The 2012 and beyond Political Thread - Part 2
-
Just look at Bill Clinton's record: 22 million jobs created on his watch. Budget surplus. Bush? 0% private-sector job-creation. Record deficit. Obama? 5.6 million jobs created and counting...
-
al Sabah:
It is probably easier for people like Oliver and I to be impartial observers. If Republicans destroy a law written by Republicans like Bob Dole and signed by Republicans like George Bush, it will not affect the laws in our nations. However, one cannot deny that almost any political conversation online has more hyperbole than a Michael Moore film.
audi:
*(cough-cough-Anthony-Weiner-cough-cough-John-Edwards)
This is a good example. Republicans attack these people when there are scandals and ignore the scandals of their own party, just as Democrats attack scandals of Republicans and ignore their own. Truth be told, I do not remember the Anthony Weiner scandal, but there is currently a politician named Scott Wiener in San Francisco who is making a name for himself by attacking the gay community.
I'm not going to deny that there are people that are way too far to the left that can't be objective, and I truly don't take it personally (especially since you weren't directing your comments at me), but I do chafe any time I have my objectivity questioned simply because I'm a liberal who questions a conservative viewpoint. We could go through bullet point after bullet point of examples, but I'll toss out some biggies, which point to our dissatisfaction with the right: *President Bush drives up the deficit with two wars, one of which was started under false pretenses. Conservatives? Totally cool with it. Liberals? Unpatriotic and anti-American if they criticize it. President Obama raises the deficit in order to stimulate the economy (which he has, albeit slowly; most economic experts advocated an even bigger stimulus), so conservatives say he's a socialist, even though when George W. Bush proposed a stimulus in 2001 (admittedly on a much smaller scale), there was nary a peep of criticism from the right. *President Bush pushes through the PATRIOT Act, which, even as a bleeding heart, I can at least admit that I see where it's coming from. It certainly infringes on constitutional rights, and I disagree with it, but I do think it's intent is protecting Americans. Still, rights are infringed upon, but do these 'constitutional scholars' come out of the conservative woodwork? Nope. That doesn't happen until President Obama is elected and ultimately signs universal healthcare legislation (that he campaigned with and was elected on), making him a "socialist." And when the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court has the ultimate say and says it isn't unconstitutional? Obama's still a socialist and Roberts is anywhere from simply wrong to the victim of impaired judgment because of bad medication. I'm sure the response is that you can find absurdity on each side of the aisle. But it's impossible to find such widespread hypocrisy (and that's being generous, as a large number of the conservative base are probably too stupid to realize they're being hypocrites) on the left. As audi said, the GOP is coming around as they realize their stubborn tactics are a detriment to their survival. But keep in mind, in the post-Clinton era, the Republican Party's legacy has been getting us stuck in Iraq, putting in place ruinous economic policies that put the country in a near-depression, taking partisanship to new levels with record-breaking filibuster rates, bowing at the altar of Grover Norquist, and choosing bitter gridlock over bipartisanship. Despite all this talk of President Obama not working with the other side, statistically speaking, based on voting record, in congress the most liberal conservative is still miles further to the right than the most conservative liberal congressman is to the left, and that's important to remember. I'm not going to deny that I'm a liberal advocate. That doesn't mean that I'm not objective. I can concede when the other side does something great (George W. Bush's support of the movement to defeat AIDS will not just be an important component of his legacy, but for that of our country as well, in my opinion). I also think people need to understand that sometimes harsh rhetoric is needed to get your point across when the other side distorts or chooses to simply ignore the facts. I feel bad as if I'm picking on him, but I think it's telling that we've seen very little of Andy since the election's end on this board. I can't help but wonder if he doesn't want to face the music, or if he was so ensconced in his conservative cocoon that he's almost in shock that the majority of Americans disagreed with him and President Obama won going away. Still, although he's not the best example because, though I have no doubt that he's a nice guy, I SERIOUSLY tired of rebuking his arguments with a fact-based post, only to have him ignore and pivot to a new topic rather than defend his stance, I would much rather have a debate with a conservative that knows his/her stuff and can give as good as they get than have someone play devil's advocate and attempt to elevate their sense of self-worth by being an 'above-the-fray,' 'enlightened' independent/moderate/etc. I guess the abridged version is this: I'm a liberal, but I'm not a sheep. There's a difference between being objective and being spineless.
