GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3 - Page 21 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-11-2012, 10:25 PM   #301
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2

And the only people who should be presidents and senators and congresspeople are those who want to keep growing the federal government endlessly? How does change get enacted that way? How do we still have a country 50 years from now?

"I don't like the way this company is being run, so I should never aspire to lead it."
"I don't like the status of our education system, so I should never be a teacher."
"I think there's an inadequate amount of research in a certain area of science or medicine, so I won't grow up and be a doctor or scientist."

See how illogical that sounds? It's the same idea as you're putting forth. You can be cynical and give up, or you can put yourself out there and try to right the ship.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, to be honest. Republicans are "deadset against the federal government?" What does that mean? Implementing conservative ideas would mean massive interference in peoples' lives? I'm not following.
It's more like companies are bad so I want to lead this company or schools are bad so I want to be a teacher. It's an article of faith among many conservatives that government is inherently bad so it is a bit strange that they'd want any part of it.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 10:38 PM   #302
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: 19,270
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
And the only people who should be presidents and senators and congresspeople are those who want to keep growing the federal government endlessly? How does change get enacted that way? How do we still have a country 50 years from now?

"I don't like the way this company is being run, so I should never aspire to lead it."
"I don't like the status of our education system, so I should never be a teacher."
"I think there's an inadequate amount of research in a certain area of science or medicine, so I won't grow up and be a doctor or scientist."

See how illogical that sounds? It's the same idea as you're putting forth. You can be cynical and give up, or you can put yourself out there and try to right the ship.
But here's the thing, that's not how they're thinking. It's not that Republicans are simply saying, "This is an area where I think the federal government could use some changes, and here's what I'd do to fix this." That's fine. I'd listen to that.

No, what some of them, especially the more far-right, seem to be saying sometimes is that they don't like the federal government existing, period. What they're saying is:

"I don't like science, so I won't support anything that encourages more study in it."
"I don't like this company, so I want it to shut down."
"I don't like the education system, so I won't fund it adequately and let it fail."

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, to be honest. Republicans are "deadset against the federal government?" What does that mean? Implementing conservative ideas would mean massive interference in peoples' lives? I'm not following.
They don't like the federal government because it's too intrusive, they feel. Fine. There are certainly arguments that can be made to support that claim.

But then they turn around and support things like constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage, or tougher restrictions on things relating to sex ed and health clinics. They support wiretapping of citizens. They want tough federal immigration laws. Those are moments where they want the federal government, whom they claim to dislike because it's so big, to do more. It's a contradiction that doesn't make any sort of sense and which they've never properly addressed.
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 11:08 PM   #303
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
But here's the thing, that's not how they're thinking. It's not that Republicans are simply saying, "This is an area where I think the federal government could use some changes, and here's what I'd do to fix this." That's fine. I'd listen to that.
Well there is plenty of that from the GOP, so I hope you are listening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
No, what some of them, especially the more far-right, seem to be saying sometimes is that they don't like the federal government existing, period. What they're saying is:

"I don't like science, so I won't support anything that encourages more study in it."
"I don't like this company, so I want it to shut down."
"I don't like the education system, so I won't fund it adequately and let it fail."
I think that's a grossly unfair overgeneralization. I don't know anyone, outside of maybe Ron Paul, who halfway fits that description.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
But then they turn around and support things like constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage, or tougher restrictions on things relating to sex ed and health clinics. They support wiretapping of citizens. They want tough federal immigration laws. Those are moments where they want the federal government, whom they claim to dislike because it's so big, to do more. It's a contradiction that doesn't make any sort of sense and which they've never properly addressed.
With all due respect, I don't think you can just say "Republicans want zero government." I know that's a popular talking point, but it's not that black-and-white. This gets into a discussion about what states should do and what the feds should do, as in your "funding education" example. You mention a couple national security issues, which is the responsibility of the federal government. Other things aren't. I don't see it as a contradiction, just a different and more effective way to distribute power and decision-making. Unlike the Democrats, Republicans don't think an ever-growing federal government has all the answers to everything.
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 01-12-2012, 12:07 AM   #304
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
And the only people who should be presidents and senators and congresspeople are those who want to keep growing the federal government endlessly? How does change get enacted that way? How do we still have a country 50 years from now?

"I don't like the way this company is being run, so I should never aspire to lead it."
"I don't like the status of our education system, so I should never be a teacher."
"I think there's an inadequate amount of research in a certain area of science or medicine, so I won't grow up and be a doctor or scientist."

