The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.
Without fail its "biased article all around" every time you hear something you don't like. At least you are still listening, most conservatives these days simply go "Na Na Na, I can't hear you".
So who or what are you going to blame when Obama wins what should have been easy election for Republicans? I can't wait until Republicans clean up their act, you need solid opposition to keep your side focused, and I am afraid "our side or crazies" isn't much to work with.
So you are seriously going to try and assert that the article was not extremely biased?
You should examine the actual verbiage of the article. You should also vet its assertions.
Trying to say "Without fail its "biased article all around" every time you hear something you don't like." doesnt get you very far if you cant even put in a threadbare effort to vet your source material for sweeping inaccuracies, generalizations, and lies by omission.
Derid, unless article I link specifically calls for smaller government, less taxes (for the rich), and cuts to social programs conservatives like you going to call it "sweeping inaccuracies, generalizations, and lies by omission".
I made posts with links to peer-reviewed data, official figures and historical trends and had the same response. Conservative in-group bias so strong that it way into religious territory, anything contrary to dogma treated as blasphemy and ignored. Scary part is that even you don't seem to be aware of this, and I can't call you unintelligent.
Now you are just plain lying, and the worst part is you know it.
And regarding your links, they were mostly picked apart pretty well. I am thinking of your income chart, and instead of labeling it blasphemy - I seem to instead recall giving a pretty detailed account as to why the conclusions you were attempting to draw from it, with your fat-cat pictures was not in step with the reality presented by the chart.
My issue was with your implied conclusions, not the chart itself. So right away, without even getting into the idiocies perpetuated by these Germans you linked there is a matter-of-fact case where your links were not dismissed out of hand for not fitting some dogma.
And regarding your links, they were mostly picked apart pretty well.
Lets be clear with something - they were shouted down, discussion topic changed, definitions shifted, and points never addressed. To date we had discussions on wealth inequality, government regulation and its role in wealth creation, health care reform, constitutionality of social program and progressive taxation and not once have you adequately addressed any of my points.
Specifically...
Quote:
I am thinking of your income chart, and instead of labeling it blasphemy - I seem to instead recall giving a pretty detailed account as to why the conclusions you were attempting to draw from it, with your fat-cat pictures was not in step with the reality presented by the chart.
Specifically, very predictably you attempted to dismiss the data and redefine argument. First you said, "Your graphic includes anyone who makes over 100k. Thats not rich in many areas" and "geography would have a lot to do with the earnings" and then "the scale keeps pretty smooth and steady down to a lot larger segment than that top 10%". This is logical fallacy, you can ether attack definitions or address the argument from within set of presented definitions, not both at the same time. Then you shifted argument to tell me "That people closer to the bottom can still live well".
I suggest you re read the conversations. You are the one who could not respond to 80% of the issues with your policies at all, let alone well. I seriously suggest looking again, and also remember - just because you cannot understand a rebuttal does not mean one was not presented, or valid.
Proof of your lack of skill can again be found in the very post I am responding to , where you assert that I dismissed the data. I did no such thing. What was clearly dismissed was not the data - I made no attempt to countermand the data itself - but rather your assertion that there was a correlation between the data and the "Fat Cats" you pictured right above the graph.
Furthermore, a study of grammar would inform you that the comments regarding geography were supporting arguments for the statement " That is not rich in many areas". The concept that cost of living varies widely is considered common knowledge.
Honestly, I can understand a lack of comprehension when it comes to complex arguments. But if you can or will not even discern the difference between attacking the data, and attacking your conjecture/assertions regarding said data - I suggest finding a different hobby other than debating economics or logic.
You are the one who could not respond to 80% of the issues
Please present detailed list of the issues I did not address.
Quote:
I seriously suggest looking again, and also remember - just because you cannot understand a rebuttal does not mean one was not presented, or valid.
As a rule I re-read portion of the thread I respond to, plus frequently I am forced to re-read past threads when they are brought up. My responses are consistent and message is clear - anyone caring to read what I wrote can see where I stand. I present new data, use multiple sources and do not relegate myself to simpleton semantic attacks. Now, if you think that your messages "cannot [be] understood", perhaps you should work on improving clarity, delivery or even rethink your message.
Quote:
Proof of your lack of skill can again be found in the very post I am responding to , where you assert that I dismissed the data. I did no such thing.
"Pretty crappy and biased article all around" is very clear dismissal of this thread. If you meant 'the graph post' then direct quote would be "Comparisons and charts such as that one play a big part in getting people who seriously study the subject matter to turn a deaf ear to those on the Left".
So far you have been nothing but dismissive in all of our discussions. To your credit dismissive attitude isn't the only response you produced, but it is consistently reoccurring theme in all your posts.