-
mustangsally10:
21st Century Paul:
al Sabah:
American political discussions are so divisive that I think it may be too difficult for many to see the other side's point of view. Democrats think their party can do no wrong and Republicans are bad people. Republicans think their party can do no wrong and Democrats are delusional. I am not sure if the issue of nurture versus nature has all that much to do with this. Blindly following Fox or MSNBC, neither of which has much to do with journalism, is learned behavior. There is probably a great deal of our political opinions that is innate, but it almost becomes a moot point when dealing with American politics.
Political opinions themselves are not innate but personality traits are half innate and half nurture or so. And our personality then makes us have certain political opinions... like "I like what the dems/NBC say or I like what the reps/Fox say". You know, even there's a stark difference depending on the state of the USA. The "ways" of that state are kind of naturally (even if we go back 2 centuries...) traditional or not. You know, the chances of someone born in New York or being a dem are not the same as the ones of someone born in Texas. And that doesn't depend on you.
Since you first asked your question Ollie there have been no replies as to what works and what doesn't work. It doesn't matter if one calls themselves a Dem, a repub or a duck. The policies that they promote need to work. They need to work for the individual and for their country. That is why I'm a democrat. Their policies work. Easy to research just look at which party in US has had better employment, lower deficits, more equality in the modern age. There is no contest the Dems win by a landslide. Even in modern comparisons for instance, the republican/conservative economic policies of deregulation, low or no taxes for the wealthy and corporations have been a disaster. Just need to look at the for profit US health care system where(before Obamacare) people could go bankrupt if they or a family member became sick. If they did get sick and had insurance and were dropped they could not get ANY because they had a preexisting condition...scandalous. And how about the financial crisis triggered by repub/conservative policies? And just ask the EU how austerity is working for them. The republican party in the US has been obstructing any mitigation of climate change for 30+ years. The world has the US republicans to thank for a probable dangerous future for their children & grandchildren. That does not work. their squeeze of government finances and privitization of services has been a disaster for our schools, our food system, our prison system etc, etc. etc. The republican policies DO NOT WORK. That's the best reason to choose not to support them. Easy to make a decision using the criteria of what works and what doesn't work. Indeed , there should be no other method. It's not an innate trait just use your reasoning skills.
Your reasoning skills are mostly a genetic trait, at least half of them is inborn.
-
21st Century Paul:
mustangsally10:
21st Century Paul:
al Sabah:
American political discussions are so divisive that I think it may be too difficult for many to see the other side's point of view. Democrats think their party can do no wrong and Republicans are bad people. Republicans think their party can do no wrong and Democrats are delusional. I am not sure if the issue of nurture versus nature has all that much to do with this. Blindly following Fox or MSNBC, neither of which has much to do with journalism, is learned behavior. There is probably a great deal of our political opinions that is innate, but it almost becomes a moot point when dealing with American politics.
Political opinions themselves are not innate but personality traits are half innate and half nurture or so. And our personality then makes us have certain political opinions... like "I like what the dems/NBC say or I like what the reps/Fox say". You know, even there's a stark difference depending on the state of the USA. The "ways" of that state are kind of naturally (even if we go back 2 centuries...) traditional or not. You know, the chances of someone born in New York or being a dem are not the same as the ones of someone born in Texas. And that doesn't depend on you.
Since you first asked your question Ollie there have been no replies as to what works and what doesn't work. It doesn't matter if one calls themselves a Dem, a repub or a duck. The policies that they promote need to work. They need to work for the individual and for their country. That is why I'm a democrat. Their policies work. Easy to research just look at which party in US has had better employment, lower deficits, more equality in the modern age. There is no contest the Dems win by a landslide. Even in modern comparisons for instance, the republican/conservative economic policies of deregulation, low or no taxes for the wealthy and corporations have been a disaster. Just need to look at the for profit US health care system where(before Obamacare) people could go bankrupt if they or a family member became sick. If they did get sick and had insurance and were dropped they could not get ANY because they had a preexisting condition...scandalous. And how about the financial crisis triggered by repub/conservative policies? And just ask the EU how austerity is working for them. The republican party in the US has been obstructing any mitigation of climate change for 30+ years. The world has the US republicans to thank for a probable dangerous future for their children & grandchildren. That does not work. their squeeze of government finances and privitization of services has been a disaster for our schools, our food system, our prison system etc, etc. etc. The republican policies DO NOT WORK. That's the best reason to choose not to support them. Easy to make a decision using the criteria of what works and what doesn't work. Indeed , there should be no other method. It's not an innate trait just use your reasoning skills.