See how illogical that sounds? It's the same idea as you're putting forth. You can be cynical and give up, or you can put yourself out there and try to right the ship.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, to be honest. Republicans are "deadset against the federal government?" What does that mean? Implementing conservative ideas would mean massive interference in peoples' lives? I'm not following.
I'll just leave this here for your benefit, then:
Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't it funny that only during Obama's term the national GOP has become fixated with the debt? Where was this lockstep opposition to increasing the national debt to power two wars during the last administration?

You can't be naive enough to pass over the fact that the longer the economic downturn is prolonged by austerity measures disproportionately affecting the middle class, the worse it is for Obama's reelection chances.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 12:31 AM   #305
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: 19,270
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Well there is plenty of that from the GOP, so I hope you are listening.
In some quarters, perhaps, but that's not exactly what I've been hearing from the people who are the face of the party and popping up on TV on a regular basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I think that's a grossly unfair overgeneralization. I don't know anyone, outside of maybe Ron Paul, who halfway fits that description.
Rick Perry? He was listing (or trying to, anyway) three departments he'd get rid of right away were he elected president. Hell, I just saw a discussion tonight about the recent debate in New Hampshire where the candidates were discussing whether or not states had a right to ban contraception, and how that could be in direct opposition to our Constitution and the right to privacy.

Again, my statement is focusing on the politicians and some of the major conservative groups that support these politicians. Not your average voter. I'm not saying ALL Republicans feel this way, of course not. And again, certainly no argument from me that the government, be it local, state, or federal, can use some sort of editing down and changing around.

But there's quite a few who do feel the way I'm describing. Some of whom are running for president.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
With all due respect, I don't think you can just say "Republicans want zero government." I know that's a popular talking point, but it's not that black-and-white. This gets into a discussion about what states should do and what the feds should do, as in your "funding education" example. You mention a couple national security issues, which is the responsibility of the federal government. Other things aren't. I don't see it as a contradiction, just a different and more effective way to distribute power and decision-making. Unlike the Democrats, Republicans don't think an ever-growing federal government has all the answers to everything.
I don't think the federal government always has all the answers, either-the entire Bush era pretty much convinced me of that. But again, the Republicans constantly sit there and quote the whole "the government who governs least is best" thing that Reagan believed. So clearly it's not just a simple "talking point", it's got some basis in reality. And yet, they then turn around and suggest their own things that they want the federal government to do. You can't have a government that governs least and yet still expect them to do the big things you want them to do, is all I'm trying to say, and if I'm not making that all that clear, I apologize.

(I appreciate the respectful tone, by the way. I sure know I'm not in the mood for endless bickering)
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 12:48 AM   #306
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post

Isn't it funny that only during Obama's term the national GOP has become fixated with the debt? Where was this lockstep opposition to increasing the national debt to power two wars during the last administration?
Legitimate question: because some idiots decided to overlook the massive amount of spending George W did because of partisan politics, we're no longer allowed to care about reducing debt?
__________________
Caleb8844 is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 07:50 AM   #307
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb8844 View Post
Legitimate question: because some idiots decided to overlook the massive amount of spending George W did because of partisan politics, we're no longer allowed to care about reducing debt?
"Some idiots"? It wasn't just "some idiots" not one conservative in here was speaking up about it in here, I don't recall any speaking up on right wing media, why do you think that is? Don't you find it ironic that the Tea Party waited till Bush left office to form? I mean let's fact their first protest was for TARP, which happened under Bush, yet you wouldn't know it from looking or listening to the first protest. It was all about Obama even though he hadn't enacted anything they were complaining about.

So what does that tell you?

You're all opportunistic? You're all partisan and pretend not to be? You're all hypocrites? Was it really about race?

^Because this is how the rest of the world sees the right wing of this country. Can you blame them?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-12-2012, 09:53 AM   #308
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
"Some idiots"? It wasn't just "some idiots" not one conservative in here was speaking up about it in here, I don't recall any speaking up on right wing media, why do you think that is? Don't you find it ironic that the Tea Party waited till Bush left office to form? I mean let's fact their first protest was for TARP, which happened under Bush, yet you wouldn't know it from looking or listening to the first protest. It was all about Obama even though he hadn't enacted anything they were complaining about.
I can only speak for me, but I've said repeatedly that I was wrong. I wasn't paying enough attention in my teenage years, and, in hindsight now, would never have supported Iraq and other ventures. I now know better. However, the reverse is applicable to most Democrats. Let's not kid ourselves- they are much more silent on deficits and debt now than they were when Bush was in office. Why is that? I can at least chalk my mistake up to being young and unaware. What's your excuse?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You're all opportunistic? You're all partisan and pretend not to be? You're all hypocrites? Was it really about race?

