PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Civic rebellion as patriots fight for repeal


Taco John
03-24-2010, 09:33 PM
Noemie Emery: Congress lags behind public mood
By: Noemie Emery
Examiner Columnist
March 24, 2010


History was made Sunday in several ways. The bill passed is a historical change, and a massive expansion of government. It was also the first major bill to be passed against the will of the country, to be passed by only one part of one party, and in the face of a wave of public revulsion, expressed over 10 months in such different outlets as mass demonstrations, three big elections, and polls.

It was not only not bipartisan, but it was less than one party, in the sense that the great war of passage was the attempt by the leaders to force their members to vote in a way that outraged their constituents, by way of threats, ultimatums and bribes.

It is the first bill whose supporters say they have to sell it now after passage, as they failed so spectacularly to sell it the first time. It is the first whose passage was greeted with cries for repeal by so many mainstream and respected political leaders, the first to be challenged in court right off the bat by two different state governments, with thirty-plus more in the wings.

If this has the sense of a civic rebellion, it is one, and for a good reason: The members of Congress who passed the bill are the constitutionally and legitimately elected representatives of the voters in question, but, at least in this instance, they are legislating consciously and defiantly against those voters' will.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., voted for health care, and Nebraska detests it. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., voted for health care, and Arkansas hates it. Massachusetts' two senators were proud sponsors of health care when it passed in December, and three weeks later the state elected Sen. Scott Brown on a pledge to oppose it.

There is a disconnect here between Congress and voters that is causing the system to buckle in places, as voters maneuver and struggle to make themselves heard. Passage increased the debate and the anger, instead of resolving them. They won't be resolved very soon.

Obama and Congress came to us in two "wave" elections, reacting to different events, 2006 came after the worst month in Iraq since the invasion and was the response to it, one year after Katrina and the government's failure to handle it; and it came after a torrent of scandals concerning the Republican Party in Congress.

Do the names Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff, and Tom DeLay ring bells? They should, as revulsion with them is one reason health care is passing.

Another reason health care is passing is the panic and meltdown in the fall of 2008. Iraq had been stabilized, and John McCain led in early September, but the financial implosion changed everything: Independents and swing states swung hard to Obama, leading him in the end to a seven point margin, pickups in purple and red states, and very large gains in the Senate and House.

Congress stayed where it was, but by mid-2009 the independents and swing states had moved back to the center, fleeing Obama and his agenda, while the liberals in office remained. Elections in 2009 would have solved this, but there were just two of them. The rest have to simmer, and wait.

As National Review put it, "The Democratic supermajorities already seem like the product of a passing mood on the part of the public." The mood has passed on, as of July 2009, but the country is stuck with the Congress it brought along with it.

So the voters have taxation with misrepresentation, and discontent and the anger roll on.

Examiner Columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Congress-lags-behind-public-mood-88938452.html#ixzz0j9TcZHmr

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 09:36 PM
:spock:


LMAO LMAO LMAO

Heck, maybe they can finally get that whole conspiracy on 9/11 figured out too....

ROFL

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 09:39 PM
What's gonna be really funny is when the Dems lose a handful of seats, as usually happens with incumbent parties at the midterms....and otherwise the election could turn out to be a real yawner. THEN the whole tea-bagging movement will be left scratching their heads.....wondering, "where da heck da revolution go, dude?"

[one caveat: if the economy takes a real turn south before then; and don't count on it. Heh]

:)

Saul Good
03-24-2010, 09:53 PM
What's gonna be really funny is when the Dems lose a handful of seats, as usually happens with incumbent parties at the midterms....and otherwise the election could turn out to be a real yawner. THEN the whole tea-bagging movement will be left scratching their heads.....wondering, "where da heck da revolution go, dude?"

[one caveat: if the economy takes a real turn south before then; and don't count on it. Heh]

:)

Newsflash: When you're standing on the south pole, the only place to go is north.

banyon
03-24-2010, 09:55 PM
LET THE STREETS FLOW WITH THE BLOOD OF THE UNBELIEVERS!!! REVOLUTION

...from my couch and laptop blog, while I munch on some Cheetos...

Taco John
03-24-2010, 09:59 PM
In broad terms, there is one side that believes liberty can be subverted for the collective good because government often makes more efficient and more moral choices.

Then there is the other side, which believes that people who believe such twaddle are seditious pinkos.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/24/the_mugging_of_personal_freedom_104899.html



I love that. Twaddle. Seditious pinkos. Great stuff.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 09:59 PM
LET THE STREETS FLOW WITH THE BLOOD OF THE UNBELIEVERS!!! REVOLUTION

...from my couch and laptop blog, while I munch on some Cheetos...

You forgot to say....

...in my underwear.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 10:01 PM
In broad terms, there is one side that believes liberty can be subverted for the collective good because government often makes more efficient and more moral choices.

Then there is the other side, which believes that people who believe such twaddle are seditious pinkos.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/24/the_mugging_of_personal_freedom_104899.html



I love that. Twaddle. Seditious pinkos. Great stuff.

Liberty, like all rights...is not absolute, you pea-brained anarchist without a cause except "The I got mine, so fugg everyone else!" gig.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 10:05 PM
Liberty, like all rights...is not absolute, you pea-brained anarchist without a cause except "The I got mine, so fugg everyone else!" gig.

