The argument against conservatism - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-03-2010, 05:07 PM   #46
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I would find them troubling. If they are truely conservative they would have to fire themselves.
Why? Do you even understand what sociology is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Even my Sociology instructor admitted that government workers want to increase in funding and size. Of course he would love that but he's at least aware that there is opposition to that goal.
What the hell does this have to do with anything? Man, you're going off the deep end... What does this have to do with him being a Sociology instructor? Seriously, try and make sense for once, please.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2010, 07:09 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I've even got examples with my niece in Catholic school. She already has opinions about Bush being worse than Obama and a general dislike of the U.S. How did that happen? She's just learning to read. They should be teaching what Presidents are responsible for (if they can understand at the age of 8) not which ones are the best.
Kids can also get that belief system from home, too . And if you learn about what presidents are responsible for it's only logical that people will start to form opinions on who's the best and worst. If a president made bad decisions, they're going to be seen as bad. And vice versa. Of course, good and bad are subjective, but still, the debate is inevitable, whether you're discussing it in school or at home. Maybe consider the age range and work within that, yes, in a way that the students will understand it and be able to talk about it, but outside of that...

And I don't really remember massive discussion of dislike of the U.S. in school. I know that people disagreed with policies here and abroad at times, and we mentioned and talked about that. Dislike of the U.S., or at least of its policies, is always going to be around. Everyone's going to learn at some point that not everyone is happy with what our country does all the time. Sometimes that's a bad thing, sometimes it's a good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
YouTube - EXPOSED: Elementary Students Forced to Participate in Barack Obama Political Indoctrination Song

Why don't we actually teach them how to develop skills instead of singing about current left-wing presidents in classrooms. What a waste of time. I know Obama supporters would like this but if you put Bush's name instead of Obama it would piss them off.
Yeah, I heard about that whole thing, and I wouldn't use Fox News as my source for that topic, because they try and put in the whole scary "Obama's indoctrinating our kids!!!!!1omg!!!11" factor. Wasn't this actually supposed to be something that celebrated numerous people, they were going to sing about other notable presidents as well? People probably aren't going to be singing songs about Bush because he sucked as a president. You don't see many people singing about Andrew Jackson with praise, do you? And even if they did make a song about Bush, some would be angry, yes, and their hypocrisy would be duly noted, but I just chalk it up to schools making up songs and rhymes and whatnot to help them learn about presidents. Some would say kids reciting the Pledge of Alleigance is offensive brainwashing, too. I disagree. I think it's just a recitation, nothing more, and the only people who would freak out and make a mountain out of a molehill are the adults. Kids aren't going to notice or care much.

Also, there are those who would argue that Obama is a centrist, not left-wing. Why do you think so many on the left are unhappy with him nowadays?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yes in the end people will have to live their lives and many will question what they are taught simply because life can force you to. I'm more annoyed with the ones who don't question and actually pick up rocks and smash windows or burn cars at braindead protests that offer no solutions but anarchy. Some of these types use actual peaceful protestors as cover for their antics.

I also wish for more debate style programs so we don't have to have MSM vs. Fox news/Talk radio. I guess that's why many just stay "independent" and/or don't vote.
I fully agree with all of this. We need debate that won't cater to the extremes on either side, that will point out the good and bad of all political arguments/sides. Most people are a mixture of political views and we need more things out there that properly represent that fact. We also need shows where people aren't screaming at each other all the time. I'm totally fine with strong, even slightly heated debate, the passion is great, it's nice to see people care so much about what they're saying, but when it gets to rude name-calling and stereotypes and people never letting each other finish a sentence and all that crap, you just want everyone to shut the hell up. I remember one night seeing Anderson Cooper admonish a couple guests who got into a shouting match over some issue (can't remember what it was). He told them to cool it 'cause viewers have stated they don't like the constant yelling on TV. I wanted to applaud him for that. Nice to know someone out there is paying attention.