^Because this is how the rest of the world sees the right wing of this country. Can you blame them?
Hypocrites? Remind me who it was that said, upon obtaining power, "Pay as you go. No new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

But no, I'm sure the rest of the world isn't laughing at idiocy like that at all.
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 01-12-2012, 10:26 AM   #309
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I can only speak for me, but I've said repeatedly that I was wrong. I wasn't paying enough attention in my teenage years, and, in hindsight now, would never have supported Iraq and other ventures. I now know better. However, the reverse is applicable to most Democrats. Let's not kid ourselves- they are much more silent on deficits and debt now than they were when Bush was in office. Why is that? I can at least chalk my mistake up to being young and unaware. What's your excuse?
The way I look at deficits and debt is this way:

Sometimes they are a necessary evil. Are you spending on something of choice or something you think might save the situation?

If you're a family provider and you're in debt; do you allow your kids to eat and have shelter? Do you buy a new car?

Iraq was completly by choice. Stimulus, although handled wrong in many areas, was something that was thought could save the situation. It just didn't save enough of the situation.

But what makes me laugh is that all your heroes, the ones that have shaped your political thinking, they all supported Iraq and Bush's spending(minus one or two things that they were silent on) but NOW say it's out of principal that they don't support all they things they did just four years ago. Where were their prinicipals then? Their principals were lost because the man was white(Beck said it, not me) and had an R next to his name.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-12-2012, 11:01 AM   #310
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 12:53 PM
I was too young during the Bush presidency to really form a lot of opinions, but looking back at everything he did, I consider him one of the worst presidents, economically speaking.

To democrats: do you all think as anything at all should be done about the skyrocketing debt?
__________________
Caleb8844 is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 11:39 AM   #311
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb8844
I was too young during the Bush presidency to really form a lot of opinions, but looking back at everything he did, I consider him one of the worst presidents, economically speaking.

To democrats: do you all think as anything at all should be done about the skyrocketing debt?
When I use the term "you" I don't mean anyone specifically.

Of course debt should be of concern, but at what cost? The republicans in DC are using it as a pawn for political games, they have no real interest in doing anything effective with it during this term.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-12-2012, 11:42 AM   #312
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS

When I use the term "you" I don't mean anyone specifically.

Of course debt should be of concern, but at what cost? The republicans in DC are using it as a pawn for political games, they have no real interest in doing anything effective with it during this term.
I was only using myself as an example because I consider myself a republican.

At what point, if ever, is debt the top concern, at almost all costs? Because personally for me, I think we're swiftly approaching that point.
__________________
Caleb8844 is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 11:51 AM   #313
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:53 PM
do you think raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans is a good way to start to tackle the debt?

how many programs can you cut before you start to see a real increase in human suffering? there are things that government does that *only* government can do, and when we take that away from people -- usually the old, the sick, the poor -- how much suffering do we inflict on people in the name of debt reduction when the real situation might be that what we need is not less spending but more revenue?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 12:12 PM   #314
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb8844

I was only using myself as an example because I consider myself a republican.

At what point, if ever, is debt the top concern, at almost all costs? Because personally for me, I think we're swiftly approaching that point.
If you were a father at what point do you just stop feeding your kids? When is debt more important than the people?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-12-2012, 12:51 PM   #315
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511
do you think raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans is a good way to start to tackle the debt?

how many programs can you cut before you start to see a real increase in human suffering? there are things that government does that *only* government can do, and when we take that away from people -- usually the old, the sick, the poor -- how much suffering do we inflict on people in the name of debt reduction when the real situation might be that what we need is not less spending but more revenue?
I'd be completely okay with raising taxes, maybe even significantly for a period of time, IF it was accompanied by little to no NEW spending. Not even asking the government to cut anything immediately (eventually cuts are necessary, but I understand that cuts can't always be immediate), just asking them not to add to the current spending with new programs.
__________________

__________________
Caleb8844 is offline  
 

Tags
gop, republican

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 01:53 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