Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 136 of 184 (531404)
10-17-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 2:38 PM


Re: We the people
You'll find this often - liberal issues that resonate with one group of Democrats don't resonate with another group of Democrats. Environmentally conscious Democrats will often clash with pro-logging Dems. Dems who support welfare often clash with Dems who don't support welfare. Blue Dogs will just as often vote with Dems as against.
Isn't this the same as pro-choice republicans, Republicans who support gay marriage, Republicans who believe in evolution and don't want God in schools?
If we break it down individual by individual, I think we'll find that on both sides of the camps people differ with specific issues.
But overall, Dem's support Dem issues and Rep's side with Rep issues. Example* you're thread on Frankens amendment. 10 Rep Senators supported the Bill, 30 didn't. Some differed in their opinion concerning the amendment, but overall, Rep's side with Rep.
(I don't want to drag the details of that thread over here, just using it as an example)
Even look at the news for this past weekend. Which news organizations covered the gay rights march in Washington this past weekend? I'm willing to bet not many. Compare that to Fox News, which provided coverage for the tea-baggers' march which was also this past weekend. Conservatives walking in lock-step.
Wait, the tea-baggers march wasn't the gay rights march? - Sorry, I couldn't let that punchline slide.
But I think your comparison is proving what I'm saying. Tea-baggers on Fox, gay rights march on CNN. Right down the line for both sides.
You'll have to show me an example of an interruption at a town hall meeting during Bush's Administration. Remember too, protesters were bringing guns to Obama's town hall meetings. I don't recall that happening at any of Bush's town hall meetings.
What I mean is that Liberals did the same thing as far as "causing a ruckus and not adding anything to the debate," not that they specifically did the exact same kind of ruckus causing.
I'll grant you the media isn't helping matters, but speak to any pro-choice, or even moderate republicans and most will tell you the same thing: they feel increasingly left out of a party that they feel has been taken over by the more extreme faction.
But this doesn't follow your previous position that Republicans walk lock-step...?
If they feel left out of the party, but still consider themselves Republicans, then they, like the Dems, differ in all types of issues.
There's a big difference to how Democrats operate and how Republicans do.
We seem to be arguing 2 different things here.
We were speaking about calling to arms liberals, which means, the general public. We are not talking about politicians and what they do. They're driven by many different factors from that of the general public, so the media is not targeting politicians.
Our debate is about the media calling to arms citizens of the 2 parties and how easy it is to ralley either side.
Politically, sure, Dem's and Rep's operate differently, to some extent. Not the point of our discussion though.
Dem's and Rep's citizens do NOT act differently, they act according to whatever their party supports, it's the same for both sides. The media targets these groups and provides fuel to the fire. Each side follows media propaganda.
That's what I meant by, "it's easy to call to arms liberals and conservatives."
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 2:38 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Izanagi, posted 10-17-2009 3:52 PM onifre has replied
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-19-2009 10:23 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 143 by Jazzns, posted 10-19-2009 10:41 AM onifre has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 137 of 184 (531407)
10-17-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2009 3:11 PM


Re: CATO
I know exactly what the Cato Institute is.
Oh good!
So you know that it is a global warming denial, big oil, big tobacco, ultra-conservative, astro-turf organization.
They support the wholesale elimination of public schools, public medicine, any regulation of commerce, any regulation of climate or pollution, any support for American agriculture.
I have even heard a CATO rep claim that we should eliminate public fire/rescue, public roads (they DO want to get rid of the US. Dept. of Transportation).
So why should we listen to a refutation of universal health care from CATO given the extraordinarily obvious bias?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2009 3:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-19-2009 11:21 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 138 of 184 (531408)
10-17-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by onifre
10-17-2009 3:23 PM


