. Sadly, we came a little late to that party.
You know, I don't even talk about the Republican party, because, what you seem not to realize is that the Republican party has shifted massively to the right since its creation. If anything, it used to be a progressive force in the XIXth century. I talk about conservatives, who are now represented by the GOP.
You, conservatives, lost the battle against abortion, gay marriage, welfare, public education, immigration, just as you lost the battle to make homosexuality legal, which you guys strongly opposed, or the battle for black people to have any right at all. And sometimes, hopefully, you will lose the battle for death penalty, you will lose the battle for the right to buy and own machineguns and war weapons, etc etc etc.
Being on the bad side of history is a bitch. But you never know, maybe a major historical event happens (actually conservative are working on it with their climate change denials, and the issue is fairly promising; keep doing the good work), and we all go back to middle age, where conservative ideas were largely implemented. You never know.
Oh, to answer a previous post of yours, if the political spectrum has been what it is nowadays in the XIXth century, it's of course the Republicans who would claim that "the South will rise again".
On October 02 2013 19:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:08 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:37 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
On what policy positions is Obama to the left of any of those listed? And if you think George W. Bush or his father were successes for the Republican party than you're insane and don't know jack shit about Republicanism. Our last real success was Reagan and even Reagan was a big-time spender. Shit, we haven't had an economically conservative president since the fucking Coolidge administration, almost a century ago. The country hasn't been economically conservative since before the fucking first Roosevelt presidency.
We've made gains, sure... all in public opinion. And all of them pretty inconsequential to the big picture. The last time we had the kind of power we wanted was when Democrats were still screaming: "The South will rise again!"
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
The Tea Party lost us the Senate and House in 2006? The Tea Party didn't exist in 2006. When the Tea Party came into real power was 2009-2010, and they won the House back and cut deep into the Senate.
We controlled the Congress in the 90s? We hadn't held a goddamn majority in the House in 42 years before '94. Before '94 we hadn't held both Houses since the fucking '30s. One fucking decade of control and all the sudden we DOMINATED the political landscape? Get your facts straight.
Your reading comprehension is not very good. I'm tired, and really just laughing now. As I said, there isn't a debate to be had. Get over it.
Yeah I said "left" instead of "right". I just noticed that. But the question still stands:
How is Obama to the right of any of those Presidents in his political ideology? In what he's accomplished? That's a different story, mainly because his predecessors did pretty well in establishing the welfare state before Obama was even old enough to vote.
Look at the country since the Great Depression and you'll see that it has been politically dominated by Democrats. For fucks sake, our own Great Communicator was a fucking New Deal Democrat who loved FDR! Sure, we made some gains with Reagan, and shit we even made some gains with Clinton. Of course, we also had some pretty massive losses. The existence of talk-radio and Fox news make up the majority of our "successes" and neither makes up a majority of the media that American's consume, much less have any direct political value. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, healthcare, education, immigration, regulation... we've lost on all these grounds. We've made gains in taxes, but only because they had grown to such ridiculous levels that even Democrats were willing to cut them down, and lo and behold, taxes are going back up.
When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance".
edit: Or maybe it's that you only want to look at the narrow decade-wide window of time? Yeah, sorry, doesn't work like that. The history of this party-conflict goes too deep to take a snapshot and try to extrapolate shit. I said two decades because the big hope after Reagan was that maybe we were on a real conservative swing... and we can all see where that went.
Oh and among the battle you lost, you forgot about segregation, legalization of homosexuality etc etc etc... Too bad progress tends to win sometimes.
Yeah... it was the Republican who voted for desegregation. The Democrats came a little late to that party.
The legalization of homosexuality? That's a pretty broad definition, but even so, yes, the Republican party has not ALWAYS been on the forefront of every issue. Sadly, we came a little late to that party.
You know, I don't even talk about the Republican party, because, what you seem not to realize is that the Republican party has shifted massively to the right since its creation. If anything, it used to be a progressive force in the XIXth century. I talk about conservatives, who are now represented by the GOP.
