Subject: The Direction of the Democratic Party (II)
Posted by: Toral
- [53422511] Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 16:37
The other thread is way long, so decided to start a new one with a discussion of the article posted below. Meanwhile the video-game issue discussion in the other one can continue.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
523
Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 21:16
Not like you would have supported Reagan if he had come to their rescue. And would Reagan have handled it the same if he didn't have to factor liberals like you into the calculus?
Are you talking to me?
524
Boldwin
ID: 58111130 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 01:02
If you wrote #511, yes.
525
Tree
ID: 01132137 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 08:32
:: munches popcorn ::
this is going to be highly entertaining, and i hope you have your hands empty baldwin, because you're about to need them when PV hands your ass to you.
526
bibA
ID: 48627713 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 09:52
Tree, PV cannot win such a debate. All B has to do is retort that Reagan wouldn't have screwed anything up if he did not have to factor liberals like PV into the calculus.
527
bibA
ID: 48627713 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 10:26
If it had not been for people like PV, I'm sure Reagan would have responded strongly to the killing of over 200 marines in Lebanon, he would not have supported death squads in Central America, he wouldn't have run up record deficits, he wouldn't have expanded the government into a bigger entity than it had ever been, he would not have supported Saddam Hussein, he wouldn't have signed legislation raising payroll, income and gasoline taxes, some of them among the largest in our history.....one can go on and on.
528
Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 11:00
How do you debate hypothetical "would haves" instead of "what did happen?"
Not only did Reagan not come to the rescue of the Kurds,
Soon after the attack, the United States approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a billion-dollar contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas.
Would Reagan have handled it the same if he didn't have to factor liberals like you into the calculus?
That's just mindless gibberish. Clinton was more than happy to sell Turkey Sikorsky Blackhawk helicopters that were used to mount a scorched earth campaign against its Kurdish minority and has killed over 25,000 Kurdish civilians, destroyed over 2,600 Kurdish villages and forced over 2,500,000 Kurds from their homes. U.S. military sales to Turkey have made the United States a direct accomplice to Turkey's ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide against its 20 percent Kurdish minority.
I can't recall Obama saying one word in defense of the continuing struggle for Kurdish rights and independence, so the attempt to portray a liberal/conservative element into the calculus only shows a vapid disinterest in reality.
You want to use Saddam's "gassing of the Kurds" as a rhetorical justification even though you've never shown one bit of empathy for their plight. The transparancy of your concern, coupled with a refusal to acknowledge Reagan's complicity in Kurdish genocide(along with successive presidents of both parties), renders your credibility as a spiritually-guided person very suspect.
529
Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 11:03
yep. school is in session.
531
Boldwin
ID: 58111130 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 12:19
re PD#521
PD
If it were so you'd see...
1) A fierce determination that failing programs be axed and only ones which efficiently delivered real cost effective benefits be allowed to exist.
2) A sober respect for the lessons learned of past big government failures. Those lessons would be in the forefront of their consciousness. They'd stop repeating the same mistakes. They'd have a memory.
3) Far less hubris in their faith in 'government knows best' based on #2.
4) They wouldn't deliberately bankrupt the country 'for the children'.
5) They would allow race relations to heal instead of keeping the wound raw and bleeding for cynical and selfish political gain.
6) Feminists would have actually cared about Clinton's female employees
7) They'd let kids go to schools that have succeeded instead of trapping them in failed government monopolies.
8) So you care about frankenfood and monoculture farms? You like free-range and locally grown? Hate fertilizer run-off? Hormone injected food? Transfats? I saw a deer back around the bend.
9) You care about the environment? Is the only solution socialism? Have you actally checked their environmental record?
10) If they really cared, the solution wouldn't always be other peoples money.
The only thing I see liberals giving genuine TLC to is their own power and their own self-image.
532
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 12:21
I don't believe that you think the Democrats have evolved at all since the 60s. Clinton (and Obama, for that matter) are a lot more moderate that you care to acknowledge.
533
Boldwin
ID: 58111130 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 12:27
PV
You obviously don't remember our extended and very emotional discussion of the anfal campaign, or the many times I've pointed out the very similar historic plight of the Armenians.
534
Boldwin
ID: 58111130 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 12:39
I don't believe that you think the Democrats have evolved at all since the 60s.
Stuck in the Sixties. Frozen in time. Haven't had a philosophical insight since.
So what have we learned? If Turley is to be believed, the overwhelmingly black school district, with its black Superintendent and overwhelmingly black school board, is conspiring with the Police Department (with its black, local-grown Chief of Police), the black Mayor, and the overwhelmingly black City Council, to use mace on high school kids, thereby oppressing them and making it unpleasant to go to school in order to maintain the iron grip of the elite over black people.