Your reasoning skills are mostly a genetic trait, at least half of them is inborn.
I mean everyone's reasoning skills are mostly a genetic trait, at least half of them is inborn.
-
I don't know the science behind it, but my present belief is that external factors determine how we reason and draw conclusions. I find that religion and other value-systems are the main obstacles that preclude individuals from even attempting to approach an issue logically.
-
audi:
I don't know the science behind it, but my present belief is that external factors determine how we reason and draw conclusions. I find that religion and other value-systems are the main obstacles that preclude individuals from even attempting to approach an issue logically.
Well, I don't agree, but if what you say is true, then it doesn't depend on the individual at all, it all depends on the environment, so everyone would be even less responsible/in control of their reasoning skills. For instance those "precluding" the others would have not choosed to be "precluders" either. So we go back to the same place, people doesn't choose to be what they are, whether partially or fully. I'm no logic fan anyway. Logic will get you to a result, but logic just can't explain why a result is better than other.
-
Discounting logic is illogical.
-
audi:
Discounting logic is illogical.
I don't discount it, I just say it's some tool and that's all. Trusting only in logic is illogical. Like Why is better to attend to a Paul show that not attending? Logic is not a tool for answering that. What can you say?... "I'll be happier if I go to a Paul show", okey "Why is better for you to be happier?" Childrens are masters of showing the flaws in logic... "why?why ?why? why? why?...." lol As some man said "you say why, and I say... I don't know" or "what's the use of anything?"
-
21st Century Paul:
audi:
Discounting logic is illogical.
I don't discount it, I just say it's some tool and that's all. Trusting only in logic is illogical. Like Why is better to attend to a Paul show that not attending? Logic is not a tool for answering that. What can you say?... "I'll be happier if I go to a Paul show", okey "Why is better for you to be happier?" Childrens are masters of showing the flaws in logic... "why?why ?why? why? why?...." lol As some man said "you say why, and I say... I don't know" or "what's the use of anything?"
Your example is flawed. It is not a scenario without a quandary.
-
audi:
21st Century Paul:
audi:
Discounting logic is illogical.
I don't discount it, I just say it's some tool and that's all. Trusting only in logic is illogical. Like Why is better to attend to a Paul show that not attending? Logic is not a tool for answering that. What can you say?... "I'll be happier if I go to a Paul show", okey "Why is better for you to be happier?" Childrens are masters of showing the flaws in logic... "why?why ?why? why? why?...." lol As some man said "you say why, and I say... I don't know" or "what's the use of anything?"
Your example is flawed. It is not a scenario without a quandary.
From a logical point of view is a dilemma with no solution. Even with a free ticket, front row, backstage pass, soundcheck pass, c'mon you can sing any song with me situation.
-
Kennedy Destroys Romney In 1994 Debate:
Classic. -
Rev. Al Sharpton versus Ann Coulter on FOX NEWS (2010):
(I'd call this one a draw.) -
Voters are getting fed up with Congress. Voter disdain spreads as 'fiscal cliff' looms From NH to Colo., voter disdain spreads as 'fiscal cliff' debate rages: http://news.yahoo.com/voter-disdain-spreads-fiscal-cliff-085442617.html
-
BTW: Remember the so-called "Contract With America" in the '90s? Included in the GOP's supposed manifesto of promises was term limits. What happened to that?
-
Obama first President since Eisenhower to reach 51% of the vote twice
-
And nearly 70% of the country supports Obama's position in the fiscal cliff debate.
-
the more money that one group has...the less money that another group has
-
Romney earns PolitiFact?s ?Lie of the Year? for Jeeps made in China: "...brazenly false..." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-earns-politifact-lie-jeeps-made-china-143057560--election.html
-
There IS a God:
-
audi:
Kennedy Destroys Romney In 1994 Debate:
Classic.That is not fair. Kennedy was an experienced statesman capable of working with those with whom he did not agree and ably representing the people of his state.