Conservatives vs Liberals

[F3SS]

Part D was a pet of the Republicans. Why didn't you know this brah? Is it because Merc was telling you the opposite and you believed him? I've heard him do that before. But whatever, if Republicans were serious about what they say they'd be willing to make some sacrifices in govt that are important to them. Military, oil, drugs, wars of on terror, DHS, Patriot Act, oil and gas, we can go on and on, and what about those faith based programs? Separation of church and state much, Republicans?

Repeal the DHS along with Obamacare then if the gubmint pills are so damned important. You create the biggest bureaucracy since Lyndon Johnson and the mass ignorance is oh so convenient today when the only problem in the world is Obamacare. Not even a spark of interest from you in the idea either. Nice. But no, we needed more alphabet soup redundancy because the FBI and CIA weren't nearly enough! The alleged problem with the intelligence was too much stovepiping so said the Republicans and we get another massive bureaucracy for the trouble. Nice work. Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds either and hypocrisy has no principle.

First, Merc is not my professor or personal informant. I really have no idea why you think I follow him around like a lost puppy dog. He's never told me squat about Medicare part D and I've only seen it mentioned very rarely. Start some threads on it if it's a big issue. Nobody ever talks about it. If they do then I must not be be seeing those threads. I never claimed to know anything about it one way or the other so don't go assuming I'm some kind of lemming for those you have beef with. Next, I never voted for any of those agencies. I didn't vote back then. I was too busy not caring about politics and man that ignorance was blissful. Further, I do not support the DHS or the Patriot Act. The existing FBI and CIA were plenty sufficient without them. I support separation of church and state but won't go ballistic because God is in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm agnostic and hardly a zealot for the religious right.

Again, I created nothing and am hardly ignorant to it. You assume so much and so broadly. I guarantee you can't find a post where I'm slobbering over the DHS. Perhaps they've done a few good things but nothing the good old FBI couldn't of done if they were in charge. How do you know there isn't a spark of interest from me on the matter? You don't. Again, you assume. Then you assume some more by calling me a hypocritical republican. The fact is that during my time here on UM, and my time as a voter for that matter, republicans have had zero power. The dems have though and it is their policies that are running rampant ATM so of course that's what I'm harping on. I've only ever pulled a straight ticket one time, my first time. You accuse everyone of being blind about themselves while at the same time you hold yourself as a benchmark. You absolutely do and that is hypocrisy and hubris all lumped together.

[Myles]

Bipartisanship is code for evil and stupid.

That is right!

I vote for who I do for a number of reasons. These are pretty much in order of importance to me:

Character

Experience - typically less is better in my opinion

Past record - if they supported obvious BS bills

Issues they hold dear or strongly support

Political party - This could change. If all things are equal between candidates, I go with a third party person or if no third party is available, I go republican.

We really need a balanced rep/dem government if the US system is going to work. You need one to keep the other in check.

[Yamato]

First, Merc is not my professor or personal informant. I really have no idea why you think I follow him around like a lost puppy dog. He's never told me squat about Medicare part D and I've only seen it mentioned very rarely. Start some threads on it if it's a big issue. Nobody ever talks about it. If they do then I must not be be seeing those threads. I never claimed to know anything about it one way or the other so don't go assuming I'm some kind of lemming for those you have beef with. Next, I never voted for any of those agencies. I didn't vote back then. I was too busy not caring about politics and man that ignorance was blissful. Further, I do not support the DHS or the Patriot Act. The existing FBI and CIA were plenty sufficient without them. I support separation of church and state but won't go ballistic because God is in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm agnostic and hardly a zealot for the religious right.

Again, I created nothing and am hardly ignorant to it. You assume so much and so broadly. I guarantee you can't find a post where I'm slobbering over the DHS. Perhaps they've done a few good things but nothing the good old FBI couldn't of done if they were in charge. How do you know there isn't a spark of interest from me on the matter? You don't. Again, you assume. Then you assume some more by calling me a hypocritical republican. The fact is that during my time here on UM, and my time as a voter for that matter, republicans have had zero power. The dems have though and it is their policies that are running rampant ATM so of course that's what I'm harping on. I've only ever pulled a straight ticket one time, my first time. You accuse everyone of being blind about themselves while at the same time you hold yourself as a benchmark. You absolutely do and that is hypocrisy and hubris all lumped together.

