Largely conservative judges who were preceded by largely liberal judges who were preceded by largely conservative..... Such is the nature of this country - politics swings back and forth, always has, always will. The court leans somewhat to the right currently. After 2 terms of Obama, and a few supreme court selections from the democrats, it will lean slightly left. I've got no problem with that - it's how we've maintained our balance and overall freedom for 200 years. All three branches go from right to left and back again. Neither side maintains total control for long, and over the course of generations we stay somewhere in the middle. Works for me. Take the long view - it's a lot more relaxing.

 

Please stick to the case at hand - let's go back to the specific case Stumbler cited. "When someone says that what Obama is proposing for health care reform is socialism they should be required to prove that. If they can't the lie is corrected and they lose their privilege to be on the air." I say that the cited statement is opinion, protected by the 1st amendment. What do you say? Don't change the subject.

 

The ability to seperate Government Assistance from Government Control.

 

Many of the concerns mentioned above could be dealt with relatively quickly and constructively by dealing with the core issue that underlies them all - our fiscal and monetary system and policies.

They are obviously deeply flawed and unable to support our current processes without a vast amount of smoke, mirrors and other accounting sleight-of-hand. We are a nation that is truly kidding ourselves about our so-called "wealth".

Fix the foundation of the economy, and you remove alot of the motivation for the corruption and deceit, you can fund social security in perpetuity (although if we really fixed the system, we wouldn't even need the damn program), you could scale a defense budget that made sense, pot being legal or illegal would be irrelevant, the IRS wouldn't be necessary and you could fund universal health care (and lots of other sorely needed "universal" programs).

Fighting over how to squeeze productivity out of the current economy and who's going to get what scraps that might remain is horribly counter-productive in my opinion . . . but I get why nobody wants to talk about, much less do anything about, the money system debacle - it's just not very sexy

 

I'm going to put it this way. That may have been part of your conversation with stumbler, but I never addressed it one way or another because I didn't feel it was necessary. Therefore I stand firm that the statement you now wish to discuss was in fact not a part of this current conversation.

I am still unsure how you see me as his defender. He and I agree on some issues, but certainly that statement is of nefarious argumentative quality whether or not the ideal behind it is valid. As to whether or not the ideal is valid: Certainly in broad terms we can agree that intentional deception of the public is a bad thing, regardless of who is doing the deceiving.

Whether or not stumbler's example is a in fact a case of deception, or an un-educated opinion isn't really relevant to what I'm trying to say.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. (and that's how I differ from a libertarian, by the way.) I suspect that most people don't talk about it because it's incredibly complex, and nearly impossible to find a fix that any majority will agree on. Otherwise..

 

Actually, I agree that this balance is a good thing, and certainly wouldn't insist that all the judges to sit on the supreme court have been conservative. That would have been a stupid assertion, had I made it.

 

And in all of that, you still didn't answer the question. How wonderfully deceptive.

 

. . . and, as long as that tendency remains, the likelihood of any of those other problems finding sustainable solutions is close to nil. :-|

Just a reminder, I warned you all back in October '09 about the rampant inflation that was headed our way if the Fed kept doing what they do - prepare to have 15%-50% of the "value" of your money eroded in the next 3-5 years.

. . . the proverbial frogs in slowly boiling water.

 

Well, first off. I'm simply not inclined to, since it was never a part of our discussion. I think I made that clear. I am not discussing my feelings on that quote, because I don't need to derail our conversation from the point I made at the beginning. I'm not making an assertion that someone is defending a point that they clearly were not.

Furthermore, I will say (and already have said, in so many words) that the quoted bit from stumbler was basically not worth the ones and zeros it's being carried on, regardless of my opinion on the matter.

Finally, I think it's clear that some of the policies that are put forward by Obama, are in fact socialist, by some definitions of the word. However, I will say that it seems to me to be clear that the word is being used by pundits to refer to Merriam Webster's definition 2a, and also to evoke the stigma associated with the word since the cold war. Again, I do not see how your quote of stumbler or my feelings on it are relevant to any of my assertions, which follow:

Now I am going to make another assertion. You have not actually adressed a single one of my assertions, except the assertion that I am not on stumbler's side, which I only made, because you made the implication that I was. Now who exactly is carefully dodging the point?


Why must I be aligned with stumbler to believe that human corruption is the root of the problem, and that neither side of the aisle has the answers? Do you even care what I said in the first place, or are you just looking for a lexical sparring match?

Also, I don't see anything deceptive about my saying I wouldn't answer a question, because I didn't feel it was relevant. It was right out there, no smoke and mirrors subject change, or personal attacks like some people.

For fuck's sake, I'm practically on your side and you're attacking me because of the words "I agree" followed by a carefully written qualifying statement. Why does everyone insist on shooting themselves in the damned foot all the damned time?

 

Closed borders, no more import cars made or brought into the US, no more ACLU, and no more deficit spending.

Hallelujah!

