|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2005 : 15:32:45 [Permalink]
|
I am a liberal and I make no bones about it. I am registered as an Independant.
Wasn't always a liberal, though. At one time, I was a slightly left-leaning moderate. Then I saw the incredible jihad -- there's no other term for it -- against Clinton followed by the wretched Bush giving away the budget surplus, that we all worked for, to those who needed it the least. This was followed by a war started on phony pretext to the detrement of actually finding bin Laden and putting paid to his organization. And the whole thing done with the greatest degree of incompetence I have ever seen. I thought Nixon and Reagan were a half-assed douchbags, but the current crop of conservatives make me nostalgic for them.
So now, instead of tax and spend, we have borrow and spend even beyond what we have borrowed. If I ran my finances like these conservative idiots run the country's, I'd be jailed for fraud, and rightly so. That's gonna come back to haunt us, not too far down the road. We're all gonna pay, bigtime.
I want what is best for the people of this country; all of the people, not just the CEOs of the oil companies and other political fellow travelers. You're fucking-A, I'm a liberal.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
vrwc
New Member
47 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 16:10:29 [Permalink]
|
Big Pappa Smurf
"some 200,000 remained". I hope Im got in all the zeros.I invite you to do some math.Check the current census figures.If you prefer, use the figures from 1995 and see what percentage of the population the "remained" would be. Incidently, the term "remained" would indicate they were already in their impoverished condition during the Great Society. While you're doing the math take the number of recipients and divide it into 3 trillion dollars (or even one trillion) and see what the per person expenditure was.
If you're interested in checking the government's own poverty figures I believe you will find that the expenditure of trillions didn't lower the poverty rate by even two percent. I submit that this
fits my description of a government program that made liberals feel good about their own compassion but didn't solve the problem.
You speak of New Orleans, "thousands drowned in the murky brew...thousands more perished of dehydration and disease".When was this? Those are certainly not the numbers from Katrina. vrwc |
|
|
|
vrwc
New Member
47 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 16:19:55 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer
"Ultraconservatives"? Be careful you're not making my point for me.We conservatives are not slandered by being called "ultra" but liberals are slurred by being called, simply, liberal.vrwc |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 18:28:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by vrwc
Big Pappa Smurf
<snip>
You speak of New Orleans, "thousands drowned in the murky brew...thousands more perished of dehydration and disease".When was this? Those are certainly not the numbers from Katrina. vrwc
That's his signature. Read it a little more closely, and see that there is a link to National Geographic's August 2004 issue. There was an article there exploring a catastrophe scenario of a category 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans. And this year dick-head Bush stood and said (paraphrased) "No-one ever expected the levees to break..." when there were documented proof that scientists had simulated the scenario.
You may be unaccoustomed to the layout of the forum, and missed that this was a part of a signature. But please pay a little more attention to what you are reading, the link to NG and the date was not hidden. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 18:54:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by vrwc
If I take your point correctly this is "political hypocrisy" because I attribute this tactic only to the political left.
No. I consider you to be a hypocrite because you said, "Since name-calling is a staple of leftist agrument they feel the need to revive the myth," and followed it up with a citation to an author for whom name-calling (towards liberals) generates income.
Furthermore, you asserted that there is a "McCarthy myth," but seem unwilling to actually lay out what that myth is, even after having been asked directly. Let's examine that.
Or, let's not. If the following (from Wikipedia) is correct,The term "McCarthyism" has since become synonymous with any government activity which seeks to suppress unfavorable political or social views, often by limiting or suspending civil rights under the pretext of maintaining national security. then it doesn't actually matter whether McCarthy himself was involved or not (I'm only guessing that proponents of the "McCarthy myth" argue that he didn't do such things). The term has obviously taken on a life of its own, much like "Xerox," or even better, "sea change."quote:
From the beginning my purpose has been to keep this (roughly) 50 year old political event fom becoming an device to evade discussing current issues.
This is more interesting to me. Who, precisely, is using the term "McCarthyism" as a "device to evade discussing current issues?" And what issues are they evading? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 19:18:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Trish, I have no doubts the Bush administration may not be addressing these issues in the way you'd like, but I haven't seen that legitimate spokesmen for these issues are repressed. Didn't the Dems put up one as their presidential candidate in 04? He certainly didn't suffer from a lack of fora (Isn't it "fora" not "forums". I may be the ungrammatical one here) in which to make his case to the American people.Kerry certainly doesn't suffer from a lack of financial rescources, either. I haven't seen him or his wealthy wife put sizeable investments into this research. Makes me wonder if it's all that promising an area of research.