Re: We the people
Isn't this the same as pro-choice republicans, Republicans who support gay marriage, Republicans who believe in evolution and don't want God in schools?
I don't want to believe that they are a dying breed, but they are becoming increasingly harder to find. Sometimes I think most are becoming Libertarians.
Our debate is about the media calling to arms citizens of the 2 parties and how easy it is to ralley either side.
Politically, sure, Dem's and Rep's operate differently, to some extent. Not the point of our discussion though.
Dem's and Rep's citizens do NOT act differently, they act according to whatever their party supports, it's the same for both sides. The media targets these groups and provides fuel to the fire. Each side follows media propaganda.
I shouldn't say that all Republicans are the same, but the Republican Party is being hijacked by extremists in the party who support the likes of Limbaugh and Beck. Can you find anyone on the left who has the same influence within the Democrats that Limbaugh or Beck has in the Republican Party?
There was a time that I respected the Republican Party for its ideals. After all, fiscal responsibility is a worthy goal for any person or government. The problem is, sometime down the line, the actual values that the Republicans stood for became a front for something else. I even have a friend who stopped siding with Republicans and decided to be a Libertarian.
That's what you are won't find in the Democrats - a Limbaughesque figure who can convince the people into believing certain things on certain issues even if what is being said is far from the truth.
That's what is happening with the Republican Party - it is becoming increasingly homogeneous. The fact that the GOP can agree on a party platform and keep members of Congress in line should speak volumes of the power of the Republican leadership. The Republicans during the Bush Administration barely had a majority and they passed things through the Congress because Republicans knew they needed to toe the line. The Democrats have a supermajority and they can't get anything done. I don't know how much of that can be attributed to Democrat incompetence, but I do know a lot has to do with the way Republicans close ranks. The Democrats are just too diverse.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 10-17-2009 3:23 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by onifre, posted 10-17-2009 5:45 PM Izanagi has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 139 of 184 (531419)
10-17-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Izanagi
10-17-2009 3:52 PM


Re: We the people
I don't want to believe that they are a dying breed, but they are becoming increasingly harder to find.
How can Republicans, with progressive views, be a "dying breed" if that's some completely new to the party? If anything, I'd say it's spreading slowly through the party, eventually, like with religion, Republicans will be more progressive than their past counter-parts.
In 20 years, we won't think of Republicans as having the same opinions of Beck and Limbaugh. The party as a whole (and again, I'm refering to the American public NOT politicians) is becoming more progressive. Guys Like Beck and Limbaugh are on their way out.
I shouldn't say that all Republicans are the same, but the Republican Party is being hijacked by extremists in the party who support the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.
The Republican party is being hijacked by them? The Republican Party 50 years ago was them! Hell, 30 years ago the Republican Party was all of the same opinion as Beck and Limbaugh.
My point is, Beck's and Limbaugh's views are nothing new to that party. Those two haven't hijacked anything. That's the type of PoV the party was founded on.
What they represent is the old school PoV. A point of view that is fading away, and now the new, more progressive movement is spreading throughout the party. Even if it's rather forced right now to make them look more progressive. A lot of the new age Republicans don't share many of the old opinions.
Can you find anyone on the left who has the same influence within the Democrats that Limbaugh or Beck has in the Republican Party?
What do you mean by "influence?" You mean someone in the Dem side that influences public opinion like Beck and Limbaugh?
Ah... John Stewart? Colbert? Maher? Are you saying these guys don't influence public opinion?
There was a time that I respected the Republican Party for its ideals.
And what time was that specifically? Can you point to an era, or generation of Republicans, that you respected?
When has that party not been a party of warmongering? I can't find one single time when I respected that party, especially ethically.
That's what you are won't find in the Democrats - a Limbaughesque figure who can convince the people into believing certain things on certain issues even if what is being said is far from the truth.
Are you saying that the "liberal" media doesn't use propaganda tactics to convince people?
Are you saying the "liberal" media never tells lies?
Stewart, Maher and Colbert can convince people to do whatever they want, they have that power. Just look at how many contests Colbert wins because he generates so many supporters. They've named a bunch of stuff after him because he tells people to vote for him, and they do!
How is that power different from Limbaugh's power?
The only difference is you happen to share Colbert/Stewart/Maher's opinion so you don't see the wrong in it. But they are sheep herders and their viewers are sheep who follow the same opinions.
The Democrats are just too diverse.
Again, you're only making a case for politicians. I'm talking about the American citizens. The citizens follow party lines on almost every issue, we're not talking about members of Congress or Senate, or any politician.
The American public gets swayed by the media, both on the left and on the right.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Izanagi, posted 10-17-2009 3:52 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Izanagi, posted 10-18-2009 1:58 AM onifre has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 140 of 184 (531453)
10-18-2009 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by onifre
10-17-2009 5:45 PM