Derid, I am not looking forward to another semantics/nitpicking fight, last one was outright unpleasant and detracted from otherwise engaging argument. I ask you to temper your dismissive attitude and suggest we discuss issue of this topic.
They are:
1. Current set of republican candidates 2. Radicalization of Republican party and ongoing slide toward extreme right fringe
Have you seen recent Rick Perry attack adds?
Quote:
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again. I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.
Interesting that you call our semantics discussion "simpleton" , when the meaning of the words used was relevant to the discussion. Again, you present data - and I simply put it in proper context.
As for the article - if you want to treat this as a serious discussion bound by all the fine rules of formal logic -
First - your post title " How the World sees the GOP" One article from a leftist German magazine is not "The World"
Second - It attacked Mitt Romney for being frequently inconsistent. However, it did not provide any evidence or examples. This would be because it was a bald-faced lie. Unless you find switching a governmental stance on abortion a decade ago, cause to make such an accusation. Of course the article played it off like it was a common occurrence.
Third - It called Paul crazy. Interesting observation. Surely, they would attack Pauls less-war, less-bureaucracy position with some facts or reasons why it was crazy. Um... no.
So we have a magazine launching ad hominim attacks at candidates, yet providing absolutely zero reasons, even anecdotal ones as to why something is crazy.
The article frequently takes lines from the worst of the candidates, then attempts to use those lines to paint broad generalizations on their competitors in the race. What horseshit.
Article: "The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein."
So Paul and Mitt make George W look like Einstein, simply because Cain and Perry were clueless?
Your article got dismissed because it is drivel written in a very insulting, misleading, and plain dishonest style - apparently for the purpose of misleading people into agreeing with their point of view.
You want an article to get some respect, post a respectable article.
Posting a Perry Youtube means nothing, because I actually agreed with the article regarding Perry. The problem with the article, is it tried to use Perry and others to paint a picture of the people who are running against him.
You want to find some respectable article to discuss, go check out The Atlantic. They lean pretty left much of the time, but at least most of their staff is competent and can actually cook up a point of view in a well written manner that doesn't rely on Fox-style unsubstantiated hit-pieces.
Here, a random sampling of articles - some I have read, some I have not. But as best I can tell, and from the ones I have read - all are, or are likely to be reasonably well written critiques of the Right.
Take your pick, or find another one. Just try to find something that isnt a blatantly dishonest broadside.
The article absolutely "attempts to use those lines to paint broad generalizations", there is no doubt about it and this is exactly how world sees US Conservative Right. Simple reality is that candidates like Trump, Bachmann, and Cain were in the running, were seriously considered at some point, and had substantial support base tells volumes about current state of Republicans and Right. All of this is further compounded by pants-on-your-head-insane primary process where candidates are forces (or some just naturally are) to appeal to extreme right or face RINO execution squad. All of this isn't a slam on a specific candidate, but rather slam on the state of GOP and its supporters with individual examples used as evidence. I can't help you if you find this insulting, this is how your bedfellows operate.
I dont think Trump was ever considered seriously, and other candidates fell after their lack of seriousness became apparent. Anyone can file papers and hold press conferences and start a candidacy.
Judge the field by the nominee, not by the random bumps as people get considered and discarded.
Even if a liberal German paper does in fact represent the World.. so what? Last I looked, they have their own problems out in Euro Land.
Anyhow, I hope you at least read some of what I linked you, I can find other sources if you want. It would be healthy to at least learn what a real piece of critical journalism looks like.
It isn't just some "liberal German paper", when I travel abroad I encounter such sentiments everywhere.
Here is some more 'entertainment' for you:
Your links are interesting, keep them coming. Specifically, I am looking for conservative-leaning, but still objective perspective. It used to be WSJ, but since Murdoch took over its non-financial section turned into yellow rag.
The problem with your narrative here, is there are plenty of Leftists who are just as idiotic. I suppose we could get into a competition as to who could post the most idiots, but it hardly seems worthwhile.
My personal hope is for the currently stalled reformation of the GOP to get restarted and continue, because while more than half of the GOP are terrible - I find it hard to find any Dems who arent.
Things arent looking good right now though. The only real hope if for Paul to gain traction and bring attention to the state of things, and, even if he loses - create an environment where his supporters continue taking part in the process and holding some peoples feet to the fire.
The TP looked like it was set to take on that role for a short period of time, but in many cases has instead morphed into a sad echo chamber for Evangelical religious Statists. I mean, you cant be for Newt Gingrich and still be a true Tea Partier.
Do you think Tea Party movement was ever real? I see it as Koch astroturfing effort, they bankroll it, they define message and look at the result - Republicans committing political suicides left and right to keep taxes on the rich lower than historical lows.
Oh it was real. Still is to an extend... the next few months will show to exactly what extend. Its really very local, and actually kind of complicated. There are many, many Tea Parties.. though there are a handful of web presences.