And on a similar note, the people who commit violent acts at rallies are indeed a horrible example of dealing with a problem. I've especially never understood it at PEACE-related rallies-um...you are aware you're going against everything you supposedly stand for, right? The non-violent civil rights movement in the '50s and '60s got IMMENSE hell during their rallies and protests-beatings, racial slurs, being shot at, violent, horrific imagery shoved in their faces-and they managed to keep their cool in the face of it all, they kept on with their message and stayed peaceful, which I greatly admire. We could do well to learn from them.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 06:43 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Why? Do you even understand what sociology is?

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Man, you're going off the deep end... What does this have to do with him being a Sociology instructor? Seriously, try and make sense for once, please.
My points aren't difficult. People who work in government positions tend to vote left-wing and support left-wing politics. Not ALL are that way and certainly conservatives can win elections and tell these workers what to do (not always) but in general that has been the basic template for decades now and tends to fit naturally with human behaviour in which people tend to want to be with those they agree with. This is especially with politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Also, there are those who would argue that Obama is a centrist, not left-wing. Why do you think so many on the left are unhappy with him nowadays? Angela
The reason why people look at him as far left-wing is precisely because of the policies and his ignoring a mandate. Of course he can ignore a mandate if he wants to but he'll pay the consequences that most politicians pay when they go against mandate, and especially if what is proposed doesn't work. The ramming through the healthcare bill is another thing that looked like he wasn't interested in fully debating what would actually work better because ideologically he felt he was simply right. His support of Krugman policies that simply added to the deficit more than Republicans also annoyed conservatives that voted for Obama and hoped he really would be more responsible than prior Republicans. I personally believe that Obama wanted to be another Roosevelt but at this point the budget is so bloated that the public knows taxes will probably increase.

Then you add some of the czars he hired who are far left and the energy bill he supported and admitted would bankrupt coal companies it's hard to call him simply centre-left. I'm sure he had to make some compromises (because plenty of Democrats aren't far left) and I'll predict more compromises after the midterm elections. If he moderates the healthcare bill so it satisfies more of the public and if he scraps energy taxes I think he still has a chance to win in 2012, otherwise he's out. Whether Obama cares to stay after 2012 or not I'm not sure.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 07:01 PM   #49
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The ramming through the healthcare bill is another thing that looked like he wasn't interested in fully debating what would actually work better because ideologically he felt he was simply right.
I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. There were plenty of opportunities for debate. At every opportunity, Republicans made it perfectly clear they weren't interested in debate, but only in setting themselves in direct opposition of whatever Obama proposed. When your only idea for debate is "scrap the bill" - you're not interested in debate.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 07:10 PM   #50
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
My points aren't difficult. People who work in government positions tend to vote left-wing and support left-wing politics. Not ALL are that way and certainly conservatives can win elections and tell these workers what to do (not always) but in general that has been the basic template for decades now and tends to fit naturally with human behaviour in which people tend to want to be with those they agree with. This is especially with politics.
Can you tell me what any of this ^ has to do with SOCIOLOGY?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 07:31 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I would find them troubling. If they are truely conservative they would have to fire themselves.
Great! Then you can stand up and applaud all these true conservatives who have taken a principled stand and fired themselves. The fact that you have nothing but Communists left to teach you all these courses you keep complaining about is something you should celebrate.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 11:52 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Great! Then you can stand up and applaud all these true conservatives who have taken a principled stand and fired themselves. The fact that you have nothing but Communists left to teach you all these courses you keep complaining about is something you should celebrate.
I find it hilarious that you're annoyed that I had communist professors. I've already stated that not every professor is a communist but certainly in humanities courses and certain generations who grew up in the 60s it's quite obvious that they got a lot of interest in Karl Marx. Marx wasn't a complete idiot but his views for those who aren't adept at economics can be very convincing and it's no surprise that workers could agree that profits (if they don't understand profits) are at the expense of the workers. They can also agree that goods and services require labour so they could then infer (labour theory of value) that if some philosopher king could theoretically map out an economy and price system we wouldn't need democracy and capitalism in it's current form. That's why when Reagan pointed out the difference between someone who follows Marx versus someone who understands Marx it was a wise comment. I would love a utopia and if I had this faith and hope and I was a professor and I felt I had to join a praxis and try and get students jazzed up about something positive (communism) it becomes very reasonable to find such people in such courses and I'm not the only one that can notice that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Can you tell me what any of this ^ has to do with SOCIOLOGY?
I was talking about a Sociology professor. Sociologists tend to have left-wing tendencies because they tend to work for government. I'm sure some are conservative but lets be honest that the thread is getting a little derailed and it's easy to type in Sociology in wikipedia and you will find Marx as one of the main figures that inspired Sociology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. There were plenty of opportunities for debate. At every opportunity, Republicans made it perfectly clear they weren't interested in debate, but only in setting themselves in direct opposition of whatever Obama proposed. When your only idea for debate is "scrap the bill" - you're not interested in debate.
Well they do have a big problem with not being able to understand the bill before voting ("voting" is that what they even did?") and adding another entitlement on top of 2 others certainly will be changed. Of course debate by winning elections back and forth between parties is probably the realistic course for constant reform. Factionalism between parties is not unknown. You can almost guarantee the system will change from it's initial form over the decades. I personally hope they can separate insurance from employment.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 12:03 AM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I find it hilarious that you're annoyed that I had communist professors.
Is that what you think I find annoying?
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 12:05 AM   #54
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I was talking about a Sociology professor. Sociologists tend to have left-wing tendencies because they tend to work for government. I'm sure some are conservative but lets be honest that the thread is getting a little derailed and it's easy to type in Sociology in wikipedia and you will find Marx as one of the main figures that inspired Sociology.
Well now you're backtracking again. And really, quit using Wikipedia as your source...