You, conservatives, lost the battle against abortion, gay marriage, welfare, public education, immigration, just as you lost the battle to make homosexuality legal, which you guys strongly opposed, or the battle for black people to have any right at all. And sometimes, hopefully, you will lose the battle for death penalty, you will lose the battle for the right to buy and own machineguns and war weapons, etc etc etc.
Being on the bad side of history is a bitch. But you never know, maybe a major historical event happens (actually conservative are working on it with their climate change denials, and the issue is fairly promising; keep doing the good work), and we all go back to middle age, where conservative ideas were largely implemented. You never know.
Oh, to answer a previous post of yours, if the political spectrum has been what it is nowadays in the XIXth century, it's of course the Republicans who would claim that "the South will rise again".
You are a very angry man. If you want to see what 60 years of non stop democrat rule brings just check out Detroit sometime.Don't bring up that BS about building a city around one industry - last i checked Pittsburgh doesn't have many steel mills anymore but they're doing decent enough.It's the policies and ideologies that destroy things.
They do things different in D-Town ; they even have 13 months in a year up there last i heard.
There were attempts in the past to rein in such egregious and illegal behavior, but the unions and the beneficiaries enjoying their 13th month checks were just too strong. When Dennis Archer took over as mayor of Detroit following Coleman Young’s disastrous administration in January 1994, one of the first things he learned was how the union-controlled pension plans’ trustees were disbursing these funds, and he tried to stop it. He proposed a new city charter which would have given Detroit’s city council powers to override the pension plans’ trustees. The voters passed, it but the unions and present pensioners took umbrage, sued Archer, and Archer (and the voters) lost in court.
So Archer tried a different tactic, called Proposal T, a ballot initiative to accomplish the same thing. It failed as well, and the 13th month checks continued to flow, illegally, from the plans’ assets.
Because the Detroit Free Press had such difficulty ferreting out the records on which it based its story, it was never able to determine exactly how many dollars were disbursed or for how long. Records prior to 1985 are missing, and one of the plans — the uniformed officers plan — is distinctly opaque about such things.
Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
On October 02 2013 21:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
Funny. I always thought Robin Hood was supposed to be the hero...
On October 02 2013 21:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:08 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:37 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
On what policy positions is Obama to the left of any of those listed? And if you think George W. Bush or his father were successes for the Republican party than you're insane and don't know jack shit about Republicanism. Our last real success was Reagan and even Reagan was a big-time spender. Shit, we haven't had an economically conservative president since the fucking Coolidge administration, almost a century ago. The country hasn't been economically conservative since before the fucking first Roosevelt presidency.
We've made gains, sure... all in public opinion. And all of them pretty inconsequential to the big picture. The last time we had the kind of power we wanted was when Democrats were still screaming: "The South will rise again!"
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
The Tea Party lost us the Senate and House in 2006? The Tea Party didn't exist in 2006. When the Tea Party came into real power was 2009-2010, and they won the House back and cut deep into the Senate.
We controlled the Congress in the 90s? We hadn't held a goddamn majority in the House in 42 years before '94. Before '94 we hadn't held both Houses since the fucking '30s. One fucking decade of control and all the sudden we DOMINATED the political landscape? Get your facts straight.
Your reading comprehension is not very good. I'm tired, and really just laughing now. As I said, there isn't a debate to be had. Get over it.
Yeah I said "left" instead of "right". I just noticed that. But the question still stands:
How is Obama to the right of any of those Presidents in his political ideology? In what he's accomplished? That's a different story, mainly because his predecessors did pretty well in establishing the welfare state before Obama was even old enough to vote.
Look at the country since the Great Depression and you'll see that it has been politically dominated by Democrats. For fucks sake, our own Great Communicator was a fucking New Deal Democrat who loved FDR! Sure, we made some gains with Reagan, and shit we even made some gains with Clinton. Of course, we also had some pretty massive losses. The existence of talk-radio and Fox news make up the majority of our "successes" and neither makes up a majority of the media that American's consume, much less have any direct political value. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, healthcare, education, immigration, regulation... we've lost on all these grounds. We've made gains in taxes, but only because they had grown to such ridiculous levels that even Democrats were willing to cut them down, and lo and behold, taxes are going back up.
