Author Topic: There Will Be Blood  (Read 35171 times)

Offline Wise Son

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
  • "intelligent and slightly Black. I'm from the 80s"
    • View Profile
    • My website
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2011, 11:54:47 am »
Of course it is not a bad thing if Democratic leaders think Obama's policies are best for the country, for them to support him and his re-election. Similarly, if Republican leaders believe that it is in the best interest of the country for a Republican President to be elected (who would support, not veto, the legislation of a hopefully Republican Congress), it is noble for them pursue that goal as a top priority.
You keep saying this as if anyone has disagreed with you. There is nothing shocking about ousting the incumbent being a top priority for the opposition. What we are discussing is an opposition that has stated that it is the top priority.

If they had said that their top priority was stopping laws they disagreed with from getting passed,  or something like that, fair enough. They have identified winning an election in 2 years as being more important than, health, education, defence or the economy (not really surprising, seeing as Conservatives tend to do pretty poorly with everything except winning elections in the US and UK  :P).
You see, Wise Son, even here, when "it" comes from Conservatives you call it "hubris" whereas when "it" comes from the Left you call it "not such a bad thing."
Well, the Left have showed far more willingness to compromise than the Right, who have taken advantage of it in many cases, so I don't think they are starting from equivalent positions.
The double standard, now coming from the Left, is really NOT that hard to see here.
Not if that's what you're trying to see.  ;)
Just pointing out the double standard, where similar behavior and/or public statements (regarding removal of the incumbent) are judged very differently depending on whether the actors are Republicans or Democrats.
 
Again, not what anyone has been arguing. We have been discussing the prioritisation of removal of the incumbent.
The opposition to Bush was extreme (in the eyes of Bush supporters) and the opposition to Obama is extreme (in the eyes of Obama supporters). Similarly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Except Bush got most of his most controversial measures passed, almost as formalities, and enjoyed a lot of support from Democrats for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Remember how Obama was one of the few Democratic candidates who could say he opposed the Iraq war? Most of the opposition to Bush didn't get extreme until his second term, when his foreign policy and economic failure was impossible to ignore, to the point where even Republicans didn't want to be associated with him.
I don't think that the quote Curtis provided says anything about the sincerity of the Republican leadership's concern for the welfare of the country. All the quote reveals is that they believe that the election of a Republican President who will take a more Conservative course is critically important to the welfare of the country, for this and future generations.
If that had been what they'd have said, no one would have found it controversial. Too bad they didn't. They said that every aspect of government, and the influence they could have on them as the opposition, and controlling one of the houses, was a lower priority to them than getting back into power.
During the Bush Administration, the right-wing talk radio hosts were blasting the Democratic leadership for not being concerned about the welfare of the country, but only concerned about ousting Bush and electing a Democrat. They referenced quotes from Democratic leaders and obstructionism. Now left-leaning commentators whom you agree with are doing the exact same thing, except of course they are pointing the finger at the Republican leadership.
Except, they were pretty often lying and taking things out of context (come on, you've got Fox News on your team - . This is simply a quote that can be played in context without its meaning changing at all. I'm sorry, but it really isn't the same.

"Children, if you are tired, keep going; if you are hungry, keep going; if you want to taste freedom, keep going."
-Harriet Tubman
http://yo

Offline Wise Son

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
  • "intelligent and slightly Black. I'm from the 80s"
    • View Profile
    • My website
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2011, 12:01:59 pm »
Garrett asked if that meant "endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?"

Said McConnell, "If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him."
Wow, that is one of the most disingenuous statements I've seen for a while. Can the Republicans point out a single issue where Obama has met them halfway, and not still been faced with 'endless, or at least frequent confrontation'?

"Children, if you are tired, keep going; if you are hungry, keep going; if you want to taste freedom, keep going."
-Harriet Tubman
http://yo

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2011, 07:10:33 am »
Wise son, I know you like to practice your rhetorical skills, that you find it fun. But after a while, particularly with a subject such as this, a topic that is really total bullsh*t, I've no patience for the rhetorical gamesmanship. Sometimes, truth-seeking and honesty are better options.

Regarding McConnell's comments, rather than taking quotes out of context, please do the following: Please re-read the material on the tax legislation compromise. And the explanation regarding the rating of "half-true."  Re-read McConnell's explanation of what he said and why (which pretty much comports with the non-objectionable description you suggest, above). Also look to what he said in the actual interview in total, which emphasized the priority to reverse much of what Obama has done, which cannot be done so long as he remains in office. Again, comports with the statement of objectives that you assert is not objectionable, coming from a party out of power.

