Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
That's your false analogy which is why blacks, especially religious blacks, remain opposed to SSM.
You really don't know anything about this. I get embarrassed for you when you bring it up.
That's your false analogy which is why blacks, especially religious blacks, remain opposed to SSM.
This is where Indy responded to me, then remembered he pretends to have me on ignore and would like to carry on the charade
I have no idea what you are talking about.That's your false analogy which is why blacks, especially religious blacks, remain opposed to SSM.
Yes. If you recall, I specifically stated on this forum that I was only going to vote for him if he came out on the right side of that issue. He ended up doing so (which was a pleasant surprise) and I did indeed end up voting for him.Wasn't President Obama that guy up until last year?
The right has become a bit fractured recently in that sense, I suppose.Well it sure isn't an establishment, Karl Rove funded movement either. They don't care for the Tea Party anymore than you do.
Certainly. I am all for overturning Citizens United and getting big money out of politics on both sides. But you are kidding yourself if you think George Soros is as influential as people like the Koch brothers.Does your concern for big money in politics include big left-wing donors like George Soros?
The core belief of the uninformed Tea Party types is that Obama is taking their paychecks and giving them to lazy poor people who won't just go out and get a job, isn't it? Which is way less informed than most of our national leaders, including the president.I would say the core belief of "uninformed" Tea Party types -- that this country is on an unsustainable debt trajectory fueled by reckless spending that can only be reversed by a return to our founding principles of limited government, federalism, private property rights and constitutional republicanism -- is a much more informed understanding of national economics than most of our national leaders... including the president.
Which is completely fair, but is simply not how you have been framing this. You've been acting as if Irvine is saying it's the only factor.
The larger point is that it's not a grassroots movement. It was a movement that was carefully constructed by big right-wing donors like the Koch's with the specific intent of taking the fury of a zestful but uninformed segment of the population with only a basic understand of national economics and direct that fury entirely at the left.
It had a relatively simple strategy: warp the debate on health care into a battle of free markets vs. socialism and then tag every move the left tries to make subsequently as a continuance on that "march to socialism."
I think where Irvine is beating you in this argument has nothing to do with race.
You think it has to do with citizens who had righteous, earned anger over the economic state of the US. What it really has to do with is intelligent political consultants who know how to twist things just right to get their way. They preyed upon the anger of those people and have led them into supporting and voting for policies that go against their own interests.
Certainly. I am all for overturning Citizens United and getting big money out of politics on both sides.
All of that business about private property and limited government and the constitution is a bunch of empty platitudes that they'll cheer for if they hear shouted at a rally.
The core belief of the uninformed Tea Party types is that Obama is taking their paychecks and giving them to lazy poor people who won't just go out and get a job, isn't it?
From Tea Party rallies:
No. It's that they don't have jobs, a lot of them, or are working two and three part-time jobs to make ends meet.
That they can't afford the taxes they pay, and their taxes are going up
I think the entire point I'm trying to make here is that the middle is no longer where the truth lies on a lot of these issues, but that's neither here nor there. Either way, I think you're misrepresenting Irvine's comments a bit and exaggerating the extent to which he's playing fast and loose with any type of comments. But, as I said before, I find that to be an exhausting digression that we should attempt to avoid.Then maybe he should talking about other factors. He's started to do that, after my prodding. So, kudos to him. Irvine -- like several posters in FYM -- tend to play a little fast and loose at times with irresponsible, reductionist comments that read as empirical statements (as we all do). I like to try to even the field a bit, since the middle is usually where the truth lies.
You and INDY love to drop Soros into these conversations. Name one movement even remotely like the Tea Party that Soros has bankrolled and we'll discuss that. Otherwise it's a non-sequitur.You mean like the Soroses of the world who fund similar movements on the left towards the right?
"Feeding a broken system." Is that how you felt about Mitt Romney's health plan? Would you have preferred that the health plan be a single-payer system? Genuinely interested to hear specifically what you think is wrong with the ACA. There's a good chance we agree on what's wrong with it.There's plenty to dislike about the ACA without BECAUSE SOCIALISM. Any rational person with a basic grasp of finances -- or who has gone to a hospital only to find egregious issues with the healthcare system -- is right to be suspicious when the government decides to feed a broken system rather than try to fix it. The Koches certainly haven't given me a check to say that, either.