When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance".
edit: Or maybe it's that you only want to look at the narrow decade-wide window of time? Yeah, sorry, doesn't work like that. The history of this party-conflict goes too deep to take a snapshot and try to extrapolate shit. I said two decades because the big hope after Reagan was that maybe we were on a real conservative swing... and we can all see where that went.
Oh and among the battle you lost, you forgot about segregation, legalization of homosexuality etc etc etc... Too bad progress tends to win sometimes.
Yeah... it was the Republican who voted for desegregation. The Democrats came a little late to that party.
The legalization of homosexuality? That's a pretty broad definition, but even so, yes, the Republican party has not ALWAYS been on the forefront of every issue. Sadly, we came a little late to that party.
You know, I don't even talk about the Republican party, because, what you seem not to realize is that the Republican party has shifted massively to the right since its creation. If anything, it used to be a progressive force in the XIXth century. I talk about conservatives, who are now represented by the GOP.
You, conservatives, lost the battle against abortion, gay marriage, welfare, public education, immigration, just as you lost the battle to make homosexuality legal, which you guys strongly opposed, or the battle for black people to have any right at all. And sometimes, hopefully, you will lose the battle for death penalty, you will lose the battle for the right to buy and own machineguns and war weapons, etc etc etc.
Being on the bad side of history is a bitch. But you never know, maybe a major historical event happens (actually conservative are working on it with their climate change denials, and the issue is fairly promising; keep doing the good work), and we all go back to middle age, where conservative ideas were largely implemented. You never know.
Oh, to answer a previous post of yours, if the political spectrum has been what it is nowadays in the XIXth century, it's of course the Republicans who would claim that "the South will rise again".
You are a very angry man. If you want to see what 60 years of non stop democrat rule brings just check out Detroit sometime.Don't bring up that BS about building a city around one industry - last i checked Pittsburgh doesn't have many steel mills anymore but they're doing decent enough.It's the policies and ideologies that destroy things.
They do things different in D-Town ; they even have 13 months in a year up there last i heard.
There were attempts in the past to rein in such egregious and illegal behavior, but the unions and the beneficiaries enjoying their 13th month checks were just too strong. When Dennis Archer took over as mayor of Detroit following Coleman Young’s disastrous administration in January 1994, one of the first things he learned was how the union-controlled pension plans’ trustees were disbursing these funds, and he tried to stop it. He proposed a new city charter which would have given Detroit’s city council powers to override the pension plans’ trustees. The voters passed, it but the unions and present pensioners took umbrage, sued Archer, and Archer (and the voters) lost in court.
So Archer tried a different tactic, called Proposal T, a ballot initiative to accomplish the same thing. It failed as well, and the 13th month checks continued to flow, illegally, from the plans’ assets.
Because the Detroit Free Press had such difficulty ferreting out the records on which it based its story, it was never able to determine exactly how many dollars were disbursed or for how long. Records prior to 1985 are missing, and one of the plans — the uniformed officers plan — is distinctly opaque about such things.
Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
I'm not angry at all; and I don't think Democrats are great. I just believe that if you are a hardcore conservative, it's basic honesty not to cherry pick about the fights you lost.
On October 02 2013 21:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:08 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:37 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
On what policy positions is Obama to the left of any of those listed? And if you think George W. Bush or his father were successes for the Republican party than you're insane and don't know jack shit about Republicanism. Our last real success was Reagan and even Reagan was a big-time spender. Shit, we haven't had an economically conservative president since the fucking Coolidge administration, almost a century ago. The country hasn't been economically conservative since before the fucking first Roosevelt presidency.