Pardon me if I suggest this seems just a bit unlikely.
Of course, there's a much simpler explanation. Turley heard "Birmingham," "96 percent black," and brutal police and just went chasing off after a favorite explanation without thinking.
Once he'd decided that, the gratuitous drive-by slander was easy to come by. All he has to sacrifice is intellectual honesty, his own reputation, and what progress has been made in race relations in Birmingham since the times of Dr. King.
535
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 17:15
Thank you. You've confirmed my belief in where you are coming from.
good catch. we'll need to note MITH's 536 when some sort of random blanket statement about liberals is again posted on these boards...
538
Boldwin
ID: 10029209 Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 10:40
Let me get this straight, this liberal saying the other side are a bunch of nazis, is the newest hero of the ramp-down-the-rhetoric crowd. Fascinating.
539
Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 14:04
lol. is that REALLY what you think?
for god's sake, take off your blinders and have some common sense.
he's no one's hero here.
it's fairly obvious that TPM's posting of it, including the original article that reported it, was a condemnation.
it's fairly obvious that MITH's posting of it is a condemnation.
it's fairly obvious that my comment on MITH's posting is a condemnation, and at the same time pointing out that we liberals can disagree with other liberals.
are you so partisan and oblivious to the obvious at this point that you can't even see that!?!?
amazing.
540
Mith
ID: 371138719 Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 23:38
A simple correction probably would have been sufficient.
eh, i hate those apologies. can't anyone just say "hey, i was wrong."
543
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 11:06
Exactly. Those "sorry is anyone was offended" apologies aren't apologies at all. This is like wading into a crowd swinging your fists, then when your done apologizing "if anyone was hit."
544
Boldwin
ID: 16253251 Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 04:58
The 2010 election never happened as far as Illinois' governor Pat Quinn is concerned. Note his reality based assessment of Catepillar's latest announcement.
The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., reported last week that Caterpillar Chief Executive Doug Oberhelman had starkly warned in a letter to Gov. Pat Quinn that he'd been "cornered in meetings" and "wined and dined" to relocate his company to Wisconsin, Texas, South Dakota, Nebraska and other states lining up in the wake of Illinois' massive tax hike this year on business.
"I want to stay here," the CEO wrote. "But as the leader of this business, I have to do what's right for Caterpillar when making decisions about where to invest. The direction that this state is headed in is not favorable to business, and I'd like to work with you to change that."
[does Pat Quinn even know that CEO's are required to do the right thing by their shareholders? - B]
Amazingly, Quinn responded that it was impossible that one of Illinois' largest employers and taxpayers would move out of state, then changed the subject. It was pure Louis XVI:
"Caterpillar is not leaving Illinois. They have well-skilled workers who know how to get the job done. They just signed an agreement with the United Auto Workers, I think for six years. I don't think we should get in a panic at all."
[Cat just pulled out their billion dollar a year tech research dept and sent it to Texas and Quinn didn't even call them to see if he could talk them out of it. Quinn had no concessions he was willing to offer - B]
But even the local UAW boss was appalled at Quinn's nonchalance and told an NBC affiliate in East Peoria that Caterpillar does not bluff. "When they are talking to you, you better listen. Because if you don't listen, bad things can happen," said Local 974 President Dave Chapman, in authentic union vernacular.
In other words, anyplace Caterpillar moves — and that means anywhere — the tax situation will be an improvement on what it faces in Illinois.
How is that for reality based?
Reality is Peoria's 110,000 residents about to be glimpsed standing on the ledge of a mid-sized office building contemplating what life used to be like as the only small town in the world with it's own Fortune 50 company.
How 20,000 Chicago leeches ate a catepillar. When close elections go bad.
545
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 09:20
I see the Tax Foundation is up to its usual tricks.
Illinois needs to get its fiscal house in order. Sometimes that means raising taxes.
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 10:28
10.9% * 0 = 0
548
Razor
ID: 172252412 Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 10:37
Corporate tax reform is coming. We'll hear the howls of how it will destroy the economy and how communist it is, but conservative hero Ronald Reagan went through this same exercise 25 years ago.
I saw part of Frank's interview on the Today show. He came across as a bitter old man IMO. He started every answer with stating that the interviewer was spinning every question into a negative on him. Guess he was expecting softballs about how great he was. What was even better was he stated that the media was to blame for Congress's low popularity ratings. Not Congress itself or its actions, but journalists painting everything they do in a negative light.
"Democrats are seen as being pro-regulatory, and more willing to enact laws against Wall Street and laws against CEOs," said Don Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics.
But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.
