Obama General Discussion, vol. 3 - Page 12 - 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 06-24-2011, 12:54 PM   #166
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I do agree with you that the second part of the statement is not serious--that liberals believe the opposite.
And this is all I meant. I just didn't want to cut his sentence in half, but maybe I should have.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-24-2011, 08:11 PM   #167
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You ARE NOT a serious conservative if you believe this statement is true. You are nothing but a Fox News/Hannity type of conservative, one that has been manipulated by perversions of information.
Ease off on the the throttle there, BVS.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 06-25-2011, 02:05 PM   #168
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I do agree with you that the second part of the statement is not serious--that liberals believe the opposite.
Except so many do. Back during the budget talks to keep the government from shutting down would you like some quotes from serious liberals in congress over a meager 40 billion dollars of cut from a 3.8 Trillion dollar budget and a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit? Well I'm providing a few anyway because they backup my statement.

“when it comes to health and education, Republicans put women and children last.” Nancy Pelosi

Speaking at the rally, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said she was "stunned" and "angry" that House Republicans are "willing to shutdown the government, take people’s paychecks away from them, because they want to deny women access to health care in this country."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blasted a House Republican proposal to cut $32 billion from 2011 spending levels as "draconian" and "unworkable."

During his budget speech President Obama said "poor children," "children with autism" and "kids with disabilities" would be left "to fend for themselves."

“I went through this as co-chair of the Arts Caucus. In 1994, people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts, Louise Slaughter (D, NY) said, “now they’re here to kill women.” Slaughter added that the Republican proposal to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding reminded her of the Nazi Party. “You are allowed to have an abortion if you’ve been raped or it’s a matter of incest. However, you have to keep a receipt,” Slaughter said. “Did you know that? It’s sort of like an old German Nazi movement: show me your papers.”

The budget bill H.R. 1 was called "mean-spirited bill" and "extreme" over and over. Nazi's, draconian, anti-woman just over 40 Billion dollars!!

And I won't even bring up the "throw granny over the cliff" rhetoric that Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals have met.

There most certainly are serious liberals who feel it is the governments duty to provide retirement, healthcare, housing, transportation, education and food for more and more citizens. In fact, they label them as "rights" and "moral obligations." And become very, very anti-pro-choice when alternatives are suggested.

Quote:
I think the goal should be efficient and effective government that enables people to live the lives they choose and keeps the people safe. This is not necessarily "big"or "small" government.
Exactly, a government that protects life and liberty above all else. Not one that assumes the role of the great benefactor.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-25-2011, 03:15 PM   #169
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
And I won't even bring up the "throw granny over the cliff" rhetoric that Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals have met.

will Obama's death panels decide when it's time to throw granny over the cliff?



Quote:
There most certainly are serious liberals who feel it is the governments duty to provide retirement, healthcare, housing, transportation, education and food for more and more citizens. In fact, they label them as "rights" and "moral obligations."
i can't think of a single one of these things that most civilized nations don't consider to be a right/obligation. i assume you enjoy your weekends, INDY, you realize those were something that serious liberals fought for and won for you. i assume you'll collect your social security when you're at retirement age? i assume you'll ride the Metro or the Subway in DC or NYC? i assume that even if you drive you really appreciate the fact that there is public transportation because what if all those people who use it were forced to buy cars and drive everywhere making your commute impossible? i assume you enjoy the food that was grown for you in places like Indiana thanks to government grants to farms that were then transported to you more cheaply thanks to the government keeping oil artificially cheap and then inspecting that food for you so you don't die of e-coli?

it amazes me the contempt that right wingers have for their fellow human beings.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-25-2011, 04:06 PM   #170
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: 06:07 PM
INDY, I think the problem really goes back to this quote though. You've created a false dichotomy here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

As a serious conservative I believe the less people dependant on government the better while the statist (modern liberal) believes the opposite. That our compassion is measured by the largess of our entitlement programs.
The opposite of less people dependent on government is more people dependent on government the better which is not quite the same as "our compassion is measured by the largesse of our entitlement programs" or more to the point in reference to the complaints of the Democrats in congress the largesse of our entitlement programs to those that NEED them.