We've made gains, sure... all in public opinion. And all of them pretty inconsequential to the big picture. The last time we had the kind of power we wanted was when Democrats were still screaming: "The South will rise again!"
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
The Tea Party lost us the Senate and House in 2006? The Tea Party didn't exist in 2006. When the Tea Party came into real power was 2009-2010, and they won the House back and cut deep into the Senate.
We controlled the Congress in the 90s? We hadn't held a goddamn majority in the House in 42 years before '94. Before '94 we hadn't held both Houses since the fucking '30s. One fucking decade of control and all the sudden we DOMINATED the political landscape? Get your facts straight.
Your reading comprehension is not very good. I'm tired, and really just laughing now. As I said, there isn't a debate to be had. Get over it.
Yeah I said "left" instead of "right". I just noticed that. But the question still stands:
How is Obama to the right of any of those Presidents in his political ideology? In what he's accomplished? That's a different story, mainly because his predecessors did pretty well in establishing the welfare state before Obama was even old enough to vote.
Look at the country since the Great Depression and you'll see that it has been politically dominated by Democrats. For fucks sake, our own Great Communicator was a fucking New Deal Democrat who loved FDR! Sure, we made some gains with Reagan, and shit we even made some gains with Clinton. Of course, we also had some pretty massive losses. The existence of talk-radio and Fox news make up the majority of our "successes" and neither makes up a majority of the media that American's consume, much less have any direct political value. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, healthcare, education, immigration, regulation... we've lost on all these grounds. We've made gains in taxes, but only because they had grown to such ridiculous levels that even Democrats were willing to cut them down, and lo and behold, taxes are going back up.
When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance".
edit: Or maybe it's that you only want to look at the narrow decade-wide window of time? Yeah, sorry, doesn't work like that. The history of this party-conflict goes too deep to take a snapshot and try to extrapolate shit. I said two decades because the big hope after Reagan was that maybe we were on a real conservative swing... and we can all see where that went.
Oh and among the battle you lost, you forgot about segregation, legalization of homosexuality etc etc etc... Too bad progress tends to win sometimes.
Yeah... it was the Republican who voted for desegregation. The Democrats came a little late to that party.
The legalization of homosexuality? That's a pretty broad definition, but even so, yes, the Republican party has not ALWAYS been on the forefront of every issue. Sadly, we came a little late to that party.
You know, I don't even talk about the Republican party, because, what you seem not to realize is that the Republican party has shifted massively to the right since its creation. If anything, it used to be a progressive force in the XIXth century. I talk about conservatives, who are now represented by the GOP.
You, conservatives, lost the battle against abortion, gay marriage, welfare, public education, immigration, just as you lost the battle to make homosexuality legal, which you guys strongly opposed, or the battle for black people to have any right at all. And sometimes, hopefully, you will lose the battle for death penalty, you will lose the battle for the right to buy and own machineguns and war weapons, etc etc etc.
Being on the bad side of history is a bitch. But you never know, maybe a major historical event happens (actually conservative are working on it with their climate change denials, and the issue is fairly promising; keep doing the good work), and we all go back to middle age, where conservative ideas were largely implemented. You never know.
Oh, to answer a previous post of yours, if the political spectrum has been what it is nowadays in the XIXth century, it's of course the Republicans who would claim that "the South will rise again".
You are a very angry man. If you want to see what 60 years of non stop democrat rule brings just check out Detroit sometime.Don't bring up that BS about building a city around one industry - last i checked Pittsburgh doesn't have many steel mills anymore but they're doing decent enough.It's the policies and ideologies that destroy things.
They do things different in D-Town ; they even have 13 months in a year up there last i heard.
There were attempts in the past to rein in such egregious and illegal behavior, but the unions and the beneficiaries enjoying their 13th month checks were just too strong. When Dennis Archer took over as mayor of Detroit following Coleman Young’s disastrous administration in January 1994, one of the first things he learned was how the union-controlled pension plans’ trustees were disbursing these funds, and he tried to stop it. He proposed a new city charter which would have given Detroit’s city council powers to override the pension plans’ trustees. The voters passed, it but the unions and present pensioners took umbrage, sued Archer, and Archer (and the voters) lost in court.