If you think the #1 Democratic priority during the Bush years was not his ouster and the election of a Democrat to the Presidency, you are suffering from total denial or total amnesia. As are the others who have commented above. That is political reality, in the real world. Whether or not Democrats used the magic words "number one priority" it was clear that during the Bush years, with the demonization of Bush and strong opposition to many of his policies, that Bush's Democratic replacement was the number one priority. For reasons very similar to the Republican reasons surrounding Obama, that the Democrats believed that Bush would not reverse course with respect to executive policy and legislation that they strongly disagreed with.  For heavens sake, the same people who are now outraged at McConnell were, on this very forum, viciously attacking Bush and strongly demanding his ouster. That is why this whole discussion is so asinine.

Boo hoo hoo, shame on a Republican politician for being honest.

I feel like I'm drowning in crocodile tears on this forum. Streaming from the cheeks of Curtis, Reginald, and you. Gurgle gurgle gurgle.


Offline Tanksleyd

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1702
    • View Profile
There Will Be Blood
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2011, 07:29:12 am »
from THE NEW YORK TIMES:

November 22, 2010
There Will Be Blood
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Former Senator Alan Simpson is a Very Serious Person. He must be — after all, President Obama appointed him as co-chairman of a special commission on deficit reduction.

So here’s what the very serious Mr. Simpson said on Friday: “I can’t wait for the blood bath in April. ... When debt limit time comes, they’re going to look around and say, ‘What in the hell do we do now? We’ve got guys who will not approve the debt limit extension unless we give ’em a piece of meat, real meat,’ ” meaning spending cuts. “And boy, the blood bath will be extraordinary,” he continued.

Think of Mr. Simpson’s blood lust as one more piece of evidence that our nation is in much worse shape, much closer to a political breakdown, than most people realize.

Some explanation: There’s a legal limit to federal debt, which must be raised periodically if the government keeps running deficits; the limit will be reached again this spring. And since nobody, not even the hawkiest of deficit hawks, thinks the budget can be balanced immediately, the debt limit must be raised to avoid a government shutdown. But Republicans will probably try to blackmail the president into policy concessions by, in effect, holding the government hostage; they’ve done it before.

Now, you might think that the prospect of this kind of standoff, which might deny many Americans essential services, wreak havoc in financial markets and undermine America’s role in the world, would worry all men of good will. But no, Mr. Simpson “can’t wait.” And he’s what passes, these days, for a reasonable Republican.

The fact is that one of our two great political parties has made it clear that it has no interest in making America governable, unless it’s doing the governing. And that party now controls one house of Congress, which means that the country will not, in fact, be governable without that party’s cooperation — cooperation that won’t be forthcoming.

Elite opinion has been slow to recognize this reality. Thus on the same day that Mr. Simpson rejoiced in the prospect of chaos, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, appealed for help in confronting mass unemployment. He asked for “a fiscal program that combines near-term measures to enhance growth with strong, confidence-inducing steps to reduce longer-term structural deficits.”

My immediate thought was, why not ask for a pony, too? After all, the G.O.P. isn’t interested in helping the economy as long as a Democrat is in the White House. Indeed, far from being willing to help Mr. Bernanke’s efforts, Republicans are trying to bully the Fed itself into giving up completely on trying to reduce unemployment.

And on matters fiscal, the G.O.P. program is to do almost exactly the opposite of what Mr. Bernanke called for. On one side, Republicans oppose just about everything that might reduce structural deficits: they demand that the Bush tax cuts be made permanent while demagoguing efforts to limit the rise in Medicare costs, which are essential to any attempts to get the budget under control. On the other, the G.O.P. opposes anything that might help sustain demand in a depressed economy — even aid to small businesses, which the party claims to love.

Right now, in particular, Republicans are blocking an extension of unemployment benefits — an action that will both cause immense hardship and drain purchasing power from an already sputtering economy. But there’s no point appealing to the better angels of their nature; America just doesn’t work that way anymore.

And opposition for the sake of opposition isn’t limited to economic policy. Politics, they used to tell us, stops at the water’s edge — but that was then.

These days, national security experts are tearing their hair out over the decision of Senate Republicans to block a desperately needed new strategic arms treaty. And everyone knows that these Republicans oppose the treaty, not because of legitimate objections, but simply because it’s an Obama administration initiative; if sabotaging the president endangers the nation, so be it.