The fundamental disagreement between left and right--and I concede there is a fundamental disagreement--is over what this statement means:

Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I think the goal should be efficient and effective government that enables people to live the lives they choose and keeps the people safe. This is not necessarily "big"or "small" government.
Irvine did a good job I think of articulating the liberal vision of what efficient and effective government is. My issue is when conservatives distort or intentionally misrepresent the intentions of liberals rather than making the more honest case that liberals simply have different ideas about what efficient and effective government means. For them protecting life and liberty means having that social safety net in place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

There most certainly are serious liberals who feel it is the governments duty to provide retirement, healthcare, housing, transportation, education and food for more and more citizens. In fact, they label them as "rights" and "moral obligations." And become very, very anti-pro-choice when alternatives are suggested.
Let me go with you for a moment on this point. Let's agree that the government is currently providing too much largesse to people who don't need it. Wouldn't it make sense then for those of us that don't need the handouts to start demanding that the government stop giving them to us? Certainly this is much less self-serving then complaining about the poor on welfare? What about a conservative movement to allow middle class folks like ourselves to opt out of social security if we like--to keep that money in our paychecks and receive no social security payment when retire, no eligibiltiy for medicare.

What are some other ways that those of us who don't need government help could start weaning themselves from the bureaucratic teat?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-26-2011, 01:27 PM   #171
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i can't think of a single one of these things that most civilized nations don't consider to be a right/obligation.
I'm sure you've heard of FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights. The government would guarantee:
Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security

It was in the last Michael Moore movie. Shock!!, he thought it was a good idea arguing as you do that "civilized nations" have a duty to do so. But of course these are services, not rights, and to guarantee them to one citizen requires involuntary servitude of other citizens. Do you feel any one individual has a right to demand the wages, time or resources of another party?

Quote:
i assume you enjoy your weekends, INDY, you realize those were something that serious liberals fought for and won for you. i assume you'll collect your social security when you're at retirement age? i assume you'll ride the Metro or the Subway in DC or NYC? i assume that even if you drive you really appreciate the fact that there is public transportation because what if all those people who use it were forced to buy cars and drive everywhere making your commute impossible? i assume you enjoy the food that was grown for you in places like Indiana thanks to government grants to farms that were then transported to you more cheaply thanks to the government keeping oil artificially cheap and then inspecting that food for you so you don't die of e-coli?
Strawman. I said in an earlier post I don't mind efficient, accountable government and specifically mentioned food regulations and large public works.
Quote:
it amazes me the contempt that right wingers have for their fellow human beings.
Really? I would never accuse left-wingers of contempt for their fellow human beings despite the atrocious, dangerous, teacher union controlled, public schools that fail so many of our young people in Democratic run big cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and D.C.
Despite, as Walter Williams famously said, "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.”
Despite the record high unemployment of inner city youths because of nonsensical minimum wage laws.
Or despite the spiritual and moral decay of wasted young lives strung along by government dependency.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-26-2011, 01:51 PM   #172
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
The opposite of less people dependent on government is more people dependent on government the better which is not quite the same as "our compassion is measured by the largesse of our entitlement programs" or more to the point in reference to the complaints of the Democrats in congress the largesse of our entitlement programs to those that NEED them.
Ive heard it since 1981 and we'll hear it again with the debt ceiling debate. Any cuts to these programs will be called "mean-spirited and extreme" by serious liberals.
"Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence." You can guess who said that and I can tell you who would never say that.

Quote:
Irvine did a good job I think of articulating the liberal vision of what efficient and effective government is. My issue is when conservatives distort or intentionally misrepresent the intentions of liberals rather than making the more honest case that liberals simply have different ideas about what efficient and effective government means. For them protecting life and liberty means having that social safety net in place.
Well, you have to go alone with the stereotype of conservatives as mean and heartless. We aren't against safety nets, we just believe many times other entities can provide that net with more compassion, less cost and with greater long term outcomes than can the far off federal government. We also, as the bumper sticker went, know the difference between providing a safety net and providing a hammock.