When NIH personnel have to go through the State Department to get permission to talk to people at the WHO, there is definitely a repression of the free and open exchange of ideas. This problem is systemic with the Bush administration.
This isn't primarily about stem cell research. Someday, somewhere, someone could drop a book and it could fall 'up.' There is a theory of gravity, but theory in the technical not the vernacular. Sound Science, isn't a good idea because all conclusions in science are held as tentative. There is no 'law' of gravity, as the Republican Party portrays science.
Sound Science and Data Quality want to make theory the vernacular when applied to science. They want a level of 100% certainty from science - news flash - ain't gonna happen. Science don't work that way.
Even Kerry went to far is his support of stem cell research. I'll never understand why people must pick one extreme or the other. Stem cell research is important to the future of humans. We don't know where it will lead, most likely it will open new avenues of research for medical treatments and perhaps lead to some cures. It's definitively not the 'holy grail' of medical research but it comes in a close second.
To restrict the potentially life saving avenues, because the administration was able to get one or two scientists to inform Congress that adult stem cells were as good and plenipotential as fetal stem cells was not only misleading, but a bald faced lie. Yes there is multipotentiality in adult stem cells, but the certainty with which the statement: Adult stem cells are as good if not better than fetal stem cells has no place in science.
I suppose I attempt to use specific issues with which I am familiar to address a systemic problem I see within this administration. The problem itself is systemic and began in the mid 80s. Well most likely that's when I really noticed the initial lack of regard for environmental issues in the Republican Party. Like any systemic infection that goes untreated, this to has begun to affect other areas and other systems.
One thing I can definitely see, the Republican Party needs to divorce itself from the Religious Right. Religion has no place in politics, as politics has no place in religion.
edited to clarify a statement I made. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
| Edited by - Trish on 11/09/2005 19:25:54 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 23:37:19 [Permalink]
|
As far as "McCarthy" relates to current discussion, it seems that all roughly agree that it's just another of the endless names-and-slogans conveniently coined to attack an opposing party (politics is dirty, and if a party could somehow dishonestly associate their opponents with the "Son of Sam" killer or Charles Manson (for instance) with impunity, they'd probably do it.) I'm still curious about the "real" McCarthy affair, but no matter... that's what libraries are for.
Financial inefficiency and bureaucracy are problems with our government... both parties agree to that. Getting things done costs too much, and the delegation of authority can be needlessly complex and cumbersome. That seems to be true "across the board"... whether it concerns defense projects as traditionally favored by Republicans, or human service programs as the sometimes Democrats might prefer. Neither party has demonstrated a solution to net inefficiency, but... as I see it, vrwc contends that-
I. "Great Society"-type programs... social programs such as food stamps, welfare, and public service programs are counterproductive on two counts- first, in that they are unnecessary, and second, as there is something about their nature that makes government ill-suited to implement them efficiently and effectively (I'm not sure whether the second count allegedly applies primarily to Democrats, or to both parties.)
II. Although the war in Iraq is undeniably expensive in terms of monetary and human cost, it is at minimum a worthwhile, and probably a necessary effort which will ultimately lead to greater stability in the Middle East, and enhanced domestic security as our control of the terrorist elements which threaten us can now be addressed directly at their source. Progress is being made in Iraq, yet is often downplayed by a liberally-biased media bent upon sensationalism and ratings, as opposed to truth.
III. Stem cell research, abortion, and related issues are really extensions of our moral roots as a Christian society of traditional ethics, and liberal opposition threatens to dismantle the social framework upon which our human decency, and progress as a nation has been based.
If my assessments are incorrect in any way, please advise.
If our objective is true democracy- "By the people" etc. it seems to me people should be willing to accept that... if a majority of the American Public thinks gun ownership should be legal (for example,) a person must be willing to accept that their neighbors might have gun collections, whether they care to themselves, or not. Similarly, if I, II, and III reflect a majority of the American public's sentiments, that's the way things should be.
But regardless, to put it bluntly, we seem to be demonstrating that Democrats and Republicans can't even get past the absurd names they use to discredit each other, let alone past the blathering rhetorical issues, and discuss something meaningful (to me, anyway)... maybe something like I, II, or III. Do most Americans feel that way? It appears so, since they have elected the Republican Party to direct our nation. If these contentions are true (or false) then why??? You're all sophisticated folks, it seems to me we should be able to answer questions like those meaningfully, and the facts can stand on their own merits, with opinions being reasonably scrutinized.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 00:39:37 [Permalink]
|
Trish: quote:
One thing I can definitely see, the Republican Party needs to divorce itself from the Religious Right. Religion has no place in politics, as politics has no place in religion.
