random off-topic thread

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

So conservatives are bad for America, and liberals are good. That's a second rate, 3rd-grade, emotional argument that holds no water.

Oversimplification of what I'm saying. Again, both camps have some elements that can help America. Neither camp has full possession of the truth, or has all the solutions for America.

However, ON NET, I believe the liberal philosophy has done ENORMOUS good for America over the past 100 years. You wish to cherry pick programs that you feel were harmful to America, and yes, perhaps some have not done what was intended (even under Bush, such as "No Child Left Behind", this is true), and governmental intervention can have unintended consequences. Still, ON NET, it is better that we have an activist government for the COMMONS.

What do I mean by "the commons"? Just like a condominium complex with a homeowners association, there are common areas of a nation that has to be taken care of by the nation's "hoa". Yes, think of a nation as a gigantic condo complex, and you'll see what I mean. After all, this "multi-dwelling unit" that is 3,000 miles wide and contains 110 million housing units, is nothing more than a macro version of that complex, and our federal government is nothing more than a humongous version of that homeowners association. Our taxes to the federal government are really nothing more than a federal version of "homeowners fees".

When you look at it that way, and you accept the notion that Americans each have common areas that need to be improved and maintained, you'll understand the liberal mindset much better. If you own a condo, do you refuse to pay your HOA fees because the association overpays for things like landscaping, new paint and carpet, gabage pickup, security, and perhaps the heat? Maybe, but they are deemed necessary by the homeowners in order to improve their quality of life at the condo complex and enhance the value of their homes. Likewise, in America, we pay for things on a national level that addresss COMMON areas of interest for Americans, such as roads and bridges, educational assistance, environmental protections, hopefully healthcare, old age security, and naturally our national security.

Liberals think the COMMONS are more all-encompassing than conservatives do. Liberals think the government should play a role, where private industry can't or won't, in addressing these common needs. It's really not that complicated, TIR, and you should not hate us liberals for wanting our government to be responsible and active in addressing the citizens' collective needs, the "commons".

Now, liberals agree that the rights of the individual in this country are sacrosanct, and essential to keep America where the founders intended it to be. This includes CIVIL LIBERTIES, and thus liberals support the ACLU, which many of you conservatives lambast as some sort of subversive "commie" organization. We liberals think civil liberties have to be protected for ALL citizens, not just those with whom we agree. Hence, we find aspects of the Patriot Act repulsive. Hence, we find warrantless wiretapping to be UN-American. Hence, we find torture techniques such as waterboarding to be UN-American. Hence, we find the loss of Habeus Corpas rights to infringe on civil liberties and to be UN-American.

Yes, SOME conservatives are TERRIBLE at preserving American values and individual rights. In that sense, I totally agree with Ron Paul and Libertarian thought. I believe both the Constitution needs protecting and our individual civil liberties need to be guarded vigilantly. Because Bush has failed miserably at this while expanding the role of the "unitary executive", I think he and Cheney should have been impeached long ago. Of course, that'll never happen now due to spineless Democrats in Congress, and this being his final year, and election year.

I hope these posts are at least helping you understand, TIR, where the liberal mind is coming from. We believe in both the COMMONS and the NEED to protect every individual's rights in this country. Government, though, NEEDS to address the common problems people share in the USA. If not the government, then who? Not all common needs are addressed by corporations, TIR, and that's where liberals most differ from conservatives.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Obviously, we exist where we do on the political spectrum because we have fundamental disagreements on these issues.

Thats why it was a cop-out, IMO, to take a discussion on healthcare to a broader refferendum on modern left v. modern right, instead of having a substantive discussion on the actual issue.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

Obviously, we exist where we do on the political spectrum because we have fundamental disagreements on these issues.

Thats why it was a cop-out, IMO, to take a discussion on healthcare to a broader refferendum on modern left v. modern right, instead of having a substantive discussion on the actual issue.

You've copped out on me plenty of times, TIR, both on this forum and offline. Often, you've ceased responding when I've made valid points, or don't acknowledge good points. For example, I just wrote a long post making an analogy to condo HOAs that I thought would be helpful to you in understanding liberal thought, and yet got not one ounce of feedback from you on the substance of that post other than the above quote. That's a copout.

So what if I don't want to spend a boring few days going over details and policy wonking on healthcare?!? It doesn't interest me that much, and I frankly have lots of other things I'd rather discuss or be doing. The stock market was down 307 points today and the economy appears the be headed down the abyss......so I need to spend some time combing through those substantive issues instead right now. Sorry.