Also, there are two Kochs - Charles Koch is actually pretty Libertarian, even ran as LP VP once.
I disagree about maintaining tax cuts for the rich being political suicide.
However, that being said. After extending tax cuts for the rich, if the GOP lets the payroll tax cut on the rest of us expire - then we will see how real the TP is. Saying spending should be cut instead of raising taxes on anyone is one thing. Saying keeping low taxes on the wealthy, but raising taxes on the rest of us because we "need the revenue"... if that happens, we will see how real the Tea Party truly is.
In a country with informed population "look, they were willing to default on country's financial obligations to get their way" would be a death kneel to any party.
As to TP, here is my anecdote. A friend of mine was early TP activist/organizer. She distanced herself after 'big money' moved in, she tells me as soon as money started pouring in some expensive PR folks started running the show. According to her, her neck-of-the-woods TP now is 100% astroturf.
I dont mind them being willing to default. In fact, that was actually a lie - the govt wouldn't have and couldn't have actually defaulted- but in any case, I am all for it if its for the right reasons.
Remember, the opposite is also true - it takes two sides to default. BOTH sides have to be willing to play the same "my way or highway" game. The TP is no more responsible than Obama for that episode.
I dont doubt your friend, I know that has happened in many areas. As the people the TP elected drift further away from TP ideals, then we will see how people respond.
Rubio for example has already completely sold out, supporting both SOPA and McCains defense authorization provisions to completely eradicate the 4th Amendment. Bachmann is now on record as opposing keeping payroll taxes lower. We will see how it plays out.
Remember, the opposite is also true - it takes two sides to default.
It takes two sides to compromise, when GOP assumed "my way or highway" attitude blame is squarely on their shoulders. You can blame The Pledge, or Tea Party or anything else you want, but compromise doesn't work on "I get everything I want" principle.
Have you seen latest temper-tantrum from Republican Congress? "The measure, dubbed the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny -- or REINS -- Act, would require Congress to sign off on any new rule estimated to cost more than $100 million."
If they had everything they wanted, there would have been no tax increases and a few trillion in cuts. Remember, they offered to do temporary measures to get more time but Obama said no. Only the most extremist partisan can lay blame on the GOP only.
Also, I dont know much about REINS - but it looks like a good idea. The Office of President was not designed to operate as a dictatorship. If the Executive wants to add massive new regulations, getting congress to sign off on it sounds like a pretty good idea really.
Though I will say I would have to read it and think it through before I could say anything for certain, so even though your blurb about it made it sound like a good idea I cant say that the actual legislation as written makes sense.
The whole rich not paying their fair share is bs. Show me where the rich 250k and above pay less then say a 50k guy. I already provided a link from the tax man that shows they pay not only their fair share but a higher percentage then the rest.
You are not asking right question. Have you ever considered why so few people are 'well off' these days and why every 'working stiff' can afford less than their parents and grandparents? Why families now have to have two incomes just to keep at the same level what 40 years ago took one? What we want is more well-to-do people, and one way to do it is to make it harder to accumulate more wealth by simply being wealthy in a first place.
I linked this graph many times, but somehow it end up ignored. This graph goes directly to the root of the problem. What it shows is that as of 2007 top 10% take more income home than entire bottom 90%. You can also look at this following way - bottom 90% families now earn less than ever before, and are poorer because of it.
The conclusions you have tried to draw from that data have already been soundly debunked. ( Your conclusions, not the data itself - contrary to the assertions you made elsewhere.)
Time for a new line of argument. Your refusal to process anything anyone says has been noted, and grows wearisome.
I did a little more digging on the graph - no wonder you draw such strong conclusions from it. I should have realized that the conclusions you were spouting werent your own, but rather talking points from an Obama book.
You guys like the politofact truth o meter right? Have at it.
Have at it.
Looks like many of the same criticisms already raised, with the additional one of the fact that the graphs only goto 2007, which I had previously noted but not commented on because it would have required additional research - whereas there were plenty enough criticisms of your conclusions already.
rant/ WSJ opinion page - won't even read it, its a yellow festering rag rotting carcass of once-great newspaper. I won't read it because I still remember when WSJ had journalists with respectable (but right-leaning) opinions. These days they print climate change deniers, Palin ghost-writers and the like. You might as well link The Enquirer. /rant
Quote:
No wonder you can quote data, but not interpret what it means in the real world. You let Obama do it for you.
Trying to make a MORAL case for taxation simply because some families have two incomes and/or live in high cost of living areas just wont ever fly.
Where is that roll your eyes smiley Jet promised? In case you can't tell - I am rolling my eyes at you. Trying to dismiss my opinions based on similarity to Obamas is laughable. Not only Obama not necessary wrong by a simple virtue of being Obama, but he too based his opinion on something, being The President, and no economist.