How does this end? Mr. Obama is still talking about bipartisan outreach, and maybe if he caves in sufficiently he can avoid a federal shutdown this spring. But any respite would be only temporary; again, the G.O.P. is just not interested in helping a Democrat govern.

My sense is that most Americans still don’t understand this reality. They still imagine that when push comes to shove, our politicians will come together to do what’s necessary. But that was another country.

It’s hard to see how this situation is resolved without a major crisis of some kind. Mr. Simpson may or may not get the blood bath he craves this April, but there will be blood sooner or later. And we can only hope that the nation that emerges from that blood bath is still one we recognize.






xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Ronald "small government" Reagan

Republicans believe in a past that does not exist

It will be interesting to watch them try to re-create what has never existed.

After all these years it will be almost historic to finally see the Republicans in plain sight

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2011, 07:31:53 am »
I feel like I'm drowning in crocodile tears on this forum. Streaming from the cheeks of Curtis, Reginald, and you. Gurgle gurgle gurgle.

Michael, I'm more than a little tired of your theatrics. I, among others, told you what I think and why I think it. I've been done for a couple of pages now yet here you are still making stupid assertions about why I said stuff when I already told you. If you think I'm lying about my motivations, fine, and f*ck you very much. I understand you disagree about the significance of McConnell's statement and I don't care, that's your right. Neither I, Reginald nor Wise Son have questioned your sincerity in the interest of winning an argument and I frankly resent your resorting to that tactic.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2011, 08:04:41 am »
I feel like I'm drowning in crocodile tears on this forum. Streaming from the cheeks of Curtis, Reginald, and you. Gurgle gurgle gurgle.

Michael, I'm more than a little tired of your theatrics. I, among others, told you what I think and why I think it. I've been done for a couple of pages now yet here you are still making stupid assertions about why I said stuff when I already told you. If you think I'm lying about my motivations, fine, and f*ck you very much. I understand you disagree about the significance of McConnell's statement and I don't care, that's your right. Neither I, Reginald nor Wise Son have questioned your sincerity in the interest of winning an argument and I frankly resent your resorting to that tactic.

Curtis, you did not respond to anything of substance that I posted, nor did you explain how you drew the conclusion you drew from the one quote you cited, taken totally out of context, characterized as a "half-truth" by Politico. Now, I get this whining response replete with expletives from you. If this is all you can do, please just go away. God forbid that, with additional information, you might think to reevaluate your position.

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2011, 08:11:37 am »
I feel like I'm drowning in crocodile tears on this forum. Streaming from the cheeks of Curtis, Reginald, and you. Gurgle gurgle gurgle.

Michael, I'm more than a little tired of your theatrics. I, among others, told you what I think and why I think it. I've been done for a couple of pages now yet here you are still making stupid assertions about why I said stuff when I already told you. If you think I'm lying about my motivations, fine, and f*ck you very much. I understand you disagree about the significance of McConnell's statement and I don't care, that's your right. Neither I, Reginald nor Wise Son have questioned your sincerity in the interest of winning an argument and I frankly resent your resorting to that tactic.

Curtis, you did not respond to anything of substance that I posted, nor did you explain how you drew the conclusion you drew from the one quote you cited, taken totally out of context, characterized as a "half-truth" by Politico. Now, I get this whining response replete with expletives from you. If this is all you can do, please just go away. God forbid that, with additional information, you might think to reevaluate your position.

Michael, I told you I was done two pages ago and yet you keep referring to me. I think I will adopt the Redjack position. Don't talk to me or about me and I will do the same. You can't even understand what you did wrong.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

Offline Tanksleyd

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1702
    • View Profile
There Will Be Blood
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2011, 08:21:10 am »
"Tax Cut"

One time a long time ago I said two words to a Republican. The two words had the desired effect and changed the whole course of the conversation to my advantage, to my world...Initially. And though the point of my two words still stand to this day, my fellow Democrats came RUNNING, JUMPING to the defense of the European myth of purity.

"If men were angels there would be no need for government".

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 10459
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2011, 12:59:59 pm »
>>>Tanksleyed
According to lore, there are many kinds of 'malakh' (the Hebrew biblical term for angel), each grouped into a ranking order, for example the cherub(im) and seraph(im) ranked at the top while messenger angels are ranked the bottom.  There are angels of war and angels of mercy. There are literally thousands and thousands of angels for every practical function in this universe depending on the limits of your own imagination. If men were angels, they would still require to be governed in a civil society mainly because of the various tasks set before them.