My whole point in asking you these questions was to show your bias against science and your use of gross generalizations. These two things are honestly your two biggest weaknesses yet they seem to engulf so many of your arguments. If you ever get past these two issues I think you may gain some respect in your discussions. If you don't you're just reinforcing that notion of the uninformed ultra right.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 06:24 AM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The reason why people look at him as far left-wing is precisely because of the policies and his ignoring a mandate. Of course he can ignore a mandate if he wants to but he'll pay the consequences that most politicians pay when they go against mandate, and especially if what is proposed doesn't work.
Except we don't know yet how well it will work. These things are going to take time to reveal themselves. What if his ideas do work? And as for going against a mandate, well, again, name a politician that hasn't done that at some point. Doesn't automatically make him far-left.

And his policies? If he were truly far-left in his policy ideas, the fully committed leftists wouldn't be so disillusioned with him, especially if he were actually acting on said ideas. Even if he does privately harbor "far-left" ideology, he doesn't publicly enforce it. He enforces parts of it, if any, because he's all about compromise and bipartisanship.

Besides that, I agree with a good deal of his ideas and I don't consider myself far-left at all. Moderate at best. What exactly strikes you as too leftist about him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The ramming through the healthcare bill is another thing that looked like he wasn't interested in fully debating what would actually work better because ideologically he felt he was simply right.
If he wasn't interested in debate (which I think he fully was, he pleaded for it numerous times), it's because barely anyone on the opposing side was interested in debate. It's hard to have a good debate with somebody about a healthcare bill when all they do is run around going, "IT'S GOT DEATH PANELS! Obama wants to kill your grandma!"

And again, I am absolutely mystified as to why any conservatives are pissed off about the healthcare bill. It was loaded with a bunch of Republican suggestions! Even after they pretty much stuck their tongues out at him and refused to work with him, he was still nice enough to try and incorporate any good ideas they did have (and there were a couple here and there). The bill is a lot more Republican than Democrat, more centrist/conservative than liberal, so the right's complaints about it...I don't understand. At all.

(If Obama were truly a far-left president, he would've ignored all the pleas to get rid of the public option. He would've put one in himself and told Republicans to take a hike. But there's no public option, is there?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
His support of Krugman policies that simply added to the deficit more than Republicans also annoyed conservatives that voted for Obama and hoped he really would be more responsible than prior Republicans. I personally believe that Obama wanted to be another Roosevelt but at this point the budget is so bloated that the public knows taxes will probably increase.
Yeah. Taxes probably will go up sometimes. That's life. It sucks, yes, but it happens. How the hell else are we supposed to pay to fix/take care of all the stuff we demand? You want better schools? Gotta pay for those. You want safe roads and bridges? Gotta pay for those, too. And so on. Should taxes be outrageously high and should we be taxed for every little thing? No, absolutely not-I fully agree we should never get out of control with our spending. But we do have to pay for stuff somehow.