My case for progressive taxation is not MORAL, it is very practical in a "what makes most sense for the betterment of country" way. You don't have to look far or dig deep to see how dysfunctional current system is, so the only real question is what direction it must change. More of the same is simply not the answer. Reagan experiment run its course, was shown to be complete failure and we need to stop waiting for the trickle-down, because only shit flows down.
You guys like the politofact truth o meter right? Have at it.
Have at it.
Looks like many of the same criticisms already raised, with the additional one of the fact that the graphs only goto 2007, which I had previously noted but not commented on because it would have required additional research - whereas there were plenty enough criticisms of your conclusions already.
Very interesting, I was not aware of Obama using similar data, but it is not surprising at all, considering these are the facts. Even fact checkers (+1 on reading politifact) don't disagree with these statements, the only thing they find questionable are actual deviations from exact numbers used based on adjusting for various parameters. Politifact did not disagree with argument, they rated Half-True due to inconsistency in exact numbers, while admitting trend is there.
In other words they were making lots of it up as they went along. They also challenged the conclusions.Which, is what I challenged.
Politifact: "It takes a careful selection of years (and not even a full decade at that), and a number of assumptions about income for Obama's statistic to hold up. We rate the president's claim Half True."
I didnt dismiss your opinion because it was close to Obamas, I simply realized that the reason you have a hard time thinking things through is because you apparently never thought about anything in the first place - just repeated a talking point.
Your theory on progressive taxation honestly reminds me of the South Park underpants gnomes.
Remind me, who was going around accusing everyone who disagreed with him of just throwing out right-wing talking points? Surely that same person would not take lines from some leftists book and accuse everyone who disagreed with its conclusions of ignoring the data or his arguments?
If you both take an aggressive and high handed posture, then are found to be committing large hypocrisies - expect to be called out on it.
So you are saying that you were independently researching, and just happened to come to Obama's conclusions on your own and weren't parroting his talking points after reading his book?
If you say yes, I will take your word on it.
You have to admit though, the resemblance was uncanny in very many respects.
Also, dont think for a second that was a character assassination attempt. If I made one, it would be clear. What it was, was an attempt to hopefully jar you into realizing how you are coming across - both in regards to talking points, and by association some of the things you have said regarding regulation and "progressive taxation" ( trying to make a false dichotomy via Progressive taxation vs Somalia )
In fact even going back to the whole health care debate where we got on the semantics tangent was nothing other than me trying to prod you into clearly defining and following through with an articulated view that was precise, yet free of obvious errors resulting from misused terms or axioms.
Also, stop putting words in my mouth. I have in fact said many times that some regulation is needed, and regulatory issues should be discussed on their own individual merits. You at the time declined that view, and took a blanket approach.
So you are saying that you were independently researching, and just happened to come to Obama's conclusions on your own and weren't parroting his talking points after reading his book?
Until you brought this up I had no idea Obama put this much thought into economy and wealth inequality, it certainly doesn't show in his policies. I do not own his book, I never read it and up until now wasn't curious about it. I always assumed his book was a tearjerker about him growing up in poverty with a single mom.
First time I encountered this graph was when I read the study. My old job had full access to any paywalled or free scientific article, plus lots of military studies (but I can't talk about it other than in general terms) that I spent a lot of time reading while waiting for the numbers to get crunched through by the mainframe. It didn't had anything to do with my work, but considering that I was allowed to read articles and not allowed to access internet or news sites that what I did for 2+ years during downtime.
I have a question for you, and would prefer an honest answer. Do you not see concentration of wealth as a problem? I see Great Depression pattern repeating itself, but then US got "lucky" and the rest of the world self-destructed with WW2. This certainly not going to happen this time around.
I see concentration of power as a problem. Yes, wealth and power can certainly go hand in hand. But if you focus on one, and not the other - you achieve nothing, in fact I think the results are usually counter productive.
I also think you need to tread very carefully when addressing the issue. It would seem to be an indisputable and self evident fact , contest it if you want but - most attempts at legislation and many attempts at regulation do not reach the STATED goals of the proponents of said legislation, and instead have myriad other effects. Often times, when trying to shoot the "enemy" , the legislation misses and hits a bystander instead.
Often times the bystander was the real target of those crafting the legislation or regulation - but it would not have been politically feasible to target them openly.
Also, something I consider more important that wealth concentration is wealth fluidity.
However, on a similar note - its a historical fact that the better communication becomes, the greater centralization of power becomes possible. The kind of micromanagement of society that is now feasible - never before has been feasible in the history of the world, so we are treading on unfamiliar ground.
The problem I find with most "progressive" attempts to right the power/wealth balance, is that they completely ignore what I consider the primary opponent - which is societal control and class ossification - and even engage in "friendly