Re: We the people
In 20 years, we won't think of Republicans as having the same opinions of beck and Limnaugh. The party as a whole (and again, I'm refering to the American public NOT politicians) is becoming more progressive. Guys Like Beck and Limbaugh are on their way out.
That's not exactly true. If you track Limbaugh's influence over the years, it has grown. Now I can't speak for what will happen twenty years from now, but I will tell you right now that if speakers like Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, and others that share similar views are people who are being slotted as guest speakers at conservative functions, it says something about the current state of conservatives. And I am just talking about the American public, not the politicians. When politicians who have criticized Limbaugh quickly apologize for their statements, that says something about the influence that Limbaugh has over American conservatives. And if Beck was on the way out, he wouldn't be the talk of the town.
I think these two articles prop up my point very well. This New York Times Op-Ed Columnist explains that Limbaugh and Beck have no actual power. And that I do believe. Their power comes from capturing the attention of the people they are talking to. If people don't listen, people like Beck and Limbaugh have no power. But people DO listen and that's the problem. Beck, Limbaugh, and others are given power by the people. Just read Time's article on Beck to see how much power Beck is getting from the people who listen to his show. He has become a media sensation precisely because people listen.
And illusory or not, power is still power as long as people believe.
The Republican party is being hijacked by them? The Republican Party 50 years ago was them! Hell, 30 years ago the Republican Party was all of the same opinion as Beck and Limbaugh.
Fifty years ago, the GOP was filled with the likes of Nixon and Eisenhower and William F. Buckley. That Buckley considers the current conservative movement to be different from the conservative movement of the 60s and 70s speaks volumes of what the current conservative movement is.
I will agree that the current conservative movement has it roots in the 80s, but didn't come to head until the 90s with Gingrich's Contract with America. From that, it took off full steam and has since evolved to what it is today. So you are mistaken when you argue that Republicans today are of the same opinions as Republicans of 30 years ago. Republicans, like Eisenhower, didn't believe in military spending. Republicans today are big hawks. Nixon believed in realpolitik, understood that China was different from the USSR, and treated China friendlier than how his predecessors did at a time when China and the USSR were distrustful of each other whereas Bush lumped three countries together in an Axis of Evil. Even Buckley changed his views on drug legalization and came to support the very thing he once opposed. Conservatives today are not the conservatives of yesteryear.
John Stewart? Colbert? Maher? Are you saying these guys don't influence public opinion?
Those guys are comedians. They have a following, but they don't send people out on crusades and I doubt people would go through with it even if those three asked their followers to go out on a crusade (except for, maybe Colbert.)
What people like Beck and Limbaugh do is speak to the basic fears of the American people which is why they can draw such a large following and command such influence. When you manipulate the fears of others, it becomes easier to control them. That's why Stewart, Colbert, and Maher, could never command such influence (well, maybe Colbert could.) Those three (maybe just two) are comedians and serve more to inform than to catalyze.
And what time was that specifically? Can you point to an era, or generation of Republicans, that you respected?
When has that party not been a party of warmongering? I can't find one single time when I respected that party, especially ethically.
Eisenhower declared race relations a national security issue. After Brown v. Board of Ed, Eisenhower wanted DC schools to be desegregated. Eisenhower championed the Interstate Highway System. He continued or expanded all major New Deal programs, like Social Security, and rolled them into a new Department, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren and William Brennan to the Supreme Court and the Warren Court was perhaps the most progressive Court the country had ever seen, dealing with issues like racial segregation, civil rights, and separation of church and state. Brennan was an outspoken progressive, opposing the death penalty and supporting abortion. And Eisenhower, upon leaving the White House, spoke out against the military-industrial complex. Does that sound like a modern day Republican?
If you need more references, I'd be happy to supply them to you.
The point is, that Beck and Limbaugh have increased in popularity and influence. Stewart and Maher couldn't get their audience to go out and protest mainly because they are comedians. They serve to inform through comedy, not instigate through fear. That's what Beck and Limbaugh do. That's why Stewart and Maher could never have the influence that Beck and Limbaugh have. Colbert can get people to vote on naming things after him, but everything done has been online. He has grown in popularity, but it ultimately comes down to who Colbert is - a comedian and a satire of Bill O'Reilly. Colbert's audience will vote to name a bridge in Hungary or a space station module after Colbert simply because it is a hilarious thing to do. But Colbert's audience wouldn't go out and protest in the streets because it isn't funny. And Colbert, like Stewart and Maher, is all about the funny.
That's why it is easier to mobilize the conservatives - Beck and Limbaugh play on their fears. When a person fears, and their fears are justified by someone else, it is easier to get them to do something they would never do.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by onifre, posted 10-17-2009 5:45 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by onifre, posted 10-18-2009 5:40 AM Izanagi has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 141 of 184 (531463)
10-18-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Izanagi
10-18-2009 1:58 AM