I hope you apologize to your students every morning before you fail to deliver them an adequate education.

banyon
03-24-2010, 10:05 PM
In broad terms, there is one side that believes liberty can be subverted for the collective good because government often makes more efficient and more moral choices.

Then there is the other side, which believes that people who believe such twaddle are seditious pinkos.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/24/the_mugging_of_personal_freedom_104899.html



I love that. Twaddle. Seditious pinkos. Great stuff.

Yes, you seem to thrive on false dichotomies. It's good you've found another simplistic one.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 10:08 PM
Yes, you seem to thrive on false dichotomies. It's good you've found another simplistic one.


Yes, your majesty of the straw man. You should be pointing fingers when you demonstrate here daily that you don't know what socialism or fascism are.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 10:14 PM
I hope you apologize to your students every morning before you fail to deliver them an adequate education.

Pathetic attempts at insults from you matter to me about as much as a gnat on a thoroughbred's ass.

headsnap
03-24-2010, 10:16 PM
It's taken quite a while but the sweathogs have finally driven Mr. Kotter mad...



kinda' sad actually...:(

banyon
03-24-2010, 10:30 PM
Yes, your majesty of the straw man. You should be pointing fingers when you demonstrate here daily that you don't know what socialism or fascism are.

If you think you've made a convincing case for this statement, you are sadly mistaken. Hell, you can't even distinguish these particular two terms based on how vaguely you regularly use them interchangeably.

I understand them in the traditional way they have been understood and not with the bizarre conflations and contortions you twist them into to get them to fit a narrative. Then you get all frustrated when you don't like the traditional definitions, but want to avoid explanations or distinctions of your revisionist use of the terms.

I've laughed thread after thread when you've refused to define what socialism is (and now refused to distinguish corporatism or plutocracy, or set any limits on them) and how you think every term is basically an all or nothing proposition. No, I think your finger pointing is coming back at you in a funhouse mirror.

Basically you should take a class or ten in set theory so you know that nouns are actually supposed to have referents, that is discrete things that they refer to. When you refuse to set parameters about what they define, well then they don't really mean anything and are useless.

Amnorix
03-24-2010, 10:46 PM
Basically you should take a class or ten in set theory so you know that nouns are actually supposed to have referents, that is discrete things that they refer to. When you refuse to set parameters about what they define, well then they don't really mean anything and are useless.

But don't you understand? Labels mean what he and BEP say they mean, and even if that's not how the term is commonly understood, and even if they're constantly shuffling up terms and coming up with new terms to define groups in different ways that barely make any sense, that's irrelevant.

Heck, I don't know why they don't just trash all their labels and just group all of us into "Enemies of the True Followers of the Founding Fathers (except Hamilton, he sucked)" or some damn thing. :D

Taco John
03-24-2010, 10:53 PM
If you think you've made a convincing case for this statement, you are sadly mistaken. Hell, you can't even distinguish these particular two terms based on how vaguely you regularly use them interchangeably.

I understand them in the traditional way they have been understood and not with the bizarre conflations and contortions you twist them into to get them to fit a narrative. Then you get all frustrated when you don't like the traditional definitions, but want to avoid explanations or distinctions of your revisionist use of the terms.

I've laughed thread after thread when you've refused to define what socialism is (and now refused to distinguish corporatism or plutocracy, or set any limits on them) and how you think every term is basically an all or nothing proposition. No, I think your finger pointing is coming back at you in a funhouse mirror.

Basically you should take a class or ten in set theory so you know that nouns are actually supposed to have referents, that is discrete things that they refer to. When you refuse to set parameters about what they define, well then they don't really mean anything and are useless.


Whatever. You rejected the founder of the fascist movement's very own definition.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” -Benito Mussolini


"...yeah, but we're not eating rigatoni over here regularly, so this can't possibly be fascism." -Banyon.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 10:55 PM
It's taken quite a while but the sweathogs have finally driven Mr. Kotter mad...



kinda' sad actually...:(

:spock:

Because you disagree with me on this issue?

I didn't have you pegged as a dittohead, I guess.

kinda' sad actually.... :(

Taco John
03-24-2010, 10:57 PM
But don't you understand? Labels mean what he and BEP say they mean, and even if that's not how the term is commonly understood, and even if they're constantly shuffling up terms and coming up with new terms to define groups in different ways that barely make any sense, that's irrelevant.

Heck, I don't know why they don't just trash all their labels and just group all of us into "Enemies of the True Followers of the Founding Fathers (except Hamilton, he sucked)" or some damn thing. :D

You folks couldn't be more dishonest. Anyone can find an adequate definition by simply using a search engine.

Google corporatism, and the first result you get is Wikipedia:

"Corporatism also known as corporativism is a system of economic, political, or social organization or thought that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles amongst individuals."


Works for me and fits the way I've been using it.

You guys are the ones who are changing the definitions of things - and for good reason. You need the cover.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 11:00 PM
MOre from Wiki:

"Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body. Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies. "

This describes your insurance exchanges down to the last period.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 11:06 PM
The great thing about TJ is that he thinks he's smart, when in reality he may be the dumbest sonofabitch on this board.

jjchieffan
03-24-2010, 11:15 PM
The great thing about TJ is that he thinks he's smart, when in reality he may be the dumbest sonofabitch on this board.

Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you is a dumbass??? I find his points far more intelligent than yours.

headsnap
03-24-2010, 11:25 PM
:spock:

Because you disagree with me on this issue?

I didn't have you pegged as a dittohead, I guess.

kinda' sad actually.... :(

it's not just this issue...

but it is your methods and hyperbole.




and actually this whole place is kind of off it's axis...

Taco John
03-24-2010, 11:27 PM
The great thing about TJ is that he thinks he's smart, when in reality he may be the dumbest sonofabitch on this board.


The great thing about you is you continue to make this dumb sonofabitch look smart.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 11:30 PM
it's not just this issue...

but it is your methods and hyperbole.




and actually this whole place is kind of off it's axis...

Yeah, yeah...I've tried the kindler and gentler approach, but have been back-sliding lately. For example, I wanted to LMAO at Hamas's on-th-mark post about TJ....but I did resist. It was really, really hard, but I resisted.

As for off it's axis...controversies like this have a way of doing that.

Dottefan
03-25-2010, 08:53 AM
...IM READY FOR THE REVOLUTION..READY TO GO REPUKE HUNTING..

PhillyChiefFan
03-25-2010, 11:26 AM
Here is PA the Dems have it covered. They are threatening to pull the Attorney General's funding if he proceeds with a lawsuit.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/03/state_democratic_lawmakers_thr.html

Otter
03-25-2010, 12:38 PM
Liberty, like all rights...is not absolute, you pea-brained anarchist without a cause except "The I got mine, so fugg everyone else!" gig.

Not being a government lap dog doesn't make anyone an 'anarchist'.

You strike me as one of the Poles in the concentration camps who side with the Nazis as a dorm guard then beat and betray his former neighbors for an extra ration of bread.

Ya know, since we're throwing interpretations around.

Taco John
03-25-2010, 02:10 PM
Not being a government lap dog doesn't make anyone an 'anarchist'.

You strike me as one of the Poles in the concentration camps who side with the Nazis as a dorm guard then beat and betray his former neighbors for an extra ration of bread.

Ya know, since we're throwing interpretations around.

That's Kotter to a T. He sucks up to whatever faction is in current power, ignoring all principle except what is "pragmatic" at the time.

Amnorix
03-25-2010, 02:21 PM
Whatever. You rejected the founder of the fascist movement's very own definition.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” -Benito Mussolini



Or not. :shrug:


A Google(tm) search on January 12, 2005 turned up some 5,000 hits on the following quote:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

It is generally attrributed to an article written by Mussolini in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana with the assistance of Giovanni Gentile, the editor.

The quote, however, does not appear in the Enciclopedia Italiana in the original Italian.

It does not appear in the official English translation of that article:
Benito Mussolini, 1935, "The Doctrine of Fascism," Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

And it does not appear in the longer treatment of the subject by Mussolini in:

Benito Mussolini, 1935, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions," Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.

Where the quote comes from remains a mystery, and while it is possible Mussolini said it someplace at some time, a number of researchers have been unable to find it after months of research.

(If you have a source for the quote based on an actual original document that you copy and mail us, please let us know, and you will receive a free 3-year subscription to the Public Eye magazine)

It is unlikely that Mussolini ever made this statement because it contradicts most of the other writing he did on the subject of corporatism and corporations.

http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

kcfanXIII
03-25-2010, 02:23 PM
...IM READY FOR THE REVOLUTION..READY TO GO REPUKE HUNTING..

come on then, i bet you're dying to become a statistic.

Chief Henry
03-25-2010, 02:23 PM
Here is PA the Dems have it covered. They are threatening to pull the Attorney General's funding if he proceeds with a lawsuit.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/03/state_democratic_lawmakers_thr.html

Hardball

banyon
03-27-2010, 10:29 PM
Whatever. You rejected the founder of the fascist movement's very own definition.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” -Benito Mussolini


"...yeah, but we're not eating rigatoni over here regularly, so this can't possibly be fascism." -Banyon.

No. What happened was that I asked you what qualifies as corporatism and you tried misdirection with some snarky insults. It's pretty commonplace for you.

Taco John
03-27-2010, 10:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

BucEyedPea
03-27-2010, 10:53 PM
But don't you understand? Labels mean what he and BEP say they mean, and even if that's not how the term is commonly understood,

Can we help it if you've mis-edumacated and rely on newspeak? Orwell said abuse of language is a way to control the people and that's how the socialists would win. In fact, he wrote a whole article about and based a novel on it.

...and even if they're constantly shuffling up terms and coming up with new terms to define groups in different ways that barely make any sense, that's irrelevant.
Uhm...no! That's your side. Lawyers are adept at parsing with sleight of hand. It's no wonder the public has such a low opinion of that profession.

Yup! You got nuthin' hence your shift of attention off the the person.
Me? Just gettin' back 'atcha Masshole.

banyon
03-27-2010, 11:11 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

That doesn't answer my question, which was "is any policy that favors corporations corporatist?"

Taco John
03-28-2010, 12:12 AM
That doesn't answer my question, which was "is any policy that favors corporations corporatist?"


Why delve into the theoretical when we've got a prime example of it sitting in front of us.