Quote:
Let me go with you for a moment on this point. Let's agree that the government is currently providing too much largesse to people who don't need it. Wouldn't it make sense then for those of us that don't need the handouts to start demanding that the government stop giving them to us? Certainly this is much less self-serving then complaining about the poor on welfare? What about a conservative movement to allow middle class folks like ourselves to opt out of social security if we like--to keep that money in our paychecks and receive no social security payment when retire, no eligibiltiy for medicare.

What are some other ways that those of us who don't need government help could start weaning themselves from the bureaucratic teat?
See, we could work together on so many things. I absolutely agree about corporate welfare, the coziness of big government and big business (crony capitalism) and subsidies. These however, along with burdensome regulations, are a direct result of concentrating more and more power in Washington D.C. It's a tragedy that so many companies--instead of working on innovations, expanding and marketing--are concentrating more and more resources on tax lawyers and government lobbyists. The famous example being Microsoft that had no federal lobbyists until they found themselves slapped with an antitrust suit. Now they spend a bundle on Washington lobbyists.

Exempt from the effects of this recession are lobbying firms and realty agents in Washington D.C.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-26-2011, 03:04 PM   #173
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Really? I would never accuse left-wingers of contempt for their fellow human beings despite the atrocious, dangerous, teacher union controlled, public schools that fail so many of our young people in Democratic run big cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and D.C.
Despite, as Walter Williams famously said, "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.”
Despite the record high unemployment of inner city youths because of nonsensical minimum wage laws.
Or despite the spiritual and moral decay of wasted young lives strung along by government dependency.
What are conservatives proposing that would improve inner-city schools? I'm honestly curious, as I live in a state where conservatives are trying hard to cut education funding.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 06-26-2011, 03:39 PM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
What are conservatives proposing that would improve inner-city schools? I'm honestly curious, as I live in a state where conservatives are trying hard to cut education funding.
Bring accountability through testing and competition to the education monopoly through charter schools and voucher programs. 30 years of throwing money at the problem has grown the bureaucracy at the Dept of Education and empowered the teachers' unions but has none little to educate children.

Watch the film Waiting for "Superman."
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-26-2011, 04:49 PM   #175
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Didn't we try that with No Child Left Behind, and didn't that fail miserably? I think you need to watch Season 4 of The Wire.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say monopoly. Do you mean that you think the government shouldn't provide education, and that it should all be private schools that compete? Do you mean that you want the government to provide different types of education that compete against each other?

Education is not business. We can't treat it like it is.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 06-26-2011, 04:57 PM   #176
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: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Ive heard it since 1981 and we'll hear it again with the debt ceiling debate. Any cuts to these programs will be called "mean-spirited and extreme" by serious liberals.
"Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence." You can guess who said that and I can tell you who would never say that.
Well, it's verifiable who said it. It's certainly not verifiable who wouldn't say it. That's a matter of opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Well, you have to go alone with the stereotype of conservatives as mean and heartless. We aren't against safety nets, we just believe many times other entities can provide that net with more compassion, less cost and with greater long term outcomes than can the far off federal government.
Let's elaborate on that. Provide an example of a government safety net that could by other entitites that meet the criteria of "more compassion, less cost, and greater long term outcomes." Also, I would never say that conservatives as a rule are mean and heartless. Some of my best friends are conservatives . I do think the conservative ideology, especially of the sort espoused in the media, is often mean and heartless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
See, we could work together on so many things. I absolutely agree about corporate welfare, the coziness of big government and big business (crony capitalism) and subsidies. These however, along with burdensome regulations, are a direct result of concentrating more and more power in Washington D.C. It's a tragedy that so many companies--instead of working on innovations, expanding and marketing--are concentrating more and more resources on tax lawyers and government lobbyists. The famous example being Microsoft that had no federal lobbyists until they found themselves slapped with an antitrust suit. Now they spend a bundle on Washington lobbyists.