"Republicans have had zero power". No Fess. Or else democrats had no power when republicans had the White House and Congress, and what the stuff was so good about those days? There is no balance between parties that's going to reverse what they're doing. A temporary delay, until they keep adding the pork required to buy these shills' votes.

$22.3 trillion liability in 13 years a big enough deal? That's At The Moment too, tomorrow it'll be worse.

I think you invited the criticism by asking me to put you in it, and now you're inflating it to "everyone". I don't accuse everyone of anything; that's a false accusation itself. I can't know there's a spark of interest if I never see it. Is it a good idea? Never heard you say it. I have to hear it, at least once, in order to think it. And I wasn't assuming anything, I was asking. And I wasn't even talking about you. You thought I was, I don't know why. When you raise the stakes to everyone I guess that includes you too. You were obviously bothered by it anyway, and if it struck a nerve, maybe I was talking about you and didn't even know it.

So you've ignored DHS and you haven't heard anyone else criticizing it either. Okay, is there ANY republican bill that you advocate repealing?

[F3SS]

"Republicans have had zero power". No Fess. Or else democrats had no power when republicans had the White House and Congress, and what the stuff was so good about those days? There is no balance between parties that's going to reverse what they're doing. A temporary delay, until they keep adding the pork required to buy these shills' votes.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about?

$22.3 trillion liability in 13 years a big enough deal? That's At The Moment too, tomorrow it'll be worse.[/Quote]

What makes you think I take that lightly?

I think you invited the criticism by asking me to put you in it, [/Quote]

It seemed as if you were making snarky comments shortly after my posts and I simply felt they were directed toward me because I know what you think of me and your snarky posts fit that bill and I was probably right because you're saying all of the same things now to me directly, just more of it. Anyhow, I knew what I was getting into with you. I think I was feeling a bit truculent that day.

I can't know there's a spark of interest if I never see it. Is it a good idea? Never heard you say it. I have to hear it, at least once, in order to think it.

Well I'm not saying anything about something I don't know anything about. You'll just have to wait until I can delve into it. No, it won't be today. It just isn't a Medicare part D kind of day for me. Got other things on my mind.

And I wasn't assuming anything, I was asking. And I wasn't even talking about you. You thought I was, I don't know why. When you raise the stakes to everyone I guess that includes you too. You were obviously bothered by it anyway, and if it struck a nerve, maybe I was talking about you and didn't even know it.

Uhm, it was in reply to a post of mine that you quoted. Seemed reasonable to make the connection.

So you've ignored DHS and you haven't heard anyone else criticizing it either. Okay, is there ANY republican bill that you advocate repealing?

You're jumbled. It was Medicare part D that I hear little about, not the DHS. How about you give me a list and I'll tell you?

[Yamato]

Dude, what the hell are you talking about?

What makes you think I take that lightly?

It seemed as if you were making snarky comments shortly after my posts and I simply felt they were directed toward me because I know what you think of me and your snarky posts fit that bill and I was probably right because you're saying all of the same things now to me directly, just more of it. Anyhow, I knew what I was getting into with you. I think I was feeling a bit truculent that day.

Well I'm not saying anything about something I don't know anything about. You'll just have to wait until I can delve into it. No, it won't be today. It just isn't a Medicare part D kind of day for me. Got other things on my mind.

Uhm, it was in reply to a post of mine that you quoted. Seemed reasonable to make the connection.

You're jumbled. It was Medicare part D that I hear little about, not the DHS. How about you give me a list and I'll tell you?

I'm not jumbled; these were both major new bureaucracies slapped on the thighs of America by republicans. You're not in the mood today for one of them and I feel exactly the same every time there's another three discussions about Obamacare going on simultaneously. You can't focus on republican nonsense when all you're doing is focusing on democrats at the moment, so in that we agree.

If I quoted your post, your post was relevant to my reply. Maybe you are applicable to everything I say and maybe you're not. Even so, n+1 isn't saying much though. I think I've got the n covered whether you personally subscribe to it or not.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the fundamental problems of this government not being solved if only the republicans had more power. One never meant the other in the past, I have no reason for blind partisan faith to think that it will in the future.

I've already given a list without the bullet points or the 1,2,3. I'm talking about principle Fess. Why do prescription drugs get a hall pass? WTF is so much more important about pills for seniors than insurance coverage for uninsured? Why do narrow democrat interests get all the fire and republican interests get none? That's been the uniform song and dance on this board for years now and how dare I come crash this stupid party?