I say we call a truce.

[Newman]

Q: why are we headed into a recession? Could it be because of Bush's voodoo economics or is it all Bill Clinton's fault (that's Republic radio's analysis).

Q: how does Bush want to fix this problem? Print money and give it to wealthy people? Borrow more money from Communist China and give it to people who have paid income taxes (not poor people of course)?

How will the economic stimulus package be hammered out and will it just be a bandaid?

[Newman]

Feb 5 is fast approaching. Who are YOU going to caucus for?

I was originally for Kucinich. He has no shot. Then I moved over to Edwards because he next best expresses my views. It looks like he has no shot as well. Hillary or Obama. Decisions, decisions.

Today I'm going with Obama because he represents hope. He also saw that the war in Iraq was wrong from the get go, like I did, and that gets mega points from me. And he was magna cum laude from Harvard, taught constitutional law there, is very bright, unlike the current dufus who was a C student at Yale.

But is Obama electable? Is America more racist or more sexist?

My neighbor got that viral email that's going around attacking Obama for being a Muslim, which he is not. You can see how Hannity and Limbaugh are going to attack him. Negative campaigning works. Of course we know how they're going to attack Hillary as well.

What are you others going to do on caucus day in colorado? Obama? Grandpa McCain? Ron Paul? Or sit this one out. Feedback?

[BigRapidsJackass]

ON NET, I believe the liberal philosophy has done ENORMOUS good for America over the past 100 years.

I think that's right.

Yesterday I saw that clip of Obama admitting that the Republican Party from Reagan-to-W was, indeed, "the party of ideas." And he's right. We can't ignore that either. It's to his credit that he can see the value -- the necessity -- for the Reagan revolution that was co-opted by Bill Clinton. Remember, "the era of big government is over?"

Unfortunately, the likely nominee, Mrs. Clinton, has completely forgotten that philosophy. I think she never really shared it. That's why (setting annoying personality tics aside) a lot of people, myself included, really can't stand the thought of her winning. She is of the visceral Reagan-hating wing of the Democratic Party.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Newman

What are you others going to do on caucus day in colorado? Obama? Grandpa McCain? Ron Paul? Or sit this one out. Feedback?

The other night, I went to a a neighborhood meet-up at a couple's house that was mainly about socializing and finger food, but really was a sales pitch for Hillary. The man hosting the event spoke for 10 minutes toward the end of the festivities (a charming British man who's an American citizen and just moved back from England in August). He was so articulate about Hillary, admitting she'll never be the orator or inspirational the way Obama is or even Edwards, but that she understands how Washington works and can get the job done. His pitch was simply that Obama isn't ready and Hillary is, and he used very specific examples to support his argument.

I came away thinking that this undecided voter (me) would end up caucusing for Hillary. However, upon further reflection, and after reading comments from other independent voters like Jackass, I am now thinking strongly about supporting Obama. Why? While I agree with the British guy that Hillary is more prepared and sophisticated to run our country, I don't think it matters. Hillary has such high negatives in the polls that independents would never vote her into office, and in order to win in November, you need to get the independent votes and some crossover votes.

It is now my belief that McCain will get the GOP nomination. If so, I think he is much more attractive to independents than is Hillary, and that he would stand a great chance of narrowly beating her in November. As I heard on Sunday morning talk shows yesterday, the GOP is fractured right now and bickering amongst themselves. But the one thing that could unify the party is if Hillary is the Dem nominee. This is why Obama probably needs to be the nominee if the Democrats are to re-take the White House.

So, if it still looks like McCain is the GOP nominee on Feb. 5th, I'll likely caucus for Obama. If Romney or (less likely) Huckabee is gathering steam, then I probably support Hillary, because I think the Dems will beat any Republican other than McCain, and I'd prefer that our next president be Hillary (the devil you know) than Obama.

The key question for Dems isn't "Who's most qualified" for the Oval Office. It's really "Who can beat the GOP?" If McCain's the opponent, I have little doubt it's Obama.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Yesterday I saw that clip of Obama admitting that the Republican Party from Reagan-to-W was, indeed, "the party of ideas." And he's right. We can't ignore that either. It's to his credit that he can see the value -- the necessity -- for the Reagan revolution that was co-opted by Bill Clinton. Remember, "the era of big government is over?"