Re: We the people
If you track Limbaugh's influence over the years, it has grown.
Fair enough, I'll give you that. But, would you also agree that Limbaugh has become a lot more radical in his veiws as the time has progressed?
Obviously Beck has become more radical, he was a morning DJ for Christ sake.
So would it be safe to say that if they become a minority within their own party, they'll either have to change their style (like Tucker Carlson did after Stewart ripped him a new asshole on Tucker's show), or they'll be gone to make room for new conservative voices?
Now I can't speak for what will happen twenty years from now, but I will tell you right now that if speakers like Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, and others that share similar views are people who are being slotted as guest speakers at conservative functions, it says something about the current state of conservatives.
All you are telling me, is that people who create controversy are getting TV time.
Who do you think made Howard Stern famous? People who supported him? Maybe a little, but it was people who hated him, that critisized him on TV, who made his name known to the public, who gave him ammo to continue to be the shock-jock that he was.
Same goes for the retarded trio you mention above. They sell advertising space on the networks they work for (ignoring Beck's recent issues), they sell books, they sell air time, they bring in ratings. Who do you think the station is gonna put, some regular dude boring the crap out of the audience with normal PoV's.
You say it best when you say Stewart, Maher and Colbert are comedians. Yes, exactly the point. And while you don't veiw comedy as a gimmick used to attract viewers, it most certainly is.
Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter (while they look funny) are not funny people. They have absolutely nothing to offer an audience other than a shock factor. They say what they say to make money and generate an audience of supporters that will buy their books and make advertisers want to spend money on the station.
I know many Republicans (being that I'm Cuban and most of my friends and family are Republican). But that doesn't mean I consider them conservatives (especially not equal to Beck, Limbaugh or Coulter). Many of my Republican friends smoke pot, are pro-choice and don't give a shit if gay people get married. But they are stead-fast Republicans. However, my dad and my friends parents are old school Republicans. They, like Beck, Limbaugh and Coulter, are pro-life, anti-gay marriage and hate drugs.
There is a shift though and eventually that generation will be gone and a new generation becomes the majority. I personally think we'll see Republicans in the future with opinions like my friends.
Beck, Limbaugh, and others are given power by the people.
Dude, how is this any different from the power Colbert's audience gives him? He gets shit named after him! He controls people!
Please explain how he is different as far as control over the people goes?
He has become a media sensation precisely because people listen.
So did Howard Stern... So did Stewart... So does anyone in the entertainment industry (which Beck and Limbaugh are a part of, you must remember that).
How do you think comics get people to come pay for tickets to their shows? They generate a fan base through websites, youtube, myspace, facebook, etc. Comics, actors and anyone who entertains, get their fame ONLY when people listen.
Fifty years ago, the GOP was filled with the likes of Nixon and Eisenhower and William F. Buckley. That Buckley considers the current conservative movement to be different from the conservative movement of the 60s and 70s speaks volumes of what the current conservative movement is.
That's 'cause Buckley was arrogant and believed anything he said was 100% right. Have you ever watch the youtube video of Kenneth Miller and other scientist debating Michael Behe and other Intelligent Design supporters?
Guess who one of the ID supporters was... Buckley!
And why was he there? Simple, because Buckley always thought he was right about anything he said. There's even a point during the debate when Ken Miller asks Buckley what the hell he's doing on the ID side.
Part 1 of 8:
Please dude. Buckley was pro-intelligent design, at least Limbaugh and Beck have never claimed that ridiculous shit.
Those guys are comedians. They have a following, but they don't send people out on crusades and I doubt people would go through with it even if those three asked their followers to go out on a crusade (except for, maybe Colbert.)
You're spliting hairs as to what is considered media hype. The fact that these guys are comics gives them an edge over the other guys. So, the other guys need to do other, crazier stuff to beat the comics.
And that's where I differ with Jazzns in that I don't think ridicule helps, because all it does is makes the far right act even further to the right to generate attention from the audience.
The point is, that Beck and Limbaugh have increased in popularity and influence. Stewart and Maher couldn't get their audience to go out and protest mainly because they are comedians.
So they have different agendas, who cares? The point is that they can both influence the public.
That's why it is easier to mobilize the conservatives - Beck and Limbaugh play on their fears. When a person fears, and their fears are justified by someone else, it is easier to get them to do something they would never do.
And it's just as easy to motivate liberals, just tell them someone refused a woman the right to choose to abort and there will be picketers outside with signs spouting stupid slogans that rhyme.
The point is that neither side adds to the debate, they just cause a ruckus.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Izanagi, posted 10-18-2009 1:58 AM Izanagi has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 184 (531670)
10-19-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by onifre
10-17-2009 3:23 PM