Exempt from the effects of this recession are lobbying firms and realty agents in Washington D.C.
No argument here. But the point is I don't hear people arguing about how their own personal government benefits should be cut (Remember the Tea Party signs: "Get the government's hands off of my medicare" or something to that effect), just how Other people's benefits should be cut. The only people I've ever heard quoted as saying they could do without government largesse is rich liberals who claim their okay with paying more taxes.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-26-2011, 06:54 PM   #177
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,430
Local Time: 03:07 PM
INDY it sounds like you're making a federalist argument with "a direct result of concentrating more and more power in Washington D.C.", but you need to explain why on earth one would expect different results WRT eliminating corporate welfare and market deforming subsidies by devolving power to the state level where it would seem each individual mega-company has even more influential power than at the federal level by being the largest fish in a small pond. Ford or Microsoft can steam roll the election of a local representative in Detroit or Redmond in a way that is, if not eliminated, reduced at a level that can have Toyota, Google, or the Sierra Club serving as counterweights.

And retaining some semblance of the current level of federal transparency would be an issue as well; the internet revolution has seen a massive erosion of newspapers with state level political coverage. Waving a wand and granting the states +1 influence guarantees, in the short term at least, massive opportunities for corporate corruption.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 06-26-2011, 08:08 PM   #178
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
he thought it was a good idea arguing as you do that "civilized nations" have a duty to do so. But of course these are services, not rights, and to guarantee them to one citizen requires involuntary servitude of other citizens.
i can agree with the distinction between rights vs. services, but "involuntary servitude"? is that what you call taxes? you realize that without said involuntary servitude in some form you'd have no services at all.

Quote:
Do you feel any one individual has a right to demand the wages, time or resources of another party?
yes, the government does in order to provide the services necessary for civilization to it's citizens. human beings need ways to collectively organize, as we have done for thousands of years.

it actually is what Jesus would have wanted.



Quote:
Strawman. I said in an earlier post I don't mind efficient, accountable government and specifically mentioned food regulations and large public works.

what about health care?


Quote:
Really? I would never accuse left-wingers of contempt for their fellow human beings despite the atrocious, dangerous, teacher union controlled, public schools that fail so many of our young people in Democratic run big cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and D.C.
inner city schools have bigger problems than teacher's unions. much, much bigger problems.


Quote:
Despite, as Walter Williams famously said, "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.”
so one quote makes it true?



Quote:
Or despite the spiritual and moral decay of wasted young lives strung along by government dependency.

what does this mean?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-26-2011, 09:39 PM   #179
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: 06:07 PM
^Yes, I feel that INDY's wandering into hyperbole a bit.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-26-2011, 10:20 PM   #180
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i can agree with the distinction between rights vs. services, but "involuntary servitude"? is that what you call taxes? you realize that without said involuntary servitude in some form you'd have no services at all.
So you feel a person with no insurance has a right to walk into a hospital; get lab work, physician care, medications and possibly a room and meals--for free? And that is paid for by others or provided pro bono? If he is turned away can he sue for having his right to health care violated? That is what I mean by indentured servitude. One person forces another person to serve him. The exercise of true rights, such as those in our Constitution or natural rights, do not diminish those held by another.

Quote:
Yes, the government does in order to provide the services necessary for civilization to it's citizens. human beings need ways to collectively organize, as we have done for thousands of years.

it actually is what Jesus would have wanted.
I recognize the constitutional power of governments to levy taxes. But for traditional, constitutional roles. Not income redistribution for example.

Quote:
inner city schools have bigger problems than teacher's unions. much, much bigger problems.
And which political party has been in charge of most urban governments for decades? See below answer.
Quote:
so one quote makes it true?
No. The stats showing the number of black children living in a two adult family for the years prior to 1960 and the number today certainly makes for a strong argument.

"If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that . . . too many fathers . . . are . . . missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. . . . We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled—doubled—since we were children. We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."
--Barack Obama 2008

What he doesn't, what liberals are in denial about and can't say, is that too many fathers are missing because the government has stepped in to assume their role as provider and popular culture now provides the role models. You may not admit a cause and effect but there is no denying the ensuing negative social pathologies.

Thanks for the discussion by the way. I really think most Americans have the best intentions when these programs are introduced. It's the hostility to admit failure or even subjectively review these programs that frustrates me. And when there is such an acknowledgement the only acceptable answer seems to be... they aren't working because we haven't spent enough money!! That and "Why do hate poor people?" of course.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

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 06:07 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