In this brief paper, I consider whether five common political beliefs have any basis in fact. Does the economy grow faster when Republicans are in charge? Does the size of the government actually keep expanding? If so, is this growth correlated with Democrats being in charge? Does bigger government lead to slower growth? Finally, is it accurate to characterize Democrats as the “tax and spend” party? While correlation is not causation and theoretical relationships are complex, the data on U.S. economic performance during the postwar period does not appear to support any of these beliefs, and in fact tends more to support the alternative hypotheses.
The truth, shall set you free.
554
Boldwin
ID: 81144421 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 06:04
Is there a good explanation for the increase in tax receipts under Democrats? While Republicans would offer their own interpretation, one could easily argue that Democrats have behaved with more fiscal responsibility.
Someone call the Onion. Someone is infringing on their territory.
555
Boldwin
ID: 81144421 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 06:25
So many huge factors ignored in that study. Crediting Clinton for Gingerich's spending decisions. Ignoring that the three Bush terms were big spending neocon terms, not conservative republican terms. Ignoring that Republicans have the sole burden of resupplying the military that the democrats spend down on. Etc, etc. So when Obama expends all our cruise missiles for example it gets counted as republican spending.
556
Boldwin
ID: 81144421 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 06:34
Not to mention inadequately taking into account the business cycle.
Or the difference between the top corporations which use the democratic party to stifle their competition, and small business which depends on conservative policies.
557
DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 10:44
"Ignoring that the three Bush terms were big spending neocon terms, not conservative republican terms."
Quit perpetuating the big lie. I guess Reagan and Nixon were massive neocons too, as are you: "Ignoring that Republicans have the sole burden of resupplying the military that the democrats spend down on." So, you're firmly in the palm of the defense contractors. Congratulations. You've completely stopped thinking.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.
I am now firmly convinced you are simply making this stuff up for your own personal amusement. Nobody could be that wildly self-contradictory in the same paragraph and actually mean all of it.
558
sarge33rd
ID: 291113511 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 12:13
Historic truth Boldwin. Lie, obfuscate, apologize, do what ever. It honestly makes no difference to me. The truth, is in the numbers, which are there, and history has born out the lie of the Rep marketing machine. The sad part of it all? The lie is SO entrenched, that even when presented with proof of it, you still deny that truth.
559
DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 13:36
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, massive spending is fiscal responsibility. Quite simple really.
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 08:00
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."
Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 09:44
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.
The most positive thing this country can take away from the Tea Party electoral victories in 2010 is the focus on debt and government spending, which they insisted was/is unsustainable. It should be remembered that the Tea Party moniker came from a quip on CNBC, a business news channel owned by a media conglomerate that a lot of those who claim Tea Party sympathy relentlessly villify as a major source of liberal bias. It should also be remembered that the original focus of the Tea Party movement was the scope of government spending. Unfortunately, as the movement became hijacked by the noisy fringes of right wing partisans, the focus became so distorted that groups like Tea Party Patriots include birther conspiracies as part of their agenda. The slavish committment to Grover Norquist pledges revealed an unwillingness to understand, or at least admit, that only a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases can address the country's financial fragility moving forward.
It should be apparent, given the results of 2010 and the tight race between Obama and Romney, that in this country the majority doesn't always necessarily vote for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury. That's a rather insulting analysis that should be shelved in favor of discussion that focuses on the positive aspects of the economy, of which there are many, as well as policies designed to continue to grow what is a much healthier economy relative to the instability of recent and not so recent crises.
It should be apparent, given the results of 2010 and the tight race between Obama and Romney, that in this country the majority doesn't always necessarily vote for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury.
I am not sure a close race says that at all I would just says the two candidates are really about the same, but if we were to make generalities what are the the main talking points on this issue, Dem's: don't worry you don't have to pay, the rich can pay since they are not paying any taxes; GOP: don't worry no one has to pay we will just cut spending since half the country is living on dole. Now if one party was saying we need to all make sacrifices of less benefits and pay more taxes then I would say you are correct.
That's a rather insulting analysis that should be shelved in favor of discussion that focuses on the positive aspects of the economy, of which there are many, as well as policies designed to continue to grow what is a much healthier economy relative to the instability of recent and not so recent crises.
I agree, but that will not happen because those kind of policies involve ideas like ending farm subsidies, ending the mortgage tax deduction, admitting maybe it not a good idea to think everyone should go to college...
Nobody I am aware of, has said that everyone should go to college. I believe, the Obama position is that everyone should have the OPTION of going. Semantics perhaps, but there are differences.
college, and trade school..arent the same. I agree, that in todays world, one or the other is almost a necessity. Are there exceptions? Of course, but by and large?
Race to the Top has the intention of preparing every high school graduate for college. And schools that don't meet that requirement are labeled failures.
Both parties seem to be pushing this rhetoric about public schools being failures and in favor of privatizing education, which is a terrible idea IMO.