Re: We the people
Dem's and Rep's citizens do NOT act differently, they act according to whatever their party supports, it's the same for both sides. The media targets these groups and provides fuel to the fire. Each side follows media propaganda.
Absolutely, and it's tearing the country apart.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 10-17-2009 3:23 PM onifre has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 143 of 184 (531672)
10-19-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by onifre
10-17-2009 3:23 PM


Re: We the people
Dem's and Rep's citizens do NOT act differently, they act according to whatever their party supports, it's the same for both sides. The media targets these groups and provides fuel to the fire. Each side follows media propaganda.
I didn't notice this until Hyro pointed it out.
Quick question. What kind of people do you think are out there protesting at BOTH the RNC and DNC conventions? Lock-step DNC first liberals?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 10-17-2009 3:23 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by onifre, posted 10-20-2009 3:39 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 184 (531682)
10-19-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Jazzns
10-17-2009 3:37 PM


Re: CATO
So you know that it is a global warming denial, big oil, big tobacco, ultra-conservative, astro-turf organization.
The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank, not an "ultra-conservative" group.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2009 3:37 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Jazzns, posted 10-19-2009 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 145 of 184 (531714)
10-19-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Hyroglyphx
10-19-2009 11:21 AM


Re: CATO
The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank, not an "ultra-conservative" group.
LOL, you want to quip about a single word. Ok fine.
They are a global warming denial, big oil, big tobacco, ultra-libertarian, astro-turn organization. Moreover they are ideologically dedicated to the total dismantling of government for anything other than national defense.
Again I'll ask, why do you believe that we shoud listen to a "debunking" of such an obviously biased organization? Do they have expertise in this area? Have their ideas been tried anywhere? Ever?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-19-2009 11:21 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-20-2009 9:58 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 184 (531872)
10-20-2009 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Jazzns
10-19-2009 1:17 PM


Re: CATO
They are a global warming denial, big oil, big tobacco, ultra-libertarian, astro-turn organization.
They have members that are skeptical of global warming, they aren't "big oil/big tobacco" so much as they are for "free markets," and they are a grassroots organization no different than any other.
Moreover they are ideologically dedicated to the total dismantling of government for anything other than national defense.
No, they are for reducing the government which if you read the Constitution was the stated aim. They simply think that government is too large. When you have government run institutions for art work like the National Endowment for Arts, it is no wonder why the United States is this in debt. More government programs means more taxes. That's simple economics.
Again I'll ask, why do you believe that we shoud listen to a "debunking" of such an obviously biased organization? Do they have expertise in this area? Have their ideas been tried anywhere? Ever?
If ever there were a non-partisan group, it would be Cato since they never align themselves completely with either democrats or republicans. On any debate you won't see them politically align themselves towards any party.
But why should we listen to ObamaCare when that truly and obviously is biased? You're making self-refuting claims.
Just listen to the arguments, not immediately dismiss it as an "Ultra-conservative" group.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Jazzns, posted 10-19-2009 1:17 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2009 11:02 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 148 by Izanagi, posted 10-20-2009 12:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 169 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-10-2009 9:02 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 147 of 184 (531883)
10-20-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Hyroglyphx
10-20-2009 9:58 AM