I wasn't trying to keep score, it was a turn of phrase to try to move the discussion past the race issue. Again, Irvine wasn't saying BECAUSE RACISM begins and ends the discussion. He was simply saying you can't take racism out of it.I didn't realize people were keeping score. In any event, I don't see calling out Irvine for accusing the Tea Party of racism as a win/loss argument. I simply pointed out that Irvine continues to harp on the President's race as a motivating factor for Tea Party anger, and pointed out four separate times in this thread when he's made either the assertion or the implication. He might say that there are other factors that drive opposition to the ACA, but he sure seems to be focused on the President's skin color. I prefer a more intellectually honest evaluation of the situation; BECAUSE RACISM isn't it.
My personal belief is that if anyone willing to engage in a discussion of this detail over fiscal policy is a racist, I wouldn't know one way or the other because they seem engaged and intelligent enough to discuss it. My personal belief is also that conservatives aren't blaming the right people for our fiscal problems. That's what I would like to discuss, rather than the race issue.This again goes back to my earlier question: can anyone on the left in FYM see any reasons why conservatives are legitimately frustrated and concerned by the President and the Congress' fiscal policy these days, or is just because they're mad that there's a black guy in the White House? Because the answer to that question is telling. Is race a factor? I'm willing to agree that it probably is for some constituents. Do I think it's the only or even the primary motivating factor? No, I do not. I've posted links to various articles in that conservative rag the NY Times about concerns related to the costs associated with the ACA; I think that maybe there are some smart conservatives who don't give a shit about the President's race, who do care very much about fiscal policy and have cause for concern. But that's, you know, me.
What is your opposition? That's what I want to know. You keep using the world "telling" to describe our hypothetical responses. I think your answer to my question could be "telling" as well.This post only reiterates my earlier question -- do the posters on the left on this board accept that there is any legitimate opposition to the ACA? Or is all opposition either A) racially-motivated, B) politically manipulated, or C) some horrid intermixing of the two?
I find that this is one issue where most on the left and right agree.Agree.
How does it prove anything about "BECAUSE RACISM"?Wow.
This proves my earlier point even better than BECAUSE RACISM. Sadly. I guess you're right though -- why do these silly uninformed plebes care about the ideals they've been raised with, or the notion that bloated government isn't a great idea, or keeping their houses anyway?
I don't look down my nose at anyone because of their politics. I don't get annoyed when people disagree with me. I get annoyed when people can't tell me why or can't defend a counter-argument. That's the only thing. Believe what you want. I come from a long line of Republicans. I can get along just fine with people who disagree with me. But have something to back it up. That's what I want.No. It's that they don't have jobs, a lot of them, or are working two and three part-time jobs to make ends meet. That they can't afford to stay in their houses, a lot of them. That they already can't afford healthcare, and now they can't afford it even more. That they can't afford the taxes they pay, and their taxes are going up, and the taxes that they are paying aren't actually going to a balanced budget, or to succeeding schools, or sensible economic policy. (Whatever that means, these days.)
I realize it's easier to look down your nose at these people than to engage with them and understand why they're more than a little frustrated. But if you did, I think what you'd find is an awful lot of people trying to do their best, and feeling frustrated that their government seems to be either A) failing them or B) not giving a rip about them one way or the other.
I asked this already and you didn't respond, but if the Tea Party is motivated by lack of jobs, then I can understand anger at the government, which includes President Obama.
Well this is actually a lie.
I think the entire point I'm trying to make here is that the middle is no longer where the truth lies on a lot of these issues, but that's neither here nor there.
Genuinely interested to hear specifically what you think is wrong with the ACA. There's a good chance we agree on what's wrong with it.
The whole notion of "if you want to know what's in the plan you'll have to vote for it to find out" chicanery aside, I've been very clear about the issues, in that it doesn't actually address the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. Not does it address the fact that the quality of public health is already not great in this country, and forcing millions of new customers into the system -- when there are only so many doctors who are already overworked -- will be an additional drain on resources. Again, there are major structural inefficiencies and inequalities in our system that the ACA does not address -- not to mention the fact that the costs will go up dramatically for states in three years, and many states won't be able to afford it.