A policy in which forces people to pay a corporation and receive services or face the IRS for punishment is corporatist.

fan4ever
03-28-2010, 12:29 AM
I hope you apologize to your students every morning before you fail to deliver them an adequate education.

He's not really a teacher...is he? I mean I've heard the remarks but I thought it was because of his username. "Educate me"?

Velvet_Jones
03-28-2010, 01:24 AM
Kotter has sand in both of his vaginas. That poor guy-girl has never had a break in his life. The damn corporations keep him down. Poor Kotter. I guess some poeple aren't cut out to succeed. He trys and trys but the corporations don't allow him to be sucessful. It must really suck to be him.

Baby Lee
03-28-2010, 09:11 AM
:spock:

Because you disagree with me on this issue?

I didn't have you pegged as a dittohead, I guess.

kinda' sad actually.... :(

Hell hath no fury like a public school teacher denied the gourmet bagel with schmear.

Anyone think we'll get back to the point where Kotter didn't found EVERY SINGLE FUCKING argument he makes on what he imagines the opponent to watch on TV.

Iowanian
03-28-2010, 09:32 AM
...IM READY FOR THE REVOLUTION..READY TO GO REPUKE HUNTING..


You ever watch a prairie dog hunting video?

The people with those guns vote R.


Normally, it's a pink mist, but you're full enough of shit, I'm guessing it would be brown.

RedNeckRaider
03-28-2010, 11:03 AM
You ever watch a prairie dog hunting video?

The people with those guns vote R.


Normally, it's a pink mist, but you're full enough of shit, I'm guessing it would be brown.

It would brown and fly out in chunks. More of a splat than a mist~

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 11:41 AM
Kotter has sand in both of his vaginas. That poor guy-girl has never had a break in his life. The damn corporations keep him down. Poor Kotter. I guess some poeple aren't cut out to succeed. He trys and trys but the corporations don't allow him to be sucessful. It must really suck to be him.

Advocating for the less fortunate for a fair share in the American dreams, apparently automatically places me among the welfare class. Considering our household income and tax rates put us among the top 8-10%, I find such miguided clairvoyance amusing though. Given the station in life from which I arose.

The current conversation and political issues in this country are about the pendulum swing. American government and our republic are about concensus and compromis, not ideology and dogmatic devotion to a rigid set of beliefs. Historically, there have been times when devotion to corporate interests and exploitation of the working class caused a backlash; to be sure, there have also been times when excessive government regulation and intrusion stifled individuals and our economy. Rarely does either side recognize the excesses when they are the culpable party---rather in their blind biases they only see excesses on the other side.

When examined closely, there is good reason Americans elected Reagan and ushered in a conservative tide in 1980--tempering the excesses of the Great Society. However, arrogance, complacency, and hubris all contributed to Republicans in the 1990s making the same mistake that democrats did in the la
te 1960s--thinking they didn't have to listen to the American people. The next couple of elections could be interesting....at this point it could be a 1984 type election, OR an 1994 election. It will depend on how stubborn and arrogant the Republicans remain--in other words will they do what the Dems did in 1968, in relegating themselves to the "loyal opposition" party. Time will tell.

FTR, Palin's "prominence" in Republican circles is NOT a good sign if they are hoping for a competitive resurgence.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 12:00 PM
He's not really a teacher...is he? I mean I've heard the remarks but I thought it was because of his username. "Educate me"?

I know. Hard to believe, but true. It's easier to believe when you realize that he's stuck in a government-provided, union job with little opportunity for advancement and that he's frustrated that he's not able to pull down the salary of a lawyer, a successful small businessman, or a corporate CEO. His greed and jealousy don't allow him to be happy.

BigRedChief
03-28-2010, 12:08 PM
I know. Hard to believe, but true. It's easier to believe when you realize that he's stuck in a government-provided, union job with little opportunity for advancement and that he's frustrated that he's not able to pull down the salary of a lawyer, a successful small businessman, or a corporate CEO. His greed and jealousy don't allow him to be happy.I guarantee you I'm making more than the average lawyer in this area of the country. No interest in being a CEO or starting a small business. So what does that make me?

patteeu
03-28-2010, 12:21 PM
I guarantee you I'm making more than the average lawyer in this area of the country. No interest in being a CEO or starting a small business. So what does that make me?

It makes you not subject to the same ridicule I heap on Kotter. The source of your mistaken political views is obviously different than his.

banyon
03-28-2010, 12:22 PM
Why delve into the theoretical when we've got a prime example of it sitting in front of us.

A policy in which forces people to pay a corporation and receive services or face the IRS for punishment is corporatist.

And you feel that's useful to compare that to the Holocaust?

BigRedChief
03-28-2010, 12:25 PM
And you feel that's useful to compare that to the Holocaust?They need to go look at Nixon's plan for health care reform. Talk about socialism and employee mandates? jeezz that was communist takeover if this is socialism but since it was Republican that was considered a "hawk" that makes it okay?

patteeu
03-28-2010, 12:27 PM
And you feel that's useful to compare that to the Holocaust?

Fascism shouldn't be forever associated with the holocaust. It's only related by coincidence to begin with, AFAICT. We should keep the economic ideas and the attrocities committed by some who held those economic ideas separate unless they are inextricably entwined, which they don't seem to be in this case.

