|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do the Right Thing Tomorrow, Yanks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 242 Joined:
|
What makes you think there would have been a surging recovery in his first term if obama got his way? He could have passed whatever we wanted to his first two years. There was absolutely nothing standing in his way since his party held the leads of power in both houses of congress and the presidency. Wrong, again, young FEY. Check your premise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I thought you lived in the UK. Yeah, I've noticed that you think that. I don't. I live in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 3211 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
I thought you lived in the UK. He lives in the sin capital of the world. The devils asshole, if you will. He's not from the UK, but Catholic Scientist is. Don't let him fool you. That guy's as gay and liberal and british as they come. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 135 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined:
|
fey writes:
One face of that problem is claiming that the "American left" (by which I understand anyone to the left of Genghis Khan) oppresses economic vitality with "confiscatory tax rates" when, in fact, taxes are at extraordinarily low levels, historically speaking, and we had greater wealth, growth and productivity under the higher Clinton-era tax rates.
The article states that socialist authoritarians oppress economic freedoms with confiscatory tax rates. Can you name one liberal democrat who has not sought to raise taxes on "the rich"? Can you name one liberal democrat who has not made that statement at least once when asked about how to solve economic problems? Can you name one current confiscatory tax rate?
fey writes: Another face of that problem is the attempt by philosophical conservatives to present themselves as champions of liberty when their standard bearers, the Taliban side of the GOP coalition, wants the government to intrude into the most intimate aspects of citizens' lives to impose matters of individual conscience with the fiat of law. That is the typical response of liberal minded thinkers. You think that freedom is only the ability to smoke a joint or to marry your brother. Note you did not address the point of conservatives seeking to impose their moral views on others. So apparently you think freedom is only the power to impose your moral views on others.
fey writes: The demonization of the Eurozone as a nest of socialist leeches is especially interesting, in light of the fact that Europe has grimly pursued the austerity measures advocated by American conservatives, while Obama's administration has pursued classic stimulative measures, albeit timid ones, given GOP obstruction. I don't know if the populace of the eurozone is socialist. They simply have grown accustomed to be leeches of the government. Are you going to deny that the majority of the eurozone populace enjoys their social programs and would fight tooth and nail to even slightly trim a single one? fey writes: Yet the Eurozone is now facing 12% unemployment while the U.S. economy continues to improve by pretty much every measure. This is supposed to contradict a point of the article in some way? Yes: the part where conservative philosophy is supposedly better for the economic health of nations. Again, note that you made no attempt to address the abject failure of conservative-driven austerity measures in Europe vs. the success of economic stimulus in the U.S.
fey writes: I am confident that conservatives recognize the strong possibility of another economic boom during Obama's second administration--a surging recovery that would have appeared in his first administration if the GOP hadn't put their party's interest ahead of the nation's. This conservative recognizes no such thing unless one thing happens.... Obama is not allowed to do what he wants to, or is forced into accepting a few GOP initiatives. Most conservatives do not agree with your assessment of them either. What makes you think there would have been a surging recovery in his first term if obama got his way? He could have passed whatever we wanted to his first two years. There was absolutely nothing standing in his way since his party held the leads of power in both houses of congress and the presidency. So was he forcing legislation down the throat of a hapless America or failing to use his power? I have difficulty keeping these conservative arguments straight. We would have had a surging recovery because that is the typical pattern for the U.S. economy when braced with stimulative measures. Unfortunately, the GOP prevented a stimulus strong enough to result in quick recovery. The notion that Obama had a supermajority in the Senate for two years and could pass anything he wanted is simply wrong. There were never 60 Democratic senators during that time. Don't try to make up your own facts.
fey writes: The GOP played a cut-throat game for all the marbles in the 2008-2012 term, and miscalculated badly. What do you mean by this? You seem to be saying that preventing legislation that you believe is harmful to the country is somehow being a cut-throat. The GOP, rather than attempting to protect the country's interests, were ready to destroy the creditworthiness of the U.S. with legislative intransigence during the debt ceiling debacle. Never before had a political party done this--they only blinked when financial markets began marking down U.S. ratings, and polls showed the public held the GOP responsible.