And besides that, from what I understand, many middle/lower-class Americans paid LESS in taxes last year, not more, and Obama's ideas actually aren't going to add to the deficit. I'm not a financial whiz, so don't look to me for details, but this is what I've understood from the news. So long as I know the rich aren't hoarding all the money and not paying their fair share in taxes, and so long as I know my taxes are going to worthy things (i.e., schools, parks, libraries, roads, bridges, etc.), I'll be happy to pay a reasonable sum to keep those things working properly and looking all nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Then you add some of the czars he hired who are far left and the energy bill he supported and admitted would bankrupt coal companies it's hard to call him simply centre-left. I'm sure he had to make some compromises (because plenty of Democrats aren't far left) and I'll predict more compromises after the midterm elections. If he moderates the healthcare bill so it satisfies more of the public and if he scraps energy taxes I think he still has a chance to win in 2012, otherwise he's out. Whether Obama cares to stay after 2012 or not I'm not sure.
If he moderates the healthcare bill it's not going to satisfy you, I can tell you that much. The majority of Americans (who DID want a public option) would be thrilled, the small group that didn't, eh, no, no happiness for them.

So far it seems the czars haven't been able to do a whole hell of a lot. They may have made a few dents here and there, but again, if they were truly extremely to the left, we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more massive change right now than we currently are.

Some people have no problem bankrupting the coal companies. It's 2010. We need to try other means of energy now, that aren't coal/oil based, 'cause right now those clearly don't seem to be working all that well. If you're worried about workers in the coal companies losing their jobs, that's an understandable concern-so just move them over to green jobs and get them trained in those. They keep a job, we get new sources of energy, chance to try something different, can't see the problem.

Again, even if he is personally almost bending to the ground in his leftiness, it's not showing up in the policies he's putting through. Far left would mean the oil companies would've been heavily controlled, if not rid of altogether, before the massive oil spill this year. Far left would've meant that the CEOs of the major financial institutions would've got jack squat for bonuses and luxuries (hell, if certain people had their way, the CEOs would consider themselves lucky that their most harsh punishment was a long jail sentence), and the financial institutions would've had a massive smackdown laid on them. Far left (well, I don't consider this far left, but some out there do, odd as I find that fact) would mean gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states. Far left would mean we're completely and totally 100% out of Iraq AND Afghanistan. "Far left", or what constitutes some people's version of that concept, would mean all sorts of things right now that are not happening. The left is unhappy with him. The right is unhappy with him. And the people in the middle have no clue what the hell to think, because both sides are shouting at them and trying to make them see their side.

Also, Americans are a very impatient bunch. I truly think, outside of the Tea Party/conservative base's reasons for being angry, most Americans are upset with Obama because they somehow expected things would be better a lot more quickly, that by this point all of his magical ideas would be reality and we'd all be living happy lives, they seem to think he really did have some wand to wave that would make life good pronto. What they forget to take into account is that change takes time. Patience, as difficult as it can be sometimes, really is a virtue. Which is why it's hard to predict how likely a re-election for him will be in 2012-some of the stuff he implemented this year will start becoming active by that time, so once people see his ideas in action, that'll have a big effect on their voting.

I for one sincerely hope he does get re-elected, because while the Democratic Party has its share of faults, and its incompetent politicians, right now, to me, the Republican Party is just terrifying. It's full of nothing but mean-spirited, ruthless, ignorant at best, downright stupid at worst, politicians (this is not a slam on the voters, just on the politicians) who know how to work the smear/fear campaign in a way the Democrats haven't even learned yet. They scare me. The Democrats just make me sad. And I'd rather be sad than scared.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 10:28 AM   #56
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
but certainly in humanities courses and certain generations who grew up in the 60s it's quite obvious that they got a lot of interest in Karl Marx...