Baby Lee
03-28-2010, 12:29 PM
They need to go look at Nixon's plan for health care reform. Talk about socialism and employee mandates? jeezz that was communist takeover if this is socialism but since it was Republican that was considered a "hawk" that makes it okay?

Man, I wish I had the transcripts of the lengthy diatribes Infant Lee was posting on ARPANET when that went down. ;)

banyon
03-28-2010, 12:29 PM
Fascism shouldn't be forever associated with the holocaust. It's only related by coincidence to begin with, AFAICT. We should keep the economic ideas and the attrocities committed by some who held those economic ideas separate unless they are inextricably entwined, which they don't seem to be in this case.

What other historically relevant connotation is there?

Only a coincidence? Really? A system that devalues human life coincidentally treated human life as valueless?


That's the desire to tie it with the connotation.

BigRedChief
03-28-2010, 12:31 PM
The source of your mistaken political views is obviously different than his.I think its called basic human compassion for those less fortunate than yourself. Caring whether a fellow human being is hungry, needs shelter or medical attention. Not, I got mine, get your own.(not saying thats your attitude patteau)

patteeu
03-28-2010, 12:39 PM
They need to go look at Nixon's plan for health care reform. Talk about socialism and employee mandates? jeezz that was communist takeover if this is socialism but since it was Republican that was considered a "hawk" that makes it okay?

Most thoughtful conservatives who are knowledgeable about the Nixon administration don't consider Nixon a model of conservatism. Far from it.

In fact, if I may pass along a bit of Cheney trivia, it was his job in the Nixon administration administering Nixon's wage and price control scheme that led Dick Cheney to conclude that such heavy-handed government efforts were counterproductive. Prior to that experience, Cheney was politically neutral and only ended up working for Republicans by chance.* After that experience, he became the staunch conservative that we've grown to know and love.

_____________
* When Cheney arrived in Washington in the late 1960s, he came on a fellowship that was supposed to include half a year as an intern for a Republican legislator and half a year as an intern for a democrat. He served during his first half year under Republican Bill Steiger for whom he did outstanding work on substantial projects. Because he enjoyed the work, he wasn't anxious to move on. When it was time for him to switch, Cheney and a friend of his who was happy working in Ted Kennedy's office did a "paper switch" that allowed them both to continue working for the offices in which they were currently happy. If not for this bending of the rules, Cheney might well have become a democrat, but it's hard to believe he wouldn't have eventually come to the same realization that liberal policies don't work.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 12:45 PM
What other historically relevant connotation is there?

Only a coincidence? Really? A system that devalues human life coincidentally treated human life as valueless?


That's the desire to tie it with the connotation.

Obama's system devalues human life, but I'm not worried about an outright holocaust with gas chambers and death camps. Instead, we'll gradually become statistics on some future government bureaucrat's data screen as he decides which illnesses deserve coverage and which do not.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 12:48 PM
I think its called basic human compassion for those less fortunate than yourself. Caring whether a fellow human being is hungry, needs shelter or medical attention. Not, I got mine, get your own.(not saying thats your attitude patteau)

I'm sure you're well intentioned, but I'm equally sure you're ignoring the track record of negative unintended consequences that accompany entitlements of this magnitude as well as it's all too obvious deficit-busting nature.

Baby Lee
03-28-2010, 12:50 PM
I think its called basic human compassion for those less fortunate than yourself. Caring whether a fellow human being is hungry, needs shelter or medical attention. Not, I got mine, get your own.(not saying thats your attitude patteau)

I HATE that fucking false dichotomy. Those who propose government programs don't care more about the less fortunate than others, and those who espouse flourishing markets don't care less. They, at the most charitable, differ on what the best way to care for the unfortunate and support the entrepreneurial is. If one truly cared more than everyone else about a societal problem, one would devote their sweat and tears to remedying it themselves, rather than rooting for the government to take everyone else's money on the promise that they'll take care of it for us.

Warrior5
03-28-2010, 12:55 PM
I HATE that ****ing false dichotomy. Those who propose government programs don't care more about the less fortunate than others, and those who espouse flourishing markets don't care less. They, at the most charitable, differ on what the best way to care for the unfortunate and support the entrepreneurial is. If one truly cared more than everyone else about a societal problem, one would devote their sweat and tears to remedying it themselves, rather than rooting for the government to take everyone else's money on the promise that they'll take care of it for us.

Well-said.:clap:

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 12:55 PM
I know. Hard to believe, but true. It's easier to believe when you realize that he's stuck in a government-provided, union job with little opportunity for advancement and that he's frustrated that he's not able to pull down the salary of a lawyer, a successful small businessman, or a corporate CEO. His greed and jealousy don't allow him to be happy.

I've told you before, but apparently you are more slow than I gave you credit for:

I'm no union member, I have admnistrative opportunities I've so far deferred because of my writing, and, frankly, I'm more happy and content in my life than at least 90% of the people I know. Advocating for a society that keeps the American dream (one the I've personally benefitted from) alive for others whom folks like you ignore, doesn't make me any of the lame caricatures that you imagine in your own small mind.

Your pop psychology is even worse than your pathetic attempts at political science. And that's saying a lot.