Re: CATO
They have members that are skeptical of global warming, they aren't "big oil/big tobacco" so much as they are for "free markets," and they are a grassroots organization no different than any other.
Yea and by "free markets" they mean the ability for any corporation to pollute however they want as long as it makes them money. If you are a global warming denialist AND a pro-corporate shill, it is in fact a conflict of interest to any rational person.
They are also about as grassroots as my carpet.
No, they are for reducing the government which if you read the Constitution was the stated aim.
You must have a different Constitution than I do. Are you not an American? Oh wait! Maybe you didn't realize that we in fact are not under the Articles of Confederation. You see, the first attempt at forming the US government was an abysmal failure because the national government did not have enough power to do anything useful. That is why we have what is called The United States Constitution which allows Congress to promote the general welfare.
If ever there were a non-partisan group, it would be Cato since they never align themselves completely with either democrats or republicans. On any debate you won't see them politically align themselves towards any party.
I never claimed that they were partisan. They are for whoever will help their corporate organizers the most. Also, you didn't answer my question. Do they have expertise in this area? Have their ideas been tried anywhere? Ever?
But why should we listen to ObamaCare when that truly and obviously is biased? You're making self-refuting claims.
No I am most certainly not. I have never once in this thread endorsed ObamaCare whatever that is. I am endorsing what the vast majority of Americans want which is universal health care. If it were totally up to me I would have a fully socialized system which seems to be working quite well in the countries that are smart enough to have one. In leiu of that, I'll stick with the rest of my fellow countrymen and support a public/private mix of insurance reform that we enact through the democratic process provided to us by the Constitution.
I don't recall ONE TIME in this thread endorsing Obama's plan for health care reform. Obama is in fact very weak on health care. He is not going far enough. He should have supported single-payer from the start. Very disappointing.
Just listen to the arguments, not immediately dismiss it as an "Ultra-conservative" group.
Why shouldn't we take into account who is running and paying for the propagation of those arguments? After some time, we don't give the benefit of the doubt to the Discovery Institute or ICR or AIG? Why is that? Its because they have a long and sorrid history of being totally biased.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-20-2009 9:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 148 of 184 (531902)
10-20-2009 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Hyroglyphx
10-20-2009 9:58 AM