So Archer tried a different tactic, called Proposal T, a ballot initiative to accomplish the same thing. It failed as well, and the 13th month checks continued to flow, illegally, from the plans’ assets.
Because the Detroit Free Press had such difficulty ferreting out the records on which it based its story, it was never able to determine exactly how many dollars were disbursed or for how long. Records prior to 1985 are missing, and one of the plans — the uniformed officers plan — is distinctly opaque about such things.
Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
He didnt specificly talk about parties only, which he even said, reading comprehension? So how about you take an example of a country with 60 years of non conservative rule?
Look at the scandinavian countries. Or even at germany for all i care. But your democracts, in one town in your country, is in no way an example that the conservatives in your country arent a joke, or at least get viewed as such by most of the western world.
On October 02 2013 21:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
Funny. I always thought Robin Hood was supposed to be the hero...
Well, you need someone to be the Sheriff of Nottingham.
On October 02 2013 21:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
Funny. I always thought Robin Hood was supposed to be the hero...
Well, you need someone to be the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Well Nettles is especially dumb because Robin Hood stole the money the King took by taxing the peasants, to give it back to peasants....
On October 02 2013 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:50 Poffel wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
Funny. I always thought Robin Hood was supposed to be the hero...
Well, you need someone to be the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Well Nettles is especially dumb because Robin Hood stole the money the King took by taxing the peasants, to give it back to peasants....
In Nettles' defense, he just quoted another article. Still, if the argument leads up to "Their morals are bad because they display the mentality of a popular folk hero," it's probably not that good an argument to begin with.
On October 02 2013 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:50 Poffel wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
Funny. I always thought Robin Hood was supposed to be the hero...
Well, you need someone to be the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Well Nettles is especially dumb because Robin Hood stole the money the King took by taxing the peasants, to give it back to peasants....
In Nettles' defense, he just quoted another article. Still, if the argument leads up to "Their morals are bad because they display the mentality of a popular folk hero," it's probably not that good an argument to begin with.
Yeah and now that we have established that Robin Hood was probably a libby in the first place, what about taking another character that advocate giving the wealth to the poor?
Like someone who said that:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"
... then it gives:
"It’s the Jesus mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity."
On October 02 2013 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:50 Poffel wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
Funny. I always thought Robin Hood was supposed to be the hero...
Well, you need someone to be the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Well Nettles is especially dumb because Robin Hood stole the money the King took by taxing the peasants, to give it back to peasants....
In Nettles' defense, he just quoted another article. Still, if the argument leads up to "Their morals are bad because they display the mentality of a popular folk hero," it's probably not that good an argument to begin with.
Yeah and now that we have established that Robin Hood was probably a libby in the first place, what about taking another character that advocate giving the wealth to the poor?
Like someone who said that:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"
... then it gives:
"It’s the Jesus mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity."
Oh no! Bits of conservative brain everywhere..
Well, with Jesus it's still about Volontarism :p Its not really taking from others :D
On October 02 2013 22:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 22:11 Poffel wrote:
On October 02 2013 22:02 Insoleet wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:50 Poffel wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
Funny. I always thought Robin Hood was supposed to be the hero...
Well, you need someone to be the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Well Nettles is especially dumb because Robin Hood stole the money the King took by taxing the peasants, to give it back to peasants....
In Nettles' defense, he just quoted another article. Still, if the argument leads up to "Their morals are bad because they display the mentality of a popular folk hero," it's probably not that good an argument to begin with.
Yeah and now that we have established that Robin Hood was probably a libby in the first place, what about taking another character that advocate giving the wealth to the poor?
Like someone who said that:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"
... then it gives:
"It’s the Jesus mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity."
Oh no! Bits of conservative brain everywhere..
Well, with Jesus it's still about Volontarism :p Its not really taking from others :D
That's only because they hadn't invented welfare state by then.