Offline Wise Son

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
  • "intelligent and slightly Black. I'm from the 80s"
    • View Profile
    • My website
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2011, 02:15:11 pm »
Wise son, I know you like to practice your rhetorical skills, that you find it fun. But after a while, particularly with a subject such as this, a topic that is really total bullsh*t, I've no patience for the rhetorical gamesmanship. Sometimes, truth-seeking and honesty are better options.
Well, Curtis already took this point. I have not been anything but sincere in this discussion. I wouldn't have bothered pursuing the discussion this far just for the sake of rhetoric.

I did re-read the quotes from McConnell, and while there is more nuance, the 'half-true' rating also shows that he said what he said, and those were his choice of words.

Maybe ousting the president is the only way to achieve the goals which he says are the ends he hopes to achieve, but that doesn't really say a lot for your other branches of governemnt now does it? There are surely things that could be done in the meantime, that would therefore be bigger priorities. FOr example, instead of demanding compromise from Democrats, how about offering to compromise and meet them halfway, so that the legislation of the next 2 years is something that might offer something to supporters of both parties?
If you think the #1 Democratic priority during the Bush years was not his ouster and the election of a Democrat to the Presidency, you are suffering from total denial or total amnesia.
In your, as always, humble opinion. I think stopping the US and then the UK and coalition from getting drawn into illegal wars, which pretty much turned out to be the disasters predicted might have been higher for some of them.

That said, you may be onto something. The fact that so many Democrats (and their UK counterparts) cravenly swallowed the lies that the Republicans spread, mainly out of fear of being labelled 'anti-American' and 'unpatriotic', shows that perhaps they were more concerned with future electoral chances than with what was actually the right thing to do.

I think actually, Curtis and Reggie would be willing to conceed that, on this evidence, some Democrats are pretty much as bad as the Republican leadership. Whether it is more honest, or just more arrogant to publically announce that it is your party's official position could be discussed.
Whether or not Democrats used the magic words "number one priority" it was clear that during the Bush years, with the demonization of Bush and strong opposition to many of his policies, that Bush's Democratic replacement was the number one priority.
If you really think that the way Obama and Bush have been treated by the parties opposing them, especially in relation to what they actually did, is equivalent, you're on a loser. Bush had to contribute to a worldwide recession, start 2 illegal wars and set up an illegal internment camp before he got close to the level of criticism Obama got for introducing healthcare and cutting taxes.
For heavens sake, the same people who are now outraged at McConnell were, on this very forum, viciously attacking Bush and strongly demanding his ouster. That is why this whole discussion is so asinine.
I should just point out that none of us are Democratic congressmen or senators though.
I feel like I'm drowning in crocodile tears on this forum. Streaming from the cheeks of Curtis, Reginald, and you. Gurgle gurgle gurgle.
Ouch. Words can hurt, Michael. :'(
These tears are real now.

"Children, if you are tired, keep going; if you are hungry, keep going; if you want to taste freedom, keep going."
-Harriet Tubman
http://yo

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2011, 08:14:11 pm »
Wise Son, taking you at your word (though really I think you do love the rhetorical thing ;)), I believe part of our disagreement may be attributable to the following: (1) perhaps you don't appreciate the power of the Presidential VETO, which can effectively nullify the will of the legislature; and (2) you keep reverting to a discussion of the underlying reasons why a Democrat would strongly oppose Bush (primarily foreign policy, since Bush was not a Small Government Republican and held common views with most Democrats on issues like immigration reform). What appears to be difficult for you to understand is that many Republicans and Conservatives are comparably opposed to the policies of Barack Obama for (what they believe to be) strong reasons, reasons we have extensively discussed on the forum (and not as you've inaccurately and flippantly summarized, above). I am not going to recap every thread we've had critical of Bush or of Obama; for purposes of a fair discussion of the immediate topic, one must accept this as a given (even if one personally disagrees with the Republicans). The immediate topic comprises the following components: Senator McConnell's statements (plural), the claim that the Republican Party places partisan gain above all, and the allegation that persons who make this claim are employing a double standard (given that they don't impose this characterization upon those they agree with).

ASSUMING members of the "out" party have (what they believe to be) compelling reasons to oppose the incumbent President, then of course the defeat of that incumbent becomes the number one priority. To eliminate the destructive power that President wields in the form of his obstructive veto, by replacing him with a member of their own party. Which is why this goal McConnell articulated is completely reasonable, from the perspective of the party that does not reside in the White House.