Baby Lee
03-28-2010, 01:00 PM
I've told you before, but apparently you are more slow than I gave you credit for:

I'm no union member, I have admnistrative opportunities I've so far deferred because of my writing, and, frankly, I'm more happy and content in my life than at least 90% of the people I know. Aspiring for a society that keeps the American dream (one the I've personally benefitted from) alive for others whom folks like you would like to deprive them of, doesn't make me any of the lame caricatures that you imagine in your own small mind.

Your pop psychology is even worse than your pathetic attempts at political science. And that's saying a lot.

I've told you before, but apparently you are more slow than I gave you credit for:

I'm no union member, I have admnistrative opportunities I've so far deferred because of my writing, and, frankly, I'm more happy and content in my life than at least 90% of the people I know. Advocating for a society that keeps the American dream (one the I've personally benefitted from) alive for others whom folks like you ignore, doesn't make me any of the lame caricatures that you imagine in your own small mind.

Your pop psychology is even worse than your pathetic attempts at political science. And that's saying a lot.

:clap: slander bear sees his slander and edits [almost] quickly enough. Thanks for the peek into your dark soul, must shower now.

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 01:00 PM
I HATE that ****ing false dichotomy. Those who propose government programs don't care more about the less fortunate than others, and those who espouse flourishing markets don't care less. They, at the most charitable, differ on what the best way to care for the unfortunate and support the entrepreneurial is. If one truly cared more than everyone else about a societal problem, one would devote their sweat and tears to remedying it themselves, rather than rooting for the government to take everyone else's money on the promise that they'll take care of it for us.

You mean like choosing a career in public education, by quiting a six figure salary job in 1990 with a healthcare corporation? :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 01:02 PM
:clap: slander bear sees his slander and edits [almost] quickly enough. Thanks for the peek into your dark soul, must shower now.


I'm sure you never take back words to phrase your thoughts more accurately, right?

A lawyer? Nah, never....right? :spock:

LMAO

Baby Lee
03-28-2010, 01:05 PM
You mean like choosing a career in public education, by quiting a six figure salary job in 1990 with a healthcare corporation? :shrug:
I guess if you believe somehow that leaving the industry you're concerned about, and forfeiting all opportunity to effect change in it outside of electing officials in favor of government takeover, for the safer and more sedate halls of academia, then sure.

BigRedChief
03-28-2010, 01:06 PM
I'm sure you're well intentioned, but I'm equally sure you're ignoring the track record of negative unintended consequences that accompany entitlements of this magnitude as well as it's all too obvious deficit-busting nature.We all know the down side. We see the welfare people with big screen TV's, getting steaks at the grocery store with food stamps etc. Every system, no matter how well its designed, will have individuals abuse the system. And no, I don't think the government is the solution for everything.

But in health care government intervention was neccessary for the benfit of all its citzens. Coporations don't do what is best for its workers or its country. Their focus is what is best for them, a selfish focus. That selfish focus got us the largest middle class in the history of the world. I've benefited greatly by that expansion. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever rein in their greed.

Baby Lee
03-28-2010, 01:07 PM
I'm sure you never take back words to phrase your thoughts more accurately, right?

A lawyer? Nah, never....right? :spock:

LMAO

if by 'more accurately' you mean more ambiguous and in terms harder to disprove. . .

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 01:10 PM
I guess if you believe somehow that leaving the industry you're concerned about, and forfeiting all opportunity to effect change in it outside of electing officials in favor of government takeover, for the safer and more sedate halls of academia, then sure.

A sales rep, and eventually a sales manager perhaps, with one of the industry leaders....would somehow magically transform a culture of corruption and greed in the healthcare industry. Sure. Right.

I assure you that it was much more a case of escaping that culture of corruption and greed, for what you apparently consider the "safer and more sedate halls" (though I'd consider it the more humane and less corrupt halls) of academia.

FTR, what schools are you talking about....more safe and sedate? :spock:

patteeu
03-28-2010, 01:13 PM
You mean like choosing a career in public education, by quiting a six figure salary job in 1990 with a healthcare corporation? :shrug:

:LOL: Sure you did. Post your 1040 (or even your W2) and I'll stop believing you're a liar, at least about this.

Wait a minute. Are you counting the digits on the right side of the decimal?

patteeu
03-28-2010, 01:16 PM
We all know the down side. We see the welfare people with big screen TV's, getting steaks at the grocery store with food stamps etc. Every system, no matter how well its designed, will have individuals abuse the system. And no, I don't think the government is the solution for everything.

But in health care government intervention was neccessary for the benfit of all its citzens. Coporations don't do what is best for its workers or its country. Their focus is what is best for them, a selfish focus. That selfish focus got us the largest middle class in the history of the world. I've benefited greatly by that expansion. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever rein in their greed.

My post wasn't at all about the downside that you're talking about (i.e. abuse). It was about the unintended consequences of sapped morale, counter-productive incentives, economic drag, and moral corruption.

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 01:17 PM
if by 'more accurately' you mean more ambiguous and in terms harder to disprove. . .

Life is complex, and ambiguous...yes. The irony of you lecturing anyone on ambiguity is pretty amusing though, heh. As for compassion for fellow man being the exclusive province of one side or the other, I agree with you philosophically. However, don't pretend that conservatives don't demagogue on that count as well....because they are masters of demonizing others with whom they disagree.