Unfortunatly, religion can't be purged from politics. There are simply too many votes to be had amongst the faithful. Recent history demonstrates that Republicans have become more skilled in milking that cow than the Democrats. But it appears that might be changing.
quote:
RICHMOND, Va., Nov. 9 - One of the first things Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine did after entering the race for Virginia governor last spring was to go on evangelical Christian radio to talk about faith in politics. And one of his early advertisements spotlighted his work as a Christian missionary in Honduras during a break from law school two decades ago.
Those were just two of a raft of moves by Mr. Kaine's campaign to underscore the importance of his Roman Catholicism to his life and political views. And they were crucial, his advisers say, in helping him parry attacks against his opposition to the death penalty and ultimately win a five-point victory over his Republican opponent, former Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore, in Tuesday's election to succeed a fellow Democrat, Gov. Mark Warner.
"All Tim's talk about his faith said to people, 'He's not a typical liberal,' " said David Eichenbaum, a media consultant to Mr. Kaine.
A year after polls showed that so-called values voters had been crucial to President Bush's re-election, Mr. Kaine's advisers and some top Democratic strategists say their victory in Virginia shows that Democrats, including liberals, can win in culturally conservative states if they talk about deeply held religious beliefs.
While I don't harbor many doubts as to Gov-to-be Kaine's faith, the whole thing seems pretty cynical to me.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 02:07:51 [Permalink]
|
Trish:
One thing I can definitely see, the Republican Party needs to divorce itself from the Religious Right. Religion has no place in politics, as politics has no place in religion.
But suppose that's not the way most American voters see things; what if III (above post) reflects the way most Americans want society to be governed? After all, they elected Bush twice- hands down, the second time, anyway. If there was any doubt about where he stood on things before the first election, there wasn't before the second. Could it be that most Americans prefer a Christian government representing them, and a Christian Supreme Court to guide their lives? If so, isn't that what they should have?
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 07:38:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by vrwc
Valiant Dancer
"Ultraconservatives"? Be careful you're not making my point for me.We conservatives are not slandered by being called "ultra" but liberals are slurred by being called, simply, liberal.vrwc
Way to completely miss context. I'm impressed.
Had you bothered to read the statement, you would have seen I was pointing out that the fringe minority of both parties have made this mess. Hence the "Ultra" designation. Unlike you, I have a respect for moderates on the opposite side.
And "liberal" in the context that my arguement went is that the Ultraconservative attack monkeys apply the label "liberal" as a slur with connotations of America-hating, welfare state, and big government. And even then, they apply the label indiscriminately to all Democrats. It is with the same vigor and venom that the ultraliberal attack monkeys apply the label "conservative" as a slur with connotations of rights grabbing, gun-nut, and theocracy advocation. These ultraliberals also apply the label indiscriminately to all Republicans.
I was also pointing out how the beast of politics has changed in the 30+ years I have been involved in politics. One used to talk to the opposition and negotiate a deal both sides could live with. Now, it's "we want it our way and we'll attack you in the media if we don't get it."
One just needs to look at Kay Bailey Hutchison for the kind of hubris that the attack monkeys are guilty of. Specifically, look at her statements concerning lying to a grand jury for the Clinton impeachment and the Valerie Plame leak.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 07:45:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
As far as "McCarthy" relates to current discussion, it seems that all roughly agree that it's just another of the endless names-and-slogans conveniently coined to attack an opposing party (politics is dirty, and if a party could somehow dishonestly associate their opponents with the "Son of Sam" killer or Charles Manson (for instance) with impunity, they'd probably do it.) I'm still curious about the "real" McCarthy affair, but no matter... that's what libraries are for.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate12cp107.html
Through the wonders of the internet, it's available for you at home. Near the bottom of the page. S. Prt. 107-84 -- Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations (McCarthy Hearings 1953-54)
He meant well, but was killing mosquitoes with shotgun blasts. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 10:15:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ronnywhite:
…After all, they elected Bush twice- hands down, the second time, anyway. If there was any doubt about where he stood on things before the first election, there wasn't before the second. Could it be that most Americans prefer a Christian government representing them, and a Christian Supreme Court to guide their lives? If so, isn't that what they should have?