You speak of compromise, but when certain fundamental goals are wholly disparate, while you can try to work with the other side, realistically the best shot you have to achieve your policy goals for the betterment of the country is to get your own guy elected to the Presidency. There is nothing dastardly in this. Nothing to be ashamed of. It is really the (number one) prerequisite to effective and meaningful CHANGE.  

Because, the truth is, between those who advocate reducing the size of government and those who advocate its vast expansion, the "compromise" always seems to be to increase the size of government (though perhaps not by the amount the Socialist would like to see); we never see the compromise being to shrink the size of government (though not by the amount the Libertarian would like to see). Agreeing that the government grow at a slightly slower per capita rate than those furthest on the Left would like is in reality no compromise at all; it is just creeping Socialism. Which is what has gotten us into this fiscal mess to begin with. Though, of course, liberal/leftist Democrats would disagree and would view it as their number one priority to keep Obama in the White House in order to further their policy objectives. Fair enough. Nothing shameful in that either. That's just democracy.

As for the rest, lemme help. Here y'all go ...  ;D



« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 05:00:25 am by michaelintp »

Offline Tanksleyd

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1702
    • View Profile
There Will Be Blood
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2011, 08:35:33 pm »
In spite of our most bloodiest war the true political difference that has existed since Jefferson of Virginia and Adams of Boston is the same difference between the Urban and the Rural.

In large part, IMHO, this Jefferson/Adams difference lead directly to the Civil War and is still a part of today's American political dichotomy. Political anger is nothing new in America as Alexander Hamilton is but one of many examples that Jefferson and Adams were not the best of friends.

Still though in the Urban/Rural "battle" that has existed since before the 14th Amendment it is Urban America that is slowly winning the war with Medicare Part D serving as ample proof.

Yes it is Rural Hillbillies, so impressed by the big words of FoxNews, who have ripped themselves away from Jerry Springer long enough to vote leaving their Urban brethern rocking to the beat. What these Hillbillies have failed to realize though through the Civil War, Social Security and Medicare Part D is that Urban America is setting the beat, often without lifting a finger.

ie: Watch closely as the Republicans try to re-create the myth of Ronald "small government" Reagan...We're likely to end up with Medicare Part E.


« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 01:42:36 am by Tanksleyd »

Offline Wise Son

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
  • "intelligent and slightly Black. I'm from the 80s"
    • View Profile
    • My website
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2011, 03:07:26 pm »
Wise Son, taking you at your word (though really I think you do love the rhetorical thing ;)), I believe part of our disagreement may be attributable to the following: (1) perhaps you don't appreciate the power of the Presidential VETO, which can effectively nullify the will of the legislature;
I do understand its significance, but it seems that the Republicans have done a pretty good job of making their will felt. None of Obama's legislation has gone through in the form that they would have without opposition, to the point where I have heard suggestions that he is weak or even more sympathetic to Republican attitudes than most of his party (I'm not suggesting that I agree with that, though).
and (2) you keep reverting to a discussion of the underlying reasons why a Democrat would strongly oppose Bush ...What appears to be difficult for you to understand is that many Republicans and Conservatives are comparably opposed to the policies of Barack Obama for (what they believe to be) strong reasons, reasons we have extensively discussed on the forum (and not as you've inaccurately and flippantly summarized, above).
Well, then I have to feel that you have not been reading what I have written, or interpreted it in a very different way to how it was intended. I do understand that many Republicans and conservatives have sincere problems with Obama's politics and legislations. They do see his policies as dangerous to America and the world's well-being. Hell, you have been part of my having this understanding.

They are wrong, of course, but I do not doubt that they feel just as strongly as others felt about the wars, the deregulation and the economic mismanagement of the Bush administration.

On a personal note, I also don't doubt your sincerity. I think you have more than many politicians.
The immediate topic comprises the following components: Senator McConnell's statements (plural), the claim that the Republican Party places partisan gain above all, and the allegation that persons who make this claim are employing a double standard (given that they don't impose this characterization upon those they agree with).
Fair enough, although there is also the claim that the characterization is equally applicable to both sides.
ASSUMING members of the "out" party have (what they believe to be) compelling reasons to oppose the incumbent President, then of course the defeat of that incumbent becomes the number one priority.
See, you state this as a given, when it isn't necessarily so. Priorities change over time, so the top priority immediately after an election, halfway and in between may be different. Any decent democracy allows for the opposition to have an influence between elections, so surely the winning of the next election cannot reasonably be the number 1 priority at every point.