I saw that clip from Obama when he said that about Reagan. Jackass, you are misinterpreting it a bit. Obama didn't ENDORSE Reagan's new ideas. He just acknowledged that he was a "change" president, and the country was ready for his ideas. And Obama's right. The USA was itching for a man who embodied entrepreneurial spirit, optimism, Western swagger (his acting past in "Death Valley Days" helped), and toughness against Iran and the USSR back in 1980. Carter was seen as weak and ineffectual. Reagan won.

Obama, I am sure, was not supporting Reagan's conservative policies during those eight years he was in office. He is simply saying America makes a seachange in its direction every 20 or 30 years, and that Reagan represented a real seachange in American politics 28 years ago, just as Obama represents a seachange now. That was Barack's point. And I think he's correct.

Unfortunately, the likely nominee, Mrs. Clinton, has completely forgotten that philosophy. I think she never really shared it. That's why (setting annoying personality tics aside) a lot of people, myself included, really can't stand the thought of her winning. She is of the visceral Reagan-hating wing of the Democratic Party.

She is the "devil you know". Better her than someone who will continue keeping us in Iraq for another 100 years. Besides, I have little doubt about her administration being run like a tight ship. She is competent, and I think that this election will be about what Dukakis spoke about in 1988. It'll be about competence as much or more than ideology. Of course, Dukakis lost to Bush, and Hillary could easily lose to McCain due to your hatred of her being shared by millions of others, Jackass.

[wolf213]

I am actually very happy about McCain probably getting the GOP nomination, not that I would vote for him if Obama is on the other side of the ticket. For me, you have to look at worst case senario... If McCain is elected presedent, its not the end of the world, and I would like him a lot better then Romney, Huck, Paul, and even Hillary.

Roxpert, you are right... I'm an independent voter, and Obama really appeals to me. Hillary? Not so much, I'm tired of the Clintons Period.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

I think that's right.

Yesterday I saw that clip of Obama admitting that the Republican Party from Reagan-to-W was, indeed, "the party of ideas." And he's right. We can't ignore that either. It's to his credit that he can see the value -- the necessity -- for the Reagan revolution that was co-opted by Bill Clinton. Remember, "the era of big government is over?"

I actually read an Ed Quillen column in the Post yesterday, "Why be like Reagan?" It was a good one. Why DOES Reagan get such good press in Republican circles? I've often scratched my head on that one. Here's the synopsis of the issues from Quillen:

1. Illegal immigration: Reagan supported amnesty

2. Standing up to terrorists: Beirut, Oct. 23, 1983, truck bomb attack, 241 American servicemen killed. Reagan's response was to withdraw, cut and run.

3. Fiscal responsibility: RR first budget was $746B. His last budget was $1.14Trillion. The national debt more than doubled during Reagan's tenure. Republicans can't blame that on Clinton.

4. Foreign policy: Iran contra scandal, savings and loan collapse, etc.

I think of Reagan as a union buster, specifically the air traffic controllers were destroyed by him.

And yet all the Republic candidates trip over themselves to mention their love and admiration for Ronald Reagan. I don't get it. It doesn't hold up upon examination.

[Roxpert]

Newman, the idea that Ronald Reagan was a great president is the thing that holds the GOP together. The "Reagan coalition" of corporatists, evangelicals and social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and war hawks is very fragile, so the party insiders want to perpetuate the myth to hold their party (and coalition) together.

In truth, Reagan was a movie actor who PORTRAYED a "great president". He should have gotten an Oscar for playing the role well, something he never came close to receiving in his movie career. He played the role to perfection by being the "great communicator", acting like everyone's grandfather, restoring our nation's confidence and talking of America as that "shining beacon on the hill", and the last best hope for the world.

And the people bought it, hook, line and sinker! Maybe he should get some of the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the GOP and their media enablers give him far too much credit. Like Peter Sellers in the movie, "Being There", the USSR's collapse was attached to him. Never mind that it was a failed economic system that would have imploded of its own weight no matter who our president was. No matter that our standing up strong against the Soviets with a nuclear arms buildup that was the closest thing to fiscal and foreign policy madness (by both countries) was going on through Democratic as well as Republican administrations.

Reagan is the GOP's "mythical movie idol" who was a mediocre B-movie actor and is all they hold onto as their legacy. Him, and Abraham Lincoln from nearly 110 years ago, even though the modern Republican party has little resemblence to the values of "Honest Abe".