I wouldn't say that Bush won hands down. The difference was Ohio. One state. And there were voting machine anomalies and some weird results there. But before I make this sound like a case of sour grapes lets forget that for now. I think it is important to remember that the religious right is a must have vote for the Republican Party. They can't win without them. And so, they pander to the RR. I don't doubt that the majority of Americans identify as Christians. But I sincerely doubt that the majority of those Christians are of the extremist fundamentalist brand that the Republicans pander to for votes. Put another way, when polled, 91% of those who voted for Bush in 2000 said they were religious. The thing is, 81% of those who voted for Gore also said they were religious. I doubt that those numbers changed much the second time around.
Bush scored very high among likely swing voters as being a “strong and decisive leader.” They basically ran on that message. The strategy of the last campaign was to portray Kerry a flip-flopper and a weak leader. Kerry helped them on that by being timid in response to some accusations made about him and not differentiating himself enough from Bush policy on the war in Iraq, among other things.
Bush numbers started to slide when public perception of him as a “strong leader” became seen as at odds with the continuing war and his response to Katrina, among other things. He still has the RR firmly in his court and yet his approval rating is, last I checked, somewhere around 37% to 39%. So, the conclusion I would draw from this is that the RR makes up part of the core constituency he needs but they do not represent the views of the majority of Americans.
That said, there is another problem that goes to the core of our particular democracy and the constitution. The framers clearly did not want, and went to some lengths to separate religion from government in any official way. God is not mentioned even once in the constitution, let alone a Christian god. And the first amendments establishment clause is there to protect us from becoming a theocracy. So, it really doesn't matter if the electorate wants a Christian government. Our constitution says no to that, and for some very good reasons. And as I have said, I do not believe that the majority of Christians even want that.
I believe that the republican party, for the sake of votes is now being held hostage to a minority view that even most republican politicians probably resent, even as they pander to that vote…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 17:26:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Could it be that most Americans prefer a Christian government representing them, and a Christian Supreme Court to guide their lives? If so, isn't that what they should have?
No. The idea that the US Government is anywhere close to a pure democracy is not at all true. Much of the Constitution is written, as the saying goes, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Mob rule (a pure democracy) obviously has major failings when it comes to viable, long-term governance. Mobs are fickle, and any rule imposed by the majority one month may be undone the next, resulting in huge amounts of government waste (not that this doesn't happen with our current republic, but I'm talking phenomenal amounts of waste). And mobs, of course, can be incredibly vicious, likely enacting tremendous numbers of ludicrous laws resulting in even more waste as the nation's number-one activity becomes the building of prisons.
The ancient Greeks knew that a pure democracy was an untenable form of government, and so did the Framers of the Constitution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 18:26:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Trish:
One thing I can definitely see, the Republican Party needs to divorce itself from the Religious Right. Religion has no place in politics, as politics has no place in religion.
But suppose that's not the way most American voters see things; what if III (above post) reflects the way most Americans want society to be governed? After all, they elected Bush twice- hands down, the second time, anyway. If there was any doubt about where he stood on things before the first election, there wasn't before the second. Could it be that most Americans prefer a Christian government representing them, and a Christian Supreme Court to guide their lives? If so, isn't that what they should have?
Ronny, we are not a true democracy, resulting in the majority rule. We are a representative republic, in which our elected officials are expected (ideally) to make decisions for the better of all their constituents, not just the majority that put them in office, even if those decisions are contrary to the majority of voters.
Therefore, where a firm separation of Church and State are in the best interests of the constituency such action should be protected by the elected official, despite the majority who oppose separation. Additionally, elected officials delcare they will uphold the Constitution, our governing document which seeks to prevent the influence of religion in government. Intrusion of religion, where such litimus test would be required is patently unconstitutional. Read this. That little box on the left. And Article VI, Clause 3. (Now hopefully my links actually work!) |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
| Edited by - Trish on 11/10/2005 18:28:23 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 18:41:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Trish: quote:
One thing I can definitely see, the Republican Party needs to divorce itself from the Religious Right. Religion has no place in politics, as politics has no place in religion.
Unfortunatly, religion can't be purged from politics. There are simply too many votes to be had amongst the faithful.
Yeah, but I suppose in some ways I'm still a bit of an idealist when it comes to what is expected of elected officials. I still think that the Oath of Office they take ought to mean something. That civil service ought to be just that, service. And I wonder why I am disillusioned each time I hear about these twits acting in their own best interest rather than that of their constituents. Religion shouldn't matter in politics. Unfortunately the citizenry isn't interested in why we have a constitution and why we should work to protect it. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