...I would love a utopia and if I had this faith and hope and I was a professor and I felt I had to join a praxis and try and get students jazzed up about something positive (communism) it becomes very reasonable to find such people in such courses and I'm not the only one that can notice that.
Really? If this is your reasoning - that simply because Marx is considered one of the founders of modern sociology that most sociologists must tend to look favorably on communism - I don't know how you can expect anyone to take you seriously.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 11:42 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Really? If this is your reasoning - that simply because Marx is considered one of the founders of modern sociology that most sociologists must tend to look favorably on communism - I don't know how you can expect anyone to take you seriously.
This is the typical response I expect in a thread like this. I don't expect progressives on a U2 site to take me seriously unless I stop being conservative. Obviously if people like Marx they like Marx. Some of the Marxists I met were not only open about it but they criticized the Soviet Union because they felt it wasn't done properly and that skipping from Feudalism to Communism was a fatal misstep. Of course they feel the west is the best place to continue to the "true goal".

Conservatives don't believe in having lots of social engineers. Even if they tolerate some social engineering (social workers can help get kids out of abusive homes for eg.) they believe there is a limit because in order to keep freedom you have to let people fall a little so they can learn their lessons. That is often more efficient than doting on every mistake that people make. Then you've got the problem that if the social engineers make mistakes how do you override the authority we gave them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Well now you're backtracking again. And really, quit using Wikipedia as your source...

My whole point in asking you these questions was to show your bias against science and your use of gross generalizations. These two things are honestly your two biggest weaknesses yet they seem to engulf so many of your arguments. If you ever get past these two issues I think you may gain some respect in your discussions. If you don't you're just reinforcing that notion of the uninformed ultra right.
The problem with social sciences is that THEY also are full of bias and politics. I find that the more distant we study (like galaxies or subatomic particles) we get more objective opinions. As soon as we study social sciences all kinds of biases appear. That's why understanding history is so important to social sciences because we often get more objectivity from history (economics, politics, anthropology, etc). If we don't learn from anti-growth policies, that have been in the past, and don't learn from what usually works in society we can get caught in all kinds of morasses of progressivism that we don't really see what's in front of us.

For example you call the ultra right "uninformed". In reality we are all uninformed to a certain extent but don't forget that some of these "uninformed" run businesses and run families and what a Harvard professor calls "uninformed" could be his own ignorance as well. The philosopher king mentality often falls into the same arguments we get with what reminds me of the history of China. When you look at Confucius and Lao Tse you get that problem of abstraction and reductionism. Confucius would point out that it would be necessary to name positions for people and have them work within them to make a proper solid government. Lao Tse pointed out that these names are concepts and don't hold absolute reality. So you can see change constantly happening precisely because words, concepts, and paradigms don't satisfy 100%. The left loves concepts and paradigms but their dissatisfaction will be pointed out by those recipients of the results of those beliefs. On top of that when we see that it takes enormous time for knowledge to be acquired for any one individual it becomes necessary to delegate responsibility to a wider group of people to allow the different specialties to work it out. This tendency of the left to simply increase bureaucracy often gets rebuffed precisely because of it's real response vs. expectations. People are only drawn to big government solutions out of propaganda on what government promises.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 11:50 AM   #58
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
This is the typical response I expect in a thread like this. I don't expect progressives on a U2 site to take me seriously unless I stop being conservative.
Hardly. If you didn't use anecdotal stories as evidence, and infer that your experience in college must be the typical experience in any higher education institution, I'd be able to take you much more seriously.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 11:56 AM   #59
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
This is the typical response I expect in a thread like this. I don't expect progressives on a U2 site to take me seriously unless I stop being conservative.
Just so you know, as a progressive I take a lot of my conservative friends seriously and I've never once asked them to stop believing in what they believe. Divergent opinions and the right to hold and express them is what makes free societies like Canada and the United States - as opposed to the former Soviet Union - so great.

No. Actually I don't take YOU seriously for the reasons mentioned by Diemen above.
__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 12:30 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Except we don't know yet how well it will work. These things are going to take time to reveal themselves. What if his ideas do work? And as for going against a mandate, well, again, name a politician that hasn't done that at some point. Doesn't automatically make him far-left.
You have to be careful though. Other countries have more left-wing systems and they can have lots of complaints about them as well (what system doesn't?). Then you've got prior statements that contradict what Obama promises (no Canadian style healthcare).

YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

It just seems like the left wants to simply get their foot in the door and then make changes that will lead to huge expenses that will then have to be rationed with bureaucrats ("death panels"). Now I've met these death panels with my mom and it is uncomfortable. They try and do their best to persuade you to do the easy option possible to control the budget and I can see how many Americans aren't too interested in that path. They aren't vampires with bloodthirst but they are uncomfortable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
And his policies? If he were truly far-left in his policy ideas, the fully committed leftists wouldn't be so disillusioned with him, especially if he were actually acting on said ideas. Even if he does privately harbor "far-left" ideology, he doesn't publicly enforce it. He enforces parts of it, if any, because he's all about compromise and bipartisanship.

Besides that, I agree with a good deal of his ideas and I don't consider myself far-left at all. Moderate at best. What exactly strikes you as too leftist about him?
I don't like his energy policies (EPA threats, bullshit green jobs) and I don't like the endless stimulus plans. I'm okay with regulation of Wall Street but not government ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'm not interested in his response to BP (what can he do?). I don't care about his personal life, though radical associations are definitely informative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
If he wasn't interested in debate (which I think he fully was, he pleaded for it numerous times), it's because barely anyone on the opposing side was interested in debate. It's hard to have a good debate with somebody about a healthcare bill when all they do is run around going, "IT'S GOT DEATH PANELS! Obama wants to kill your grandma!"

And again, I am absolutely mystified as to why any conservatives are pissed off about the healthcare bill. It was loaded with a bunch of Republican suggestions! Even after they pretty much stuck their tongues out at him and refused to work with him, he was still nice enough to try and incorporate any good ideas they did have (and there were a couple here and there). The bill is a lot more Republican than Democrat, more centrist/conservative than liberal, so the right's complaints about it...I don't understand. At all.

(If Obama were truly a far-left president, he would've ignored all the pleas to get rid of the public option. He would've put one in himself and told Republicans to take a hike. But there's no public option, is there?)
Well presidents don't have as much power as Congress but you must know that ramming a public option through without many people understanding it would piss off not just Republicans. But again I expect that both parties will be changing it over decades because the deficit is too big to leave alone healthcare entitlements and social security. At minimum the government will water down benefits and/or raise taxes and at maximum they will cut benefits until the deficit is gone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Yeah. Taxes probably will go up sometimes. That's life. It sucks, yes, but it happens. How the hell else are we supposed to pay to fix/take care of all the stuff we demand? You want better schools? Gotta pay for those. You want safe roads and bridges? Gotta pay for those, too. And so on. Should taxes be outrageously high and should we be taxed for every little thing? No, absolutely not-I fully agree we should never get out of control with our spending. But we do have to pay for stuff somehow.