I'll give you a list if you want and we can bang the failure of principle out one bill at a time. Keystone Pipeline. Go.

[RavenHawk]

I guess I'll have to do as usual and tell you to actually read something about socialism, that would tell you why your question is ridiculous.

Why do you think I have not? A few months ago, I posted a definition of Socialism and again several months earlier and even again before that. Nobody – I mean nobody had any objection to it. If that was a legitimate definition, then my question is very valid and makes all kinds of sense. Or do you think that everyone just magically gets assigned equally without any kind of human intervention?

And no, I don't think it works.

Then stop being counted with them. They don’t need you to defend them.

[Gummug]

Uhh...Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Al Franken, Charlie Rangel - should I go on? And since when did a person's IQ determin their value as a human being or their right to take part in the process of self governance?

Right. And as I recall, the Unabomber (aka Ted Kaczynski) was very intelligent. Does this mean he was a liberal? Makes sense to me, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn also love their bombs....

edited because of lazy proofreading

Edited April 27, 2014 by Gummug

[Guest]

Why do you think I have not? A few months ago, I posted a definition of Socialism and again several months earlier and even again before that. Nobody – I mean nobody had any objection to it. If that was a legitimate definition, then my question is very valid and makes all kinds of sense. Or do you think that everyone just magically gets assigned equally without any kind of human intervention?

Then stop being counted with them. They don't need you to defend them.

You had a bit of an incoherent ramble which people refused to get dragged into because of your form. You didn't prove anything.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

I'm not jumbled; these were both major new bureaucracies slapped on the thighs of America by republicans. You're not in the mood today for one of them and I feel exactly the same every time there's another three discussions about Obamacare going on simultaneously. You can't focus on republican nonsense when all you're doing is focusing on democrats at the moment, so in that we agree.

You certainly were. I had lots to do and lots on my mind yesterday. I wasn't being ignorant out of convenience. You ought to stop joining those conversations then. That's like when people go shopping during the holidays and complain about all the people out shopping. Well, you're one of them and are just as much to blame for keeping the circus going. If it's nonsense I'll focus on it. Don't call me shill for not jumping through hoops everyday for things nobody else is talking about.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the fundamental problems of this government not being solved if only the republicans had more power. One never meant the other in the past, I have no reason for blind partisan faith to think that it will in the future.

Man I wasn't arguing for republican power. I stated quite clearly the what's and why's of what I was talking about and never once argued in favor of a republican majority. Find it. Show me where I did. Ultimately, you always say the same dang thing no matter what.

Why do prescription drugs get a hall pass? WTF is so much more important about pills for seniors than insurance coverage for uninsured? Why do narrow democrat interests get all the fire and republican interests get none? That's been the uniform song and dance on this board for years now and how dare I come crash this stupid party?

When did I say they do? Here's what I leaned from a brief glance at this part D. Subsidy, subsidy, subsidy. Complicated formularies and more subsidy. Sounds like too much government, too much complication and probably a good bit of cronyism with the drug companies mixed in although that's just a reactionary hunch. I still don't know all the specifics but if you think that's something I'm likely to favor then you are simply argumentive. I'm sure a lot of people benefit from cheaper OTC drugs but why does the government need to be involved? I don't know and I'm sure sure there's a better way. Do I know what the better way is? No, I don't know the answer on how to lower the costs of prescription drugs through the market. The drug companies are giants with a product that people need just like the companies that supply our gas. I don't know how to make them stop overpricing when they sell a product that you need no matter what. I simply cannot boycott gas and oil without turning my entire life upside down and they know it and they know I'm one of many, if not almost everybody. No I'd rather not involve the government either because government involvement never cheapens anything and they're all in bed with each other anyways.

I'd hardly call the ACA a narrow interest btw and again it's because for the time being it is and has been the dems show on the hill but don't act like repubs don't get hammered when it's their turn. Crash all you want but, like I said above, don't put yourself on a pedestal when you are every bit a reason as much as anybody that these conversations you hate so much continue to exist and many times you are the reason they go on for pages and pages.

I'll give you a list if you want and we can bang the failure of principle out one bill at a time. Keystone Pipeline. Go.