It's one of the the things I've picked up from that side...in my own journey to find a rational middle ground and consensus on important issues. I've found that one of the things about both sides....is that they like to give, but they don't do so well taking it when the tables get turned. Heh.

mlyonsd
03-28-2010, 01:19 PM
When the discussion transitions from 'this is good for everyone' to 'it needed to be done because we have a moral obligation' you should admit the argument is lost.

vailpass
03-28-2010, 01:23 PM
I think its called basic human compassion for those less fortunate than yourself. Caring whether a fellow human being is hungry, needs shelter or medical attention. Not, I got mine, get your own.(not saying thats your attitude patteau)

That's a cute theory. In the real world those things all cost money. You saying you are okay with the government taking my money to pay for someone else's insurance?

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 01:24 PM
When the discussion transitions from 'this is good for everyone' to 'it needed to be done because we have a moral obligation' you should admit the argument is lost.

It may not be good for everyone, as nothing is. However, in the end it is likely to be better for most--perhaps even, a vast majority. So, your point is moot; the argument hasn't changed.

And it's your side that lost this round. Alas, take heart....the war is still on, it would seem.

Baby Lee
03-28-2010, 01:24 PM
Life is complex, and ambiguous...yes. The irony of you lecturing anyone on ambiguity is pretty amusing though, heh.
I wasn't lecturing you on ambiguity. Quite the opposite, I was affording you the full knowledge of the effectiveness of employing ambiguity. You initially posted your base estimation of patteau, that he's a person who WANTS to deprive others of the American Dream. Then you realized that that was a bold charge that can be refuted outright by patteau, so you retreated to charges of him 'ignoring' those who might get the short end of the American Dream. There you and patteau can argue ad nauseam about what constitutes 'ignoring' without anyone having to admit demagoguery. Denise has done that kind of shit for the better part of a decade, don't think you're treading novel ground.

Ultra Peanut
03-28-2010, 01:25 PM
Soooo, is this what I've been missing out on?

Darn.

Baby Lee
03-28-2010, 01:26 PM
It may not be good for everyone, as nothing is. However, in the end it is likely to be better for most--perhaps even, a vast majority. So, your point is moot; the argument hasn't changed.

And it's your side that lost this round. Alas, take heart....the war is still on, it would seem.

See, that's where we differ. I feel that everyone who is not a government/insurance insider lost, including you and most everyone on your side.

Taco John
03-28-2010, 01:30 PM
I was a billionaire in the making. But I loved kids to darn much, so I traded it all away to get a degree in loving kids, and today I'm just a centrist seeking kid lover.

Let ye who hates kids throw the first stone.

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 01:30 PM
See, that's where we differ. I feel that everyone who is not a government/insurance insider lost, including you and most everyone on your side.

Well, fortunately....the sky is not falling. There will be bumps. In the end though, I'm confident it will make this country a better place. Like social security has, and like medicaid and medicare have. Some things are more important than corporate profits; healthcare is one of those things.

BigRedChief
03-28-2010, 01:30 PM
That's a cute theory. In the real world those things all cost money. You saying you are okay with the government taking my money to pay for someone else's insurance?I think we should take all of your money and give it to welfare cheats.

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 01:31 PM
I was a billionaire in the making. But I loved kids to darn much, so I traded it all away to get a degree in loving kids, and today I'm just a centrist seeking kid lover.

Gosh, Isaac. I'd have never though you and I had so much in common! :spock:

:toast:

LMAO

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 01:33 PM
Soooo, is this what I've been missing out on?

Darn.

Hey, UP....yeah, I wondered the other day: wonder what UP would be saying in all this. Seriously.

That, and last night I thought: bet UP is happy Kentucky lost. Heh.

Baby Lee
03-28-2010, 01:33 PM
Well, fortunately....the sky is not falling. There will be bumps. In the end though, I'm confident it will make this country a better place. Like social security has, and like medicaid and medicare have. Some things are more important than corporate profits; healthcare is one of those things.

The extent to which those have made anything better, has rested on the broad shoulders of the workers vastly outnumbering the retired, shoulders that are about to invert.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 01:37 PM
Well, fortunately....the sky is not falling. There will be bumps. In the end though, I'm confident it will make this country a better place. Like social security has, and like medicaid and medicare have. Some things are more important than corporate profits; healthcare is one of those things.

And like Bernie Madoff has too. Don't forget all the money people made investing with Bernie... before the bottom fell out of course.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 01:40 PM
Soooo, is this what I've been missing out on?

Darn.

You missed all the bipartisanship and racial harmony that Obama's election brought to us. Unfortunately, Bush caused it all to disappear and wiped our memories as if it never happened.

BigChiefFan
03-28-2010, 01:55 PM
Medicaid and medicare are BROKEN. That's not a topic that feathers your cap. Social Security is a scam. The government TAKES MONEY FOR DECADES in the name of you and everybody else in the system. They're living on borrowed time and money and extorting the system the whole time. That money BELONGED to YOU, in the FIRST PLACE.