fey writes: In short, the most enormous problem conservatism faces is that it is demonstrably wrong on pretty much every count Went wrong in what way? ...in what standard of measure? In every standard of measure: the lack of success of their economic prescriptions in Europe, the disdain with which the U.S. electorate treated their candidate. See all the above.
fey writes: American voters haven't been seduced by ponies of dependency Not sure what that phrase means. The american voters have been indeed seduced into accepting whatever the media has to say about the obama administration and whatever the media has to say about republicans and conservative ideas in general. Ah the media. That's too empty-set to merit a response. Never mind the ponies--but how can you be unable to make sense of that phrase if you follow political events in the U.S.? You do read news from multiple sources, I trust?
fey writes: they've (god stop this metaphor I can't) been repelled by the horses conservatism rode in on: oligarchical wealth and power, and theocratic control of private life. That is what the media convince the american people that conservatism was all about. They obviously convinced you some time ago that was true. Either that or the people you surrounded yourself with convinced you of that. Ever heard of a false dilemma? It is astonishing how powerfully the media were able to fool so many people for so long, according to you. Of course, it could be that the smaller set of conservative ideologues were instead misled by their own media--you might have noticed some of the effects of that on election night at Fox.
fey writes: On a side note, the guy writes like a college freshman penning diatribes for underground newspapers back in the 60s. Only the villains have changed. How does a college freshman write as opposed to a college graduate, and how does what he writes qualify for that description? A college graduate often writes no better than a college freshman. Congratulations on debating rather than merely jeering. That's great. On the other hand, replies like "liberal media...marry your brother...smoke a joint...liberal media..." aren't really substantive--why do all that work to quote-box my points and your responses if they aren't really refutations at all? The one matter of evidence you sought to address was the make-up of the Senate 2008-2010, and you were wrong about that. Try picking my two or three main arguments. Refute them by establishing a common theme to my errors (thesis), write a few well-organized paragraphs of evidence, and then synthesize a summary conclusion. It's actually easier than all that typography. It's what the article's author failed to do. That's why I said he writes like a college freshman--sound, fury, stilted diction, circular logic, zero evidence... He had it all."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 843 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Some have asked me about my definition of liberty. Some think that if you are not allowed to kill your unborn child or fornicate with a donkey or shoot heroin up your arm, that you basically don't have liberty at all. Here is my idea of liberty from another article in the american thinker. I read that website because it clearly articulates what I already believe. I just cannot put it in to words. That is part of what gets me frustrated on here. I cannot articulate in exactness what it is I believe. Troy Smith of American Thinker, though, has articulated the idea of liberty for me in his article "Van Jones and philosophical warfare".
Troy Smith writes: libertarian philosophy is the belief of being free from arbitrary force imposed by others While I believe in liberty as defined here, I also believe in limits to liberty only in those cases where it is in the best interests of the majority of the population. Another caveat that I make is this: Liberty is absolutely worthless in the hands of an immoral population. Since american society is basically immoral, it does not want to impose limitations to liberty in the form of anti-abortion laws. Liberty is only a good force in society when the society as a whole uses it for good means. When all the society cares about is the liberty to fornicate at will and pharmacate itself at will, liberty is a force for evil. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.3
|
How about you start a topic instead of continuing to fuck with an existing one?
Love to discuss this, but it ain't the topic. ABETwo can play that game FEY But your post is not worth another click of the mouse Edited by Theodoric, : response to his jeer Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 843 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
How am I wrong? The democrats held the majority in both houses of congress and the presidency.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.3
|
How am I wrong? The democrats held the majority in both houses of congress and the presidency. Remember those classes I keep suggesting you take. PoliSciThe US political system and how it works 101 Do you have any idea how the US Senate works?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 135 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined:
|
fey writes: While I believe in liberty as defined here, I also believe in limits to liberty only in those cases where it is in the best interests of the majority of the population. Another caveat that I make is this: Liberty is absolutely worthless in the hands of an immoral population. Since american society is basically immoral, it does not want to impose limitations to liberty in the form of anti-abortion laws. Liberty is only a good force in society when the society as a whole uses it for good means. When all the society cares about is the liberty to fornicate at will and pharmacate itself at will, liberty is a force for evil. So, basically, you support liberty for everyone who agrees with your views on sex and drugs?"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 242 Joined:
|
The democrats did not have the votes to fight the republican filibuster in the senate, but for about 2 months when Kennedy was still alive & Franken had finally been seated.