Which aspect are you talking about? It's very existence? Or just XL? Anyways, all positive reports seem to come from companies paid by its owners to write positive reports for them. Otherwise, I don't feel there would be much of an environmental impact beyond what other fossil fuel processes produce and likely a lot less. Meanwhile, for years and years the government spends millions of our dollars conducting studies and playing politics with it and have probably already offset with those costs whatever positive economic impact the pipeline would bring here. Federal redundancy at its best. It would definitely create some temporary contractor jobs and that's not a bad thing because the business of contracting is one temp job after another. This project could feed a few thousand families for a few years and that's a good thing for anyone in the business of contracting and their employees. I'm going to halt ATM until you you tell me what it is you'd like to talk about on the matter. Go.

Edited April 27, 2014 by F3SS

[RavenHawk]

You had a bit of an incoherent ramble which people refused to get dragged into because of your form. You didn't prove anything.

If it is incoherent, then you should be able to discredit me easily. As to date, you have not. Calling it incoherent, or saying that I do not know what Socialism is, or saying the question makes no sense, is not proving me wrong. Using “people refused to get dragged into” is one of the greatest dodges in the book. The fact is that YOU do not want to get dragged into it. You are afraid to because to answer a simple question would be to shoot yourself down. I think everyone here knows that. This is a big chink in the Liberal mindset. Like a knife, such a simple question lays open the Liberal mindset for all to see. Here’s a clue, everyone here already knows the answer to the question. We’re all waiting for you to answer and how you answer and you really haven’t disappointed yet. The non answer speaks loudly.

[RavenHawk]

Wrong - the former USSR was nothing like socialism. Germany in the present day is a passing approximation to socialism and the scandinavian countries a bit closer - but the USSR was never anything but a Dictatorship from the moment Lenin decided the people couldn't be trusted to be good enough socialists.

The former Soviet Union was a Totalitarian version of Socialism, but ALL Socialistic governments are in essence Dictatorships. The People’s of Germany and Scandinavia are slowly losing more and more freedoms in favor of the nanny state as the people cannot be trusted. The fact is, is that no human can be trusted to live the Socialist life. There will always be those that will *cheat*. That is Human Nature. You can’t regulate or control it. Our Constitution was setup to prevent that (nanny state) and as Ben Franklin worried as whether we could keep it now plays out here.

[RavenHawk]

I did not say it would work, I am saying that beyond the slogans calling everything socialist that does not agree with them (including some very conservative positions) hardly anybody has any idea what they are talking about.

It’s not a matter of whether someone agrees with someone else. It’s a matter of Wrong and Right. Of Slavery vs. Freedom. Of the Archaic to the next step in Human Development. It’s a matter of what protects the Constitution or not. These are not slogans. If you can’t identify the problem, then how can you solve it? We have a problem in this country and that is that the Constitution is under attack by the Liberal mindset and it’s a problem that needs to be reined in.

[F3SS]

We have a problem in this country and that is that the Constitution is under attack by the Liberal mindset and it’s a problem that needs to be reined in.

Not that I fully disagree but it's progressive mindset which occupies all corners of the House that carries out the attack.

[RavenHawk]

Not that I fully disagree but it's progressive mindset which occupies all corners of the House that carries out the attack.

One gets tired of saying "Liberal/Progressive/Socialist" and since the term used in this thread is "Liberal", I leave it at that.

[F3SS]

One gets tired of saying "Liberal/Progressive/Socialist" and since the term used in this thread is "Liberal", I leave it at that.

They're one in the same to me these days. Progressives are the players and the libs next door are the supporting pawns. I know what you mean though.

[spacecowboy342]

One gets tired of saying "Liberal/Progressive/Socialist" and since the term used in this thread is "Liberal", I leave it at that.

I know what you mean I get tired of saying neo-Nazi right wing racist conservative

[Guest]

If it is incoherent, then you should be able to discredit me easily. As to date, you have not. Calling it incoherent, or saying that I do not know what Socialism is, or saying the question makes no sense, is not proving me wrong. Using "people refused to get dragged into" is one of the greatest dodges in the book. The fact is that YOU do not want to get dragged into it. You are afraid to because to answer a simple question would be to shoot yourself down. I think everyone here knows that. This is a big chink in the Liberal mindset. Like a knife, such a simple question lays open the Liberal mindset for all to see. Here's a clue, everyone here already knows the answer to the question. We're all waiting for you to answer and how you answer and you really haven't disappointed yet. The non answer speaks loudly.