On October 02 2013 22:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 22:11 Poffel wrote:
On October 02 2013 22:02 Insoleet wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:50 Poffel wrote:
On October 02 2013 21:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
Funny. I always thought Robin Hood was supposed to be the hero...
Well, you need someone to be the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Well Nettles is especially dumb because Robin Hood stole the money the King took by taxing the peasants, to give it back to peasants....
In Nettles' defense, he just quoted another article. Still, if the argument leads up to "Their morals are bad because they display the mentality of a popular folk hero," it's probably not that good an argument to begin with.
Yeah and now that we have established that Robin Hood was probably a libby in the first place, what about taking another character that advocate giving the wealth to the poor?
Like someone who said that:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"
... then it gives:
"It’s the Jesus mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity."
Oh no! Bits of conservative brain everywhere..
Well, with Jesus it's still about Volontarism :p Its not really taking from others :D
That's only because they hadn't invented welfare state by then.
That was called "religion" and "social pressure", "tradition", "social convention"
On October 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote: And there is your problem: "When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance". "
Politics is not about "dominance" it's about compromise. If you can't or are against compromise your better off with a dictatorship. It's sad for you that your country isn't as conservative as you wish (or even think) it was but... just fucking deal with it.
Compromise is a nice word. But let's look at the last century and see how much "compromise" has gotten the conservatives. It got us Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon that grew the federal government more than their Democrat predecessors. It got us George HW Bush who dismantled all the gains we achieved during the Reagan years and it got us his son who fractured the Republican party almost beyond repair. It got us Obama and a super-majority which led to the monstrosity that is Obamacare. And it led us to this point where we have no choice but to shut down the fucking government and threaten default (God help us) in order to get the Democrats to move a fucking inch.
Funny how it's always the Republicans doing the compromising, and the losing. Democrats weren't falling all over themselves to compromise with Republicans when they had a super-majority and the Presidency. They were more than willing to cut us out and ride their wins. Sure, they compromised with the less liberal members of their own party, but they didn't even give lip service to Republicans, much less conservatives. Now that they don't have complete control they want compromise back? It would be ironical genius if it was fiction.
Politics is a dog-eat-dog world. God help us, since we seem to have forgotten that in the pipe-dream that is "compromise". We didn't learn our lesson from the legacy of Henry Clay's "compromise".
Maybe in some happier, sunnier time there will be room for compromising between the parties. But anyone with even a cursory knowledge of American politics knows that this shit has been brewing for decades. Partisanship and winner-takes-all is here to stay. I say let's let this tune play out until the next presidential election and see how the American people really feel about compromise.
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
This self-victimization is absolutely disingenuous and incongruous with the facts of the situation. Lose two presidential elections in a row and all of a sudden you've been "losing" for 20 years. Get out of your echo chambers.
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the original Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
Like, even if he is right what is his point exactly?
"We're really depressed that our ideals haven't been dominant for a long time so that justifies throwing a tantrum and trying to force those ideals on people we admit don't want them. In a democracy."
??
Not quite.
If you've been trying one strategy for a long, long time; and it's gotten you nowhere... wouldn't you start thinking about maybe changing your strategy? Republicans have tried working with the Democrats since before you or I were born and it's gotten us nothing but grief. And as soon as we start playing hard-ball, like the Democrats have been for a century, we get called out for being hard-liners and radicals. Sorry, but if you're gonna pull the victim card after ~30 hours of being pushed around then I'm gonna have to remind you that my side has been the victim for a lot longer than that.
Funny how forcing Obamacare through was perfectly fine (even though the people didn't want it) but repealing it isn't (even though the people want that.)
but you're walking a political tightrope. if and should the US default the blame will be seen as resting squarely on republican shoulders by almost every non-republican supporter, and i mean the world at large. true, it's not entirely on sides fault, but if the US should go into a downward spiral and takes the world economy 10 years backwards with it, you guys are going into the history books. not obama, you guys.
EPT