You should research this stuff before using it to bolster your argument. Makes you looks lazy when you don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4069 Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
I also believe in limits to liberty only in those cases where it is in the best interests of the majority of the population. If Jane Smith wants to marry her girlfriend, how does it affect the "best interests of the majority of the population?" How does a marriage affect anyone at all other than the people who marry? If Jane and Judy marry, it takes not one dollar from your wallet. It causes you not a single injury to your person or property. Your choices are not limited in any way. I understand the abortion argument from your perspective, and honestly the pro-life position is entirely reasonable - if you consider a clump of fetal cells to have the same moral weight and social interest as a toddler. That is where the contention lies, it's what the Supreme COurt decided against, yadda yadda.... But when it comes to the "best interests of the majority of the population," there are some realities you need to consider that you might not realize, having never been alive when abortion was outlawed. When abortion is illegal, women still get abortions. They are simply forced to do so through alternate means - if you can''t go to a proper medical facility, you'll use a coat hangar, or pay a man with a knife, or beg your boyfriend/husband to brutally beat your abdomen, or drink poison. These are all real things that happened regularly prior to Roe v Wade. Society suffered, in the form of our mothers, our daughters, our sisters and our wives. Beyond that, there is the simple reality of unwanted children. A mother who is unprepared for raising children will often be forced to abandon dreams of college and success, and will require government aid to survive and feed the family she wasn't yet ready for. There are social costs to disallowing that choice; the issue of abortion is not only about whether you attach moral significance to a fetus. If you complain about welfare moms, ask yourself how many more there will be if women cannot choose abortion. Pregnancy itself is also a major biological event - it's not like a day at the gym. Pregnant women go through many physiological changes while pregnant, including all of the visible growth, but also hormonal changes. These have a lifetime effect on her body...and when complications arise, there is a chance of death. Is it right for the government to be able to force a woman to undergo a medical procedure? You have the right to refuse medical care - if a doctor says you need an amputation, you can say "no." But if abortion is illegal, you are forcing a percentage of women to undergo caesarian births - would you be able to forcibly restrain an unwilling woman so that a doctor can cut her open? This is a case where restricting liberty actually affects the "best interests of the majority of the population" negatively. The "personal responsibility" schtick doesn't really fly, either - yes, people should take responsibility for their children. But some, like me, never want to have any children. I and my partner use birth control, and I'm considering a vasectomy...but even when being responsible, birth control sometimes fails. Sex is a normal and healthy part of any committed relationship...and even behaving responsibly can result in an unwanted pregnancy through dumb luck. Should simple misfortune doom a couple's life plans, and condemn their child to being born to parents who never wanted a baby? Your arguments are short and simple - you're taking a stand on principle, and you aren't conveying any argument regarding the goal that you wish to serve with those principles. You're basically arguing via soundbyte. I'm a social libertarian, FEY. I believe that a capitalist society requires government regulation to protect the people from the amoral profit-centered actions of unrestrained corporate policy, and I believe that a strong social safety net is necessary to preserve the freedom of everyone and guarantee at minimum the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...but like you I also believe that the government should be strictly "hands off" when it comes to personal life. I don't want the government telling me I need to be a specific religion, or that I need to support a specific policy, or that I can't say something, or that I can't marry someone, or that I can't do something with my own body.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi foreveryoung,
... I also believe in limits to liberty only in those cases where it is in the best interests of the majority of the population. Another caveat that I make is this: Liberty is absolutely worthless in the hands of an immoral population. ... Just an observation: morality is defined by the population in general terms and by individuals in specific terms. Ergo, there is no such thing as an "immoral population" -- rather there is a population that behaves according to the population morals, whether those coincide with your personal morals or not. Liberty Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