Re: CATO
They have members that are skeptical of global warming, they aren't "big oil/big tobacco" so much as they are for "free markets," and they are a grassroots organization no different than any other.
Ah, yes. The classic Libertarian argument. I have a friend who is a libertarian, and despite the fact that I don't agree with many of his arguments, but if most libertarians are like my friend, I have to respect their adherence to their beliefs. That said, I would like to point a few things out:
1) They are skeptical of global warming in the face of mounting evidence and nearly unanimous scientific opinion. That tells me that they have a specific agenda to forward and it is not compatible with trying to stop global warming. Typically, it has been oil companies that have helped advance the argument that there is no global warming. Think of the oil companies as creationists in that, like creationists, they choose to believe something else other than the scientific-community accepted hypothesis of global warming despite the evidence being gathered that supports global warming. Being skeptical is fine, but there is a point when skepticism is just plain stubbornness when the evidence continues to support a particular hypothesis or theory.
So what is their reason for promoting such skepticism? Because if they didn't promote skepticism of global warming, people might begin to drive less, carpool more, take public transportation more, use heat less, switch to alternative energy sources, buy cars that consume less gas, etc all of which has the net effect of lowering the profits of those oil companies. If money is the game, they will do whatever they can to make sure they make more of it except, apparently, adapt to the situation.
2) I like the free market because it works so much better than a command economy; it's good that I can buy whatever I want when I want and how much I want. I believe most societies that experience the free market (the good one, not the crony one) would agree with me on this point. The problem is that the free market is not cure-all some people make it out to seem. Monopolies, for instance, can hamper any kind of reform that could be done through the free market (think Microsoft). Collusion between companies in an industry can occur despite the economy being a free market (OPEC). Start-ups can be brought out if there is a danger to an established company. That's not to say that the free market can't bring about reform (massive boycotting is often a good tactic to use against companies, although sometimes boycotting doesn't actually do anything, especially if it's not sustained in large number throughout the general populace) but it would take time to bring about that reform without government intervention as the companies are not going to sit on their hands. And unfortunately, humanity doesn't have the time to use the free market to bring about reform in this scenario.
Also remember, that our free market is not so free. I agree with libertarians that have said this, but I think the government should stop giving what amounts to corporate welfare to the oil companies and all big companies in general. By subsidizing the big companies, the government is distorting the free market preventing potentially better companies from entering the market earlier. Government subsidies to big corporations also diminish competitiveness in a sector as the big corporations have an edge that stacks newer companies trying to compete. Once those oil companies give back those subsidies they keep taking, then they can start arguing free market.
3) Ever heard of Behavioral Economics. The basic idea is that people are not as rational as economists once thought and that people make sub-optimal choices that do not maximize utility. This is because there are other factors that come into play that informs a person's choice. Once again, this is a critique of the free market as a reform mechanism. Bounded Rationality, one of the building ideas behind Behavioral Economics, states that people are limited by the information at hand, their minds, and time. Because of this, people simply make a satisfactory choice rather than the optimal one.
That's why the skepticism by the CATO Institute and the debate over global warming is so important. Without that debate, people would accept global warming and make their choices accordingly, but as long as there is a debate and skepticism, then people may not be certain. The CATO Institute serves to confuse the issue which influences the decisions people make in the free market. As long as people are not always able to make the optimal choice, the free market is not the best forum for reform.
No, they are for reducing the government which if you read the Constitution was the stated aim. They simply think that government is too large. When you have government run institutions for art work like the National Endowment for Arts, it is no wonder why the United States is this in debt. More government programs means more taxes. That's simple economics.
The question is how much of a reduction do they want? Should we get rid of free public education because the Constitution makes no mention of Congresses power to supply education? How about the police or firefighters? Or the emergency rooms? None of those are mentioned in the Constitution as part of Congress' power. Would the CATO Institute argue for the dismantling of the corporate welfare structure?
If ever there were a non-partisan group, it would be Cato since they never align themselves completely with either democrats or republicans. On any debate you won't see them politically align themselves towards any party.
But that's just smart business. The sad fact of American politics is that many politicians, especially the more powerful ones, regardless of party receive money from corporations. It's rare to find any corporation that supplies funds to only one party (tech sectors are generally more Democrat friendly as Dems want more money for education). Does that mean they are bipartisan? I don't know if I would make that argument, but I would probably say that the politicians are more corporate friendly because of the help of those corporations.
And that's why it's smart business. If you supply money to both parties, both parties are friendlier to your cause and no matter which party is in power, your agenda will be easier to get through.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-20-2009 9:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2009 2:55 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 149 of 184 (531932)
10-20-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Izanagi
10-20-2009 12:17 PM


Re: CATO
The other thing to recognize, which is also a bit more on topic, is that NO industrialized country has a successful free-market health care system.
So either their opposition to health care is rooted in special interest or ideology. Neither of those are very promising with respect to providing a basis for dissent.
ABE:
TO clarify, I should say that I am talking about basic health care. I realize that the UK, AU, etc have thriving private health care for beyond basic health care which is fine.
Edited by Jazzns, : Provide reason for edi

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Izanagi, posted 10-20-2009 12:17 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 150 of 184 (531944)
10-20-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Jazzns
10-19-2009 10:41 AM


Re: We the people
What kind of people do you think are out there protesting at BOTH the RNC and DNC conventions? Lock-step DNC first liberals?
Media driven people who add nothing to the debate. They are on TV protesting (which does nothing to help the issue) to help drive up TV ratings.
They are a marketing tool used by the media (both sides). No one cares about the protesters, other than to show them on TV and gain veiwers.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Jazzns, posted 10-19-2009 10:41 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2009 3:45 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024