And besides that, from what I understand, many middle/lower-class Americans paid LESS in taxes last year, not more, and Obama's ideas actually aren't going to add to the deficit. I'm not a financial whiz, so don't look to me for details, but this is what I've understood from the news. So long as I know the rich aren't hoarding all the money and not paying their fair share in taxes, and so long as I know my taxes are going to worthy things (i.e., schools, parks, libraries, roads, bridges, etc.), I'll be happy to pay a reasonable sum to keep those things working properly and looking all nice.
This is a good point. I would question though whether people really want to pay more taxes (hypocrisy) and is it also good to have so many who don't pay taxes piggyback on the productive ones that do? This is one of the pitfalls of progressive taxation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
If he moderates the healthcare bill it's not going to satisfy you, I can tell you that much. The majority of Americans (who DID want a public option) would be thrilled, the small group that didn't, eh, no, no happiness for them.
The majority aren't for Obamacare. Some minority are and some would say the in danger minority have a reason for it. I certainly want all covered but there must be a mandatory insurance system because free riders do exist and it makes the system unsustainable. The Republicans need to know that we can't have people allowed to not be covered and then when an early accident occurs pass it on to the taxpayer. The left has to be honest about rationing (Michael Moore was at least).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
So far it seems the czars haven't been able to do a whole hell of a lot. They may have made a few dents here and there, but again, if they were truly extremely to the left, we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more massive change right now than we currently are.
Thank God there was enough opposition!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Some people have no problem bankrupting the coal companies. It's 2010. We need to try other means of energy now, that aren't coal/oil based, 'cause right now those clearly don't seem to be working all that well. If you're worried about workers in the coal companies losing their jobs, that's an understandable concern-so just move them over to green jobs and get them trained in those. They keep a job, we get new sources of energy, chance to try something different, can't see the problem.
Telling people who lost their coal jobs it's 2010 isn't going to cut it. Other countries have tried the green jobs move but unfortunately there is a net job loss. This is precisely because green jobs are related to technologies that can't make energy as cheap so prices would have to increase and losing coal jobs won't be replaced one job for one. If green jobs were so good they would automatically get venture capital because they could compete with fossil fuels. I'm all for funding research but if a technology isn't ready yet we shouldn't be using the public as guinea pigs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Again, even if he is personally almost bending to the ground in his leftiness, it's not showing up in the policies he's putting through. Far left would mean the oil companies would've been heavily controlled, if not rid of altogether, before the massive oil spill this year. Far left would've meant that the CEOs of the major financial institutions would've got jack squat for bonuses and luxuries (hell, if certain people had their way, the CEOs would consider themselves lucky that their most harsh punishment was a long jail sentence), and the financial institutions would've had a massive smackdown laid on them. Far left (well, I don't consider this far left, but some out there do, odd as I find that fact) would mean gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states. Far left would mean we're completely and totally 100% out of Iraq AND Afghanistan. "Far left", or what constitutes some people's version of that concept, would mean all sorts of things right now that are not happening. The left is unhappy with him. The right is unhappy with him. And the people in the middle have no clue what the hell to think, because both sides are shouting at them and trying to make them see their side.
Well this is what happens when you're president. He can't do everything so he picks his battles. Most of the public wanted him to deal with the economy first but he didn't do that. He focussed on healthcare and energy reform. His attempt at the economy (and Bush's) is Stimulus. Stimulus is just a name for borrowing and spending. There was a funny response from Fred Thompson about "taking a bucket of water from one side of the pool and dumping it into the other side of the pool". Stimulus is to create government spending in government related jobs (like road construction, shovel ready projects, etc). Then these workers who receive their pay spend some money and therefore trickle into the economy. Unfortunately when that money gets to everyone else there is a looming tax bill from all that debt. The government either has to reduce quality of the benefits, inflate the currency (same thing), or increase taxes. Either way the pool is the same size as before and general public (without a government job and pension) has to eat the cost because there is no free lunch. The actual engine of growth is allowing people to keep a majority of what they make so there is an incentive to work (work is painful) and then the public (if they are even intelligent anymore) saves a portion of that money for hardship and then eventually retirement. If the public loses this healthy habit the government can justify itself to intrude in all levels of our life. It won't happen tomorrow but future generations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Also, Americans are a very impatient bunch. I truly think, outside of the Tea Party/conservative base's reasons for being angry, most Americans are upset with Obama because they somehow expected things would be better a lot more quickly, that by this point all of his magical ideas would be reality and we'd all be living happy lives, they seem to think he really did have some wand to wave that would make life good pronto. What they forget to take into account is that change takes time. Patience, as difficult as it can be sometimes, really is a virtue. Which is why it's hard to predict how likely a re-election for him will be in 2012-some of the stuff he implemented this year will start becoming active by that time, so once people see his ideas in action, that'll have a big effect on their voting.
Don't forget the campaign. A lot was promised (as usual). Some of the public are too impatient but this looming debt is what is scaring them. They don't want a run on the dollar and they don't want the high taxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
I for one sincerely hope he does get re-elected, because while the Democratic Party has its share of faults, and its incompetent politicians, right now, to me, the Republican Party is just terrifying. It's full of nothing but mean-spirited, ruthless, ignorant at best, downright stupid at worst, politicians (this is not a slam on the voters, just on the politicians) who know how to work the smear/fear campaign in a way the Democrats haven't even learned yet. They scare me. The Democrats just make me sad. And I'd rather be sad than scared.

Angela
The Republicans feel the EXACT same way about Democrats. You gotta love Democracy.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com