When you mangle a generally accepted definition to suit your own agenda you are not in a discussion. People did refuse to take the bait and the baby died of lack of attention. Not the result you were looking for.

Your continuing to equate Monarchy with Socialism just sums up your total cluelessness of what either is and politics in general. That point was made by more than myself in that still born thread.

And no I wont be re-engaging you on your game of "Dictionary rewriting" by Ravenhawk - I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall

Br Cornelius

Edited April 27, 2014 by Guest

[Gummug]

The science is irrefutable - it is only belief which allows Republicans to deny it.

The point about belief over evidence is that if you believe something that runs counter to the evidence - then its time to change the belief rather than the evidence. Conservatives would rather attempt to change the evidence to suit their belief - and hence the attack on the EPA because it runs counter to their belief that markets can solve all problems - when markets clearly have no interest in solving the problems of pollution without the compulsion of the EPA.

Your good home spun belief about what is good for the poor and unemployed aint worth a bean if it runs counter to the evidence. The evidence shows that there aint enough jobs to go around and that all the compelling of the poor to "get on their bike and find a job" aint going to change that basic fact.

Br Cornelius

Part of the reason there aren't enough jobs, imo, is business being regulated practically to death, and unions driving jobs overseas. Oh, lets not forget our high corporate tax...highest in the world, is my understanding....

[Frank Merton]

The old days when states had to watch their regulatory environment so as to avoid driving businesses to other states seems to be almost over, and state taxes are a secondary thought compared to federal taxes. Hence business go to other countries.

This is offset by the fact that a lot of other countries are even worse in these respects and that the huge US market is cheaper (all else being equal) to produce for locally than from overseas and the US is a leader technologically, especially in energy extraction, where other countries have discouraged such progress for political reasons.

[Gummug]

Its not a hundred year forcast - its observation of empirical data on an ongoing basis. The prediction has proven accurate so far within the boundaries of the error bars - which is confirmation that the predictions are going to come true.

However Climate change is just one tiny example of how Conservatives are actively promoting denial of science in general. In the field of economics the Republicans have followed policies which have driven work abroad - and then lambasted the poor for not working - this is a form of denial of consequences.

Br Cornelius

The Republicans have followed policies which have driven work abroad??!! I thought it was the liberals/socialists that were in bed with the unions...

[Gummug]

The old days when states had to watch their regulatory environment so as to avoid driving businesses to other states seems to be almost over, and state taxes are a secondary thought compared to federal taxes. Hence business go to other countries.

This is offset by the fact that a lot of other countries are even worse in these respects and that the huge US market is cheaper (all else being equal) to produce for locally than from overseas and the US is a leader technologically, especially in energy extraction, where other countries have discouraged such progress for political reasons.

Well, imo if certain people have their way, we won't be a leader in energy extraction much longer (same people seem to not want the US to be a leader in anything), and especially when we get campaign promises to the tune of "oh, we'll let you drill (for oil) like it's nobody's business" and then when they get relected, they show that all (or nearly all) the wonderful promises were just lies to get re-elected....

[Yamato]

No. I keep asking the same thing over and over to no avail. Don't dodge. My question is simple. Do you have any more of a clue what to do about the perceived problem other than impose taxes? Further, would you believe that putting more of your money in the hands of more bureaucrats would be a smart and worthy thing to do to help matters?

Rates are regardless and implying I should be quiet because rates are low is asinine. You're not just going to take money out of my pocket because you think I've got room to give. That's taxation without proper representation.

Corporate taxes are higher in the US than many other countries. Which makes our government want to go make love to our corporations. A match made in financial heaven.

[Myles]

they show that all (or nearly all) the wonderful promises were just lies to get re-elected....

This is true with all parties.

[andy4]

Wow.. another liberal making personal attacks cause they have nothing intelligent to say. Thank you to. For nothing.

Wow another con...wait...I'm doing the same thing he is. That's irony 2 times over!

Are conservatives or liberals smarter? Who cares. As long as our problems get solved in some fashion in a way to better peoples lives than so be it.

[Frank Merton]

The trouble is when you have organized political parties fighting with each other for power, very often nothing gets done or what does get done is a compromise that is worse than either of what the sides proposed.