BigRedChief
03-28-2010, 01:55 PM
You missed all the bipartisanship and racial harmony that Obama's election brought to us. Unfortunately, Bush caused it all to disappear and wiped our memories as if it never happened.well played sir, well played

Ultra Peanut
03-28-2010, 02:11 PM
I was a billionaire in the making. But I loved kids to darn much, so I traded it all away to get a degree in loving kids, and today I'm just a centrist seeking kid lover.More money = better than

That, and last night I thought: bet UP is happy Kentucky lost. Heh.Word.

Reaper16
03-28-2010, 02:52 PM
UP-- you've missed the gradual change that just about every board conservative has undergone. They have steadily moved towards the positions of Taco John and BEP.

Also, just about every thread devolves to the point where TJ and BEP just start crafting their own absolutist definitions of things and people just get bored.

ClevelandBronco
03-28-2010, 03:02 PM
I thought we'd been missing a member...

Reaper16
03-28-2010, 03:05 PM
I thought we'd been missing a member...
That was actually pretty well done as far as that tired line of jokes goes, though the elipses kill the dry power that a single period would have had.

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 03:15 PM
UP-- you've missed the gradual change that just about every board conservative has undergone. They have steadily moved towards the positions of Taco John and BEP.

Also, just about every thread devolves to the point where TJ and BEP just start crafting their own absolutist definitions of things and people just get bored.

Even I'm a "socialist" now....amazing transformation, indeed! LMAO

stevieray
03-28-2010, 03:26 PM
I HATE that ****ing false dichotomy.

it's gonna get worse. it's redistribution of wealth under the psuedo guise of morals...when in reality, God wll be at the bottom of the totem pole.

why do you think they've already labled the tea party members as terrorists, etc..

stevieray
03-28-2010, 03:26 PM
Even I'm a "socialist" now....amazing transformation, indeed! LMAOsocialism isn't a destination. you haven't reached yours yet...but it's coming.

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2010, 03:41 PM
socialism isn't a destination. you haven't reached yours yet...but it's coming.

Just FTR, stevie....what's your definition of socialism? Seriously.

Thanks in advance for your respectful consideration. :thumb:

Taco John
03-28-2010, 04:10 PM
UP-- you've missed the gradual change that just about every board conservative has undergone. They have steadily moved towards the positions of Taco John and BEP.

Also, just about every thread devolves to the point where TJ and BEP just start crafting their own absolutist definitions of things and people just get bored.

:LOL:

I don't even know what this means... Not that I expect anything but "me too" posts from Reaper. But I'm always amused when he opens his mouth to try an say something original and something like this falls out of it. What does it even mean? What's an "absolutist definition" and how does one go about crafting such a thing?

Taco John
03-28-2010, 04:18 PM
UP-- you've missed the gradual change that just about every board conservative has undergone. They have steadily moved towards the positions of Taco John and BEP.

If fairness, the entire conservative movement in this country has been steadily moving in this direction.

Reaper16
03-28-2010, 04:38 PM
If fairness, the entire conservative movement in this country has been steadily moving in this direction.
The Tea Party movement has, on the whole, presented its positions with a decent amount of clarity and persuasiveness. Good on them, I suppose.
Well, its probably that mixed with a bit of loss-of-faith in the neoconservatism that they used to subscribe to so strongly.

Reaper16
03-28-2010, 04:45 PM
:LOL:

I don't even know what this means... Not that I expect anything but "me too" posts from Reaper. But I'm always amused when he opens his mouth to try an say something original and something like this falls out of it. What does it even mean? What's an "absolutist definition" and how does one go about crafting such a thing?
Its pretty damn simple considering that the meaning of the phrase lies in what the two words of the phrase means. But definitions have never been your strong suit.

You make up these definitions and you can't be budged from them nor can you allow for any other possible definition other than your own, not traditional definitons, not common definitions, not dictionary definitions. You "craft" (and the process of crafting is, I don't know, typing or reading Ron Paul and contextualizing it or something. I don't know how the mind that accepts Rand actually works without shutting down) the only possible definitions of phrases that would back up your positions. And when someone challenges your invented, distorted definitions you give no inch. You just spout off some bullcrap about "Hey, its not my fault that ___" or "I wish it wasn't like ____ but it is."

Ultra Peanut
03-28-2010, 04:52 PM
I thought we'd been missing a member...Did you lose a sig bet, or something?

MIXED MESSAGES MAYNE

irishjayhawk
03-28-2010, 05:15 PM
UP-- you've missed the gradual change that just about every board conservative has undergone. They have steadily moved towards the positions of Taco John and BEP.

Also, just about every thread devolves to the point where TJ and BEP just start crafting their own absolutist definitions of things and people just get bored.

This.

Also, add the apocalyptic element and it's almost a wikipedia summary of the section in its current state.

You missed a point in which every thread in the front page was started by SHTSPRAYER.


It's why I mostly avoid this whole forum; only occasionally coming in to play.

mlyonsd
03-28-2010, 05:28 PM
Taco, is your email working? I haven't received my talking points for the day and I'm worried I'll say something wrong.

BigRedChief
03-28-2010, 05:34 PM
Taco, is your email working? I haven't received my talking points for the day and I'm worried I'll say something wrong.Is Ron Paul out of the country too?

orange
04-13-2010, 01:11 AM
* bump *

banyon
04-13-2010, 09:17 AM
Did the blood start flowing through the streets yet?