While #1 is comparable to your definition, I would also include #2 and #3, especially where this involves a subset of a population wanting to impose conditions of specific behavior/s in a way that would limit choice for others of different beliefs. Of course this then gets to what freedom means Freedom Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
So freedom is liberty and liberty is freedom ... both involve "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc." and "the power to determine action without restraint." Problem is that humans are social animals, and as such there are social limits on behavior that is exempted from social control for the benefit of the society -- this is what we call morals so that we don't need to deal with the cognitive dissonance of limited liberty and freedom (morals are an internal control that everyone abides by ... in a perfect world). Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
Never mind the ponies--but how can you be unable to make sense of that phrase if you follow political events in the U.S.? You do read news from multiple sources, I trust? If it's FOX News, then FEY is at a very distinct disadvantage. We had a topic here that dealt with a poll in which respondents were rated according to their knowledge of current events and they were also asked for their source for news. As I recall, the group that was the most ignorant about current events was the group whose source was FOX News. And, as I recall, that group rated even lower than those who pay absolutely no attention to the news at all. OTOH, as I recall, the best informed group got their news from NPR, which is indeed exemplary. I remember when I served in North Dakota in the late 1970's where I could rarely get any national news (an occasional article on the front and second page, maybe, if you were lucky), and yet NPR was reporting on the Soviet war in Afghanistan years before our own national news even started to pick it up -- granted, at the time their international news did come from the BBC.
Of course, it could be that the smaller set of conservative ideologues were instead misled by their own media--you might have noticed some of the effects of that on election night at Fox.
'Nuff said. The Republican Party has been detached from reality for far too long. They need to reengage with reality. Or as W. Edwards Deming said:quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3983 Joined: |
The pre-election phase ended almost a month ago.
AdminnemooseusOr something like that. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 135 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined:
|
We Yanks did the right thing.
As it turns out, that wasn't really a right or left thing--it was a centrist thing, fueled by independents turned off by the wackier excesses of the Tea Party-haunted GOP, by young people of all races both repulsed by the coded race-baiting of the GOP and the haughty contempt of the wealthy, and by women appalled at the casually expressed sexism and misogyny revealed by GOP candidates. The GOP held the house, but only due to the extreme gerrymandering that followed their 2010 reactionary surge: Democrat candidates for the House as a group "won" the popular vote nationally. It's apparent that GOP leadership have learned little to nothing from their defeat: at best, we hear, oh, let's just back off on immigration reform and that will appease the Hispanics, then we'll be fine. They won't be fine. The demographic history of voting patterns shows that political allegiances formed early in life are lasting ones, and GOP policies will continue pushing an increasingly secular and diverse young America into the Democratic camp. Any attempts to moderate GOP positions will founder on their red-meat base: live by the fanatic, die by the fanatic. Now the right thing is to prepare for 2014 while pushing Democrats away from the militarism ingrained in both parties. Dislodging the GOP from the House will be difficult, given the advantages of incumbency and 2010 gerrymandering, but I am confident we'll make at least some progress. The greatest obstacle will remain the GOP's intellectual bad faith: attack the legitimacy of global climate change science, then blame climate disasters on American sinners in the hands of a wrathful God; aggravate the racial fears of a relatively shrinking white population to attack a black president, then accuse him of being a divider; accuse Democrats of identity poliitics for building a diverse coaltion, then run a campaign explicity targeting only whites; typify Democratic cost savings measures in Medicare as "defunding" it, while seeking to destroy it altogether with vouchers worth less each year of the plan; try to cripple Social Security in the name of fiscal disciple and deficit while refusing to acknowledge it is self-funded and requires only minor tweaking... The bad news is that the list is as interminable as it is insidious; the good news is it didn't work. I know there will be setbacks, but for now, just for a while, I'm basking in the fact that the future is so bright I gotta wear shades. Edited by Omnivorous, : the usual suspects"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024