In truth, Reagan was a morale booster for this country, but a poor manager. Scandals were common under his watch, as anyone who can remember Ed Meese knows. He barerly paid attention in meetings, eating too many jellybeans and taking too many naps. An 8-hour day was a full workday for him. He's a myth, but our dumbed-down country that may be to most intellectually vapid country in the history of the world (in relation to information available to the populace) loves him. And so it goes.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Look, I voted against Reagan twice (and when I say "against Reagan" I mean it; I didn't vote "for" Jimmy Carter ... in fact, I voted for John Anderson, wasting my first-ever vote).

But Obama is right about 2 things:

1. Reagan was a transformative president. There's a lot not to like about him, but as a grown-up I've been forced to reconsider him. He didn't know details (and I think he was senile by the second term), but he knew 2 big, huge, things: government was getting too big, and world communism was evil. And knowing those two things transformed western economy and governance (along with Thatcher) and transformed world order (with Pope John Paul II). That is an amazing legacy. Bill Clinton's "the era of big government is over" shows the profound impact of Reaganism. No longer could one seriously argue that more government intervention was necessarily the way to solve a problem. (But that isn't stopping Hillary-Edwards from saying it right now as I'm writing this.)

2. The Republican Party was the "Party of ideas" from 1980 to 1996 or so (the collapse of the "Contract with America"). Obama explains, correctly, that not all of these ideas turned out to be good ideas. But there was an intellectual force behind the Republican Party agenda in that decade and a half. And not all of them were "Republican" ideas. Daniel Patrick Moynihan diagnosed the problems of the welfare state -- and pointed to the potential solutions -- way back in the 60's. Hillary now has his Senate seat; she would do well to study what he did with it. But it took the Republican Party to bring these ideas to the forefront. Meanwhile, traditional Democrats (not Bill Clinton; remember he came out of the "conservative" Democratic Leadership Conference camp, a wing of the party that is now essentially dead; thank you Howard Dean) were defined by clinging desperately to the intellectually bankrupt ideas of the 1960s and 1970s. It wasn't until Bill Clinton grabbed control of the party that the Democrats became relevant again in the policy debate.

Watching this debate tonight, I realize that the true "Clinton Democrat" is Obama. Hillary has the name, and the associated scuzz, but none of the intellectual curiosity. She is not a female Bill Clinton. She is a distaff Walter Mondale.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

The Republican Party was the "Party of ideas" from 1980 to 1996 or so (the collapse of the "Contract with America"). Obama explains, correctly, that not all of these ideas turned out to be good ideas.

Not all? How about none? Tonight, Obama set the record straight in the S.C. debate about what he meant. The fur really was flying, btw, in that debate, and I thought Obama came off very well...

Daily Kos :: Comments SC Democratic Debate Wrap-Up

[BigRapidsJackass]

It was pretty fun tonight. Much more spirited. Seems almost like Hillary and Edwards were ganging up on Obama. Their internal SC polls must show Obama with a good sized lead.

Kind of disappointed that Obama didn't take her on about the Reagan thing. I mean, he did chide her for stating -- incorrectly -- that he vouched for some of the Rebuplican ideas as being good ones.

Ending "welfare as we know it?" Republican idea, although Moynihan deserves credit, too. Bill Clinton picked it up and ran with it. Pretty damn good idea, as history has proven.

Keeping up the moral outrage against totalitarianism while rewarding Soviet moves toward greater freedom? I'd say it was an excellent idea.

Deregulating large sectors of the economy? Eliminating regulating agencies (look up the CAB and the ICC in case you forgot)? Superb idea. Time has proven that.

No, the point isn't that everything worked. Some things didn't. Namely, the whole "starve the beast" theory that if revenues fell the Congress would necessarily have to cut spending in lock-step. Oops.

Rather, the point is this: the activist Republican Party filled a great intellectual chasm that existed in the stagflation days of the 70s, where big-government democrats and status quo loving country club Republicans had allowed their lack of new ideas to grind the nation into a state of decline.

I guess Obama's quote was the classic Michael Kinsley definition of a political gaffe: when a politician inadvertently speaks the truth.

[Newman]

If the Republican ideas are so great how come we're in a Recession right now? Have you watched the stock markets crashing world wide recently, including our own? I guess the subprime lending scam wasn't such a great Republican idea.

Was struck by the debate as well. You can see how they will attack Obama. 130 "present" votes. He really didn't have a good answer for that. Maybe he can smooth out that answer. It's too complex and technical right now.

Time has proven that deregulation has been a great idea, Jackass? Could you develop that idea, give some examples?

Where's the moral outrage about us attacking a country, Iraq, that never attacked us, and then occupying it for 6 years with no end in sight? Have we turned into old England with colonies, imperialism? Moral outrage?