Affordability is the issue. Romney's plan made sense for MA because it's already a fairly healthy state, with a specific constituency, with the state as the final arbiter in terms of allocations for MedicAid funds. Expanding to a one-size-fits-most national system did nothing to address the fact that the poorest states simply can't afford the plan.
For me it's a simple cost issue, and nothing is being done to address those costs.
BECAUSE HISTORY (a more accurate term) isn't a deflection away from the present economy. It IS an explanation of the vitriol and irrationality of 30ish members of Congress and many of their constituents, none of whom have presented any useful economic proposals, let alone, as had been pointed out, done anything about jobs, jobs, jobs. This is evidence of the fact that BECAUSE THE ECONOMY has no substance behind it, and it's a mask for irrational anti-Obama hatred BECAUSE RACISM.
...
All this, plus the fact that no one on the right cared about debt until 1/21/09. Deficits sure didn't matter to Cheney.
If you'll remember, Bush's first attempt at TARP -- which would have exploded the debt and the deficit -- went down to shocking defeat in both houses of Congress. No one at the time wanted to incur the bill for that one.
The very first real Tea Party gathering was on April 15th, 2009, on tax day, taxes from the PREVIOUS president. YET all the signs and all the speeches were about Obama and Obama's taxes, which he had yet passed one... To me that speaks volumes as to the Tea Party's motivations. I think if you're trying to sweep under the rug the role race plays, then you're purposely being obtuse.
AFL-CIO Labor Group Warns Democrats About Proposed Medicare Cuts: 'Don't Try It... We Will Never Forget'
By Matthew Mientka | Oct 22, 2013
As conservatives praise Congressional Republicans for this month’s government shutdown, liberal leaders on the left likewise sought to lockdown Democrats in the looming fight over entitlement spending in Washington.
“No politician… and I don’t care the political party… will get away with cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. Don’t try it,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a speech to be given in Las Vegas, on Tuesday. “This warning goes double for Democrats,” he said. “We will never forget. We will never forgive. And we will never stop working to end your career.”
Like leaders of the right-wing Tea Party, left-wing labor unions are threatening to punish any bi-partisan dealmakers with political termination. Whereas AFL-CIO leaders had in the past threatened to merely withhold support for such Democrats, Trumka said they would now actively oppose them during future primary races, using massive amounts of political money.
You're projecting again.INDY, like the Tea Party, is showing us the intersection of religion and politics.
... the understanding of politics as a religion, with faith based policies, the refusal of facts and evidence from people who actually know things, and the fundamentalist tendency to shape the entire world through a single moment of clarity, as well as a fervent belief in the inerrancy of the "founding fathers." It's like talking to a bunch of dry drunks.
While debt is important, it is not the most pressing issue facing the economy.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read.It's you that recognizes no power higher than The State, I do. I believe our unalienable rights can only come from God, you have to reject that. My faith preaches personal salvation, you place faith in the collective salvation of a powerful egalitarian government.
You're projecting again.
As a secularist you would conflate political principles with religious orthodoxy. It's you that recognizes no power higher than The State, I do. I believe our unalienable rights can only come from God, you have to reject that. My faith preaches personal salvation, you place faith in the collective salvation of a powerful egalitarian government.
I agree with you that the actual costs of healthcare are insane and that something should be done about it.
...
You think we shouldn't have been doing business with them in the first place? I agree. I wanted a single-payer system.
"Many Republicans searching for something to say in defense of the disastrous shutdown strategy will say President Obama just doesn't try hard enough to communicate with Republicans," Durbin said. "But in a 'negotiation' meeting with the president, one GOP House Leader told the president: "I cannot even stand to look at you.'"
"What are the chances of an honest conversation with someone who has just said something so disrespectful?" the Illinois Democrat added.
You're projecting again.
As a secularist you would conflate political principles with religious orthodoxy. It's you that recognizes no power higher than The State, I do. I believe our unalienable rights can only come from God, you have to reject that. My faith preaches personal salvation, you place faith in the collective salvation of a powerful egalitarian government.
Everyone has a religion. I know what mine is, please don't project yours on me.
The very first real Tea Party gathering was on April 15th, 2009, on tax day, taxes from the PREVIOUS president. YET all the signs and all the speeches were about Obama and Obama's taxes, which he had yet passed one... To me that speaks volumes as to the Tea Party's motivations. I think if you're trying to sweep under the rug the role race plays, then you're purposely being obtuse.