The closer to the election, I would accept that the more the winning of that election becomes a priority. My problem is that stating it as the number 1 priority at the beginning of a governemntal term seems to preclude any constructive contribution from the party. Hence their characterisation as 'the party of "no"'. McConnell's further statements back this up: He talks about Obama compromising with the Republicans, but not about the Republicans being the first to suggest any compromises.
You speak of compromise, but when certain fundamental goals are wholly disparate, while you can try to work with the other side, realistically the best shot you have to achieve your policy goals for the betterment of the country is to get your own guy elected to the Presidency.
Fair enough, but the Republicans should try to offer some compromise instead of demanding it, and then these statements would seem more reasonable. The closest I can think of that they have come to offering compromise was during the health care debate, where they made the generous offer of, "scrap it, start again in a year, and we might support it, although we make no promises." ::)
There is nothing dastardly in this. Nothing to be ashamed of. It is really the (number one) prerequisite to effective and meaningful CHANGE.  
Ah, conservatives creating effective and meaningful change! You mensch, that was a good one. ;) That said, you didn't specify effective and meaningful change for the better...

Because, the truth is, between those who advocate reducing the size of government and those who advocate its vast expansion, the "compromise" always seems to be to increase the size of government (though perhaps not by the amount the Socialist would like to see); we never see the compromise being to shrink the size of government (though not by the amount the Libertarian would like to see).
Really? 'Cause I have a worldwide recession, caused or at least contributed to by deregulation, and the lack of state oversight in banking, to offer as counter-evidence. What are you referring to? I would also differentiate between increasing the size of the role of the state ( a qualitative change, such as making steps towards a national healthcare system), and increasing the size of the beauraucracy / spending of the state (a quantitative change).
Agreeing that the government grow at a slightly slower per capita rate than those furthest on the Left would like is in reality no compromise at all; it is just creeping Socialism.
Interesting characterisation of the situation, and definition of compromise, there.
Which is what has gotten us into this fiscal mess to begin with.
L
O
L
Though, of course, liberal/leftist Democrats would disagree and would view it as their number one priority to keep Obama in the White House in order to further their policy objectives.
No one who is primarily concerned about winning elections adopts Left wing or too openly liberal positions in the US (and increasingly in the UK - it was a genuine shock when the principled and openly left-wing MP Diane Abbott reached the final stages of Labour's leadership contest). I think I did conceed that there are plenty (the career politicians, who tend to cluster around the middle, or slightly right of center of both sides) who do place more priority on elections than on the policies they run on.
Fair enough. Nothing shameful in that either. That's just democracy.
Actually, I think that is everything that is wrong with our democracy. It is shameful. It is shameful to enter politics just to win elections, and it is shameful to govern or be in opposition with your sights set primarily on the next election.

In fact, isn't it a bit circular?
"If we want to get our policies enacted, we need to win the election. If that means putting all of our policies on the back-burner, fair enough, as it is worth it to get elected. And once we are elected, we need to make re-election our main aim, so we need to put that aim ahead of the policies we put on the back-burner until we got elected. And once we're re-elected........"

"Children, if you are tired, keep going; if you are hungry, keep going; if you want to taste freedom, keep going."
-Harriet Tubman
http://yo

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #43 on: January 06, 2011, 11:21:19 pm »
There is nothing dastardly in this. Nothing to be ashamed of. It is really the (number one) prerequisite to effective and meaningful CHANGE.  

Ah, conservatives creating effective and meaningful change! You mensch, that was a good one. ;) That said, you didn't specify effective and meaningful change for the better...



Hahahahaha!


In fact, isn't it a bit circular?
"If we want to get our policies enacted, we need to win the election. If that means putting all of our policies on the back-burner, fair enough, as it is worth it to get elected. And once we are elected, we need to make re-election our main aim, so we need to put that aim ahead of the policies we put on the back-burner until we got elected. And once we're re-elected........"


If that is in fact what happens, I wholly agree with you that it can be a problem. I guess the alternative point of view is that this is what in fact encourages "compromise" and a move toward the middle. But ... I symphatize with your sentiment. 

But still, honey, I'm pullin' the blanket in the opposite direction! ;)

All in all, thank you for your above response, Wise Son. Nice to actually feel like were talking to one another, not over one another.

Now its beddie time. Sweet dreams.

Offline Tanksleyd

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1702
    • View Profile
There Will Be Blood
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2011, 02:31:45 am »
No blood in the Red state of Georgia. Faced with a loss of an entitlement the great Republicans of Georgia want to raise taxes.

Classic!!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/07hope.html?hp

(Without lifting a finger)