Political discussion thread

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: Liberal =/= Socialist. I never said otherwise. I was responding to HackettFan's claim that "Obama is not even a liberal" which I have heard repeated by others as well.

Okay, it followed a post/discussion on "Obama is not a socialist" that's all. (perhaps you should have quoted HackettFan's post and not Brian and Geoff's )

Edited by Dean - November 02 2012 at 08:06

fairy snuff.

tamijo wrote: "Which is why O'Reilly is not a good person to have at debates. He has inconsistent positions, unlike most of us who post here."   He has inconsistent positions ? Pretty funny stuff, following your debated about what you call politics. The man has an honest opinion, he stands up for it, in Europe that would be considered inteligent and even brave, as it might cost the man his job. In you opinion he has "inconsistent positions". Dosent matter what he thinks, or if he is lying about it, as long as he is consistant.

I don't really understand your point. I didn't attack O'Reilly in my post (although I'll admit I don't have a high opinion of him) and I didn't say that consistency was the only thing that matters, but I do think it's hard to make a convincing argument when you contradict yourself. I think it's hard to sell people on the immorality of redistribution while simultaneously supporting Social Security just as I think it's hard to sell people on the imminent threat of climate change when you're zipping around in a private jet. Who said anything about lying? I personally don't think either Stewart or O'Reilly lied during that debate, but that doesn't mean that they're both not wrong.

How is having an honest opinion intelligent or brave? Doesn't everybody have an honest opinion? I don't see what that is a thing to be admired. I agree that it is brave to stand up for it in public, but I would prefer that "the right" of which I consider myself a member, had a better spokesman as a counterpart to Stewart. I don't think of O'Reilly as particularly conservative, but he is perceived as being so and when you put him on a stage net to Stewart the perception is that one represents the left while the other represents the right.

"but he is perceived as being so and when you put him on a stage net to Stewart the perception is that one represents the left while the other represents the right."

HackettFan wrote: thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: JJLehto wrote: The Obama/Democrats = Socialist thing is honestly one of the greatest scams of all time. Its gotten to where I stop telling people why they are wrong and just call them stupid now. Also it's my nature to be kinda peeved when words are just thrown around. Bama and both parties are indeed corporatists. Maybe they should just be the corporatist party and get rid of all the silly fighting that goes on! Edit: To this day I've never gotten a good answer on how he is a Socialist. The near universal is "uh taking from the rich and giving to the poor" and this has come from educated smart people, the real horror. I never knew every president we've had since Wilson was a socialist! Did you see the Stewart/O'Reilly debate? Stewart made a good point when he asked O'Reilly if he wanted to get rid of Social Security. When the answer was no, Stewart pointed out that O'Reilly is a socialist as well. Which is why O'Reilly is not a good person to have at debates. He has inconsistent positions, unlike most of us who post here.Obama is a liberal, and continuing to say he is not does not change that. Perhaps by European standards he is pretty centrist, but compared to the median American he is quite far left. He is on record as supporting:• Higher taxes• Expanding federal government and employment indiscriminately• Gay marriage (the one thing he and I agree on)• Increased regulation on business• Keynesian monetary policy• Deference to the international community• Stronger labor unions (card check)• Late term and partial birth abortions• Cap and Trade carbon regulations• Government subsidies for "green" energy companies (that then go bankrupt)• Strict limits of campaign finance• Amnesty for illegal immigrants• Extending unemployment benefits (apparently indefinitely)• Government control of the health care market (which not a single republican voted for and was disapproved of my a majority of the country according to all opinion polls)All of those are liberal positions. All of them are Obama's positions. He's a liberal. I would ideally make my own list, but I will comment on just two from your list for the sake of brevity. Cap and Trade is not a liberal, progressive, or left leaning policy. It uses market driven forces to solve the problem. To me it will lead to nothing but shenanigans. I think it is an awful idea. I support direct government investments into R&D and into direct market implementation. Cap and trade is a very centrist solution. I don't see Keynesian economics as liberal, progressive or far left at all either. I believe it is well regarded by centrists too. Even some right of center will employ Keynesian economics from time to time. The stimulus money began with Pres. Bush afterall. Granted it is left of where you are, but it is hardly a demarcation of left of center. I would note that, as a liberal, I had real a problem with Obama's priority on bailing out the banks. Roosevelt did not do that. He let the banks fail and put his stimulus into things that directly helped the populace.

thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: This guy has some very interesting videos that do a really good job of explaining terms to laymen: http://themoderatevoice.com/138685/why-a-two-party-system-is-inevitable-in-the-united-states-what-to-do-about-it/ That was surprisingly persuasive. I'll have to think about it for a while.

It was certainly entertaining.  I think it made a few good points- if you are voting for dictator.  The two-party process in America is even more complicated by primaries, the Electoral college, Congress, and the fear of Supreme Court nominations.  I believe that the Libertarian Party will increase in stature, but I fear that stature will become moot when American debt reaches its critical mass (and I believe that will happen sooner than later). 

I think, in terms of our present political climate, even a third party is hopeless, because critical mass has already happened. 

Folks, no matter what at this point, our debt will continue to skyrocket, and therefore our interest, and therefore our mandatory spending, and we are done.  I am no doomsayer, but I look at the numbers everyday: The only way to eliminate the deficit is to reduce discretionary spending by about 88% (won't happen), eliminate tax credits for the middle class (won't happen), and phase out social security and Medicare (won't happen).

We have so many sacred cows in our country, we will drown in spoiled milk. 


Edited by Epignosis - November 02 2012 at 20:29

From the ashes of America will arise an even greater nation! We are lucky to be a part of its inception.

Finnforest wrote: Rob I'd love to be able to argue that second part with you....but really can't.  It is frightening and very sad.  I hope we're wrong and better days prevail

It is frightening.  Sad?  I don't know.  Like Logan says:

thellama73 wrote: From the ashes of America will arise an even greater nation! We are lucky to be a part of its inception.

The wonderful thing about economic evil is that it is not sustainable.  It cannot stand.  It will collapse eventually on its own.  There is no One Ring.  There is no Triforce of Power.  There is no Havoc Staff.  There is no Illearth Stone.

And I am happy to see it fall so we can get on with the lessons we learned.

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.

So many will suffer in the transition.....old people who couldn't take it, kids robbed of their childhoods.....yes we might end up stronger one day but I'd rather not wish for it.  It would be nice if things could improve without going through that.  I think seeing societal order collapse and animal survival take over large scale would be an overrated experience.  So many have been through it, many are going through it today around the world, sad to me 

 

Epignosis wrote:   And I predict this: By the time my children are all adults, America will no longer be America.

But this has always been the case: things don't stand still on these shores. Every new generation gets to live in an entirely different country. If someone had fallen into a coma in 1930 and woken up in 1955, it would have been like landing on a different planet (this will work with any pair of periods, separated by 20-30 years).