 

We need immigrants or many of the high ranking jobs would not be filled. However I think that we need to cap immigration laws at a lower number.

I think that drugs can be decriminalized if done in the proper way several countries have been successful in doing this though it would be hard.

I believe that the top 10% of the world or maybe even more should have to give a percentage to the poor. However these people must be trying to better their life by working or trying to save money. There needs to be proof that they are not lazy or using it on drugs / alcohol.

All children until finished with college should have to complete community service while in school every other week for a minimum of 2 hours.

Minimum Wage needs to be at a higher amount so families with one or two children could actually live off of it and not be struggling weekly.

I do believe in universal health care for all.

Prison systems need to be looked at and the system needs to be redone. Are jails are a breeding grown for illegal activities and do not help people to better themselves. People need to have assistant to good doctors and staff. They need to be going to rehab instead of jail. there needs to be programs to help them be successful once they are out of jail.

 

I think what would be good for America is if we stopped "helping" other countries, and started helping our own people.

Also if we really need taxes, let's have them go towards something super awesome. National Puppy and Cupcake Day. Everybody in America is entitled to receiving a puppy and a box of cupcakes from the government. I love puppies and cupcakes.

 

Certainly worth a try. I love cupcakes, but I'll have to get a kitten instead of a puppy. See, I live alone in an apartment. A kitty would be good.

 

Me too, but I just can't eat a whole one. (sorry McNoo)

 

It always amuses me, when Republicans think that their way of thinking is somehow superior to the "other side", when it's obvious that all political systems are equally flawed, because they're created by human beings, who are themselves, flawed.

To digress slightly from the point made here, but... swinging back and forth from one extreme to the other, never finding a "middle ground" is a good thing? Strike me that, without that middle ground, you're always going to have at least half the population of a country fuming at the way things are run - because both viewpoints are extreme, and opposite. Look how the republican politicians are point-blank refusing to help, aid, or back Obama in any way, even considering the financial straits the US is in. Is that either sensible, or wise of them, do you think... to shut themselves out of the game, when they could be involved and making an actual difference to the way things are done?

Truth be told, it would make considerably more sense for both political parties to discuss the best way forward, but with two such extreme viewpoints, that's like getting Israel and Palestine to agree on something. Which is where the political system breaks down, and it becomes little more than, "I'm right, and you're wrong, so shut the hell up."

That, needless to say, achieves absolutely nothing of use, note or value, politically. Well, unless you're a radio DJ, that is. You can make a pretty good living out of it then.

That's okay... I like humans, but I couldn't eat a whole one either. Well, not unless they were covered in chocolick... :mrgreen:

Bye for now - Fluffy McNoo.

 

That would be nice, were it possible to determine what the middle ground is. Humans being humans, agreement on the best way will never be possible. That's the glory and the agony of democracy. It certainly does look messy and inefficient. But yet, when the pendulum swings from one side to the other, the tanks don't roll, power is handed over peacefully and usually with a measure of grace. Over centuries, it all evens out. It really ain't so bad now - in the 19th century one congressman almost beat another to death with his cane on the house floor.

P.S. Hell, we can't even agree in here - how do you expect human beings to agree on how to run a nation? As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst possible form of government - with the exception of all of the others."

 

*eyes twinkle* Oddly enough, I feel that there is a middle ground between the two extremes. Think about it; Both parties represent the extreme end of a viewpoint. Black and white. After several hundreds years, you've got two parties that agree on little or nothing - except maybe when it comes to bombing the hell out of someone.

Other countries have multiple political alliances to choose from at election time. I've known places where some of the parties running are just about "having fun", and haven't a hope of getting anyone into power. Other parties, people go to when they want to protest against something the main contenders for government have done, or haven't done. You could say, there's a political party for all tastes... no matter how strange.

And what happens is really interesting. Because a lot of the extremist viewpoints and beliefs get sidelined into the smaller parties, they never make it as far as the main ones. The people wanting extreme solutions to problems, find an extreme party that agrees with them. They flock to it, and ignore the main parties. Sometimes through protest votes, one less-well-known party might get enough votes to cause a few ripples, but that's about it. Because people have more freedom of choice in who represents them, you don't wind up with that same level of lurching from one extreme, to the other, over and over, century after century.

And that way, multiple parties can discuss things and find a way forward, because all of them share at least a little common ground, somewhere along the line.

Bye for now - Fluffy McNoo.

 

I actually don't think the two major parties in the U.S. represent extreme opposing poles of opinion. They often try to appear that way, but when push comes to shove, they both end up toward the middle. The real threat is that neither party feels bound any more by what the people want -- they're too much in thrall to whoever it is that's paying the bills to get them re-elected. The influence of money in U.S. politics is the antithesis of democracy.

 

*wry laugh* Got to love politics, haven't you Kimmy? It might be the second oldest profession, but it works exactly like the oldest one, on many occasions.

Bye for now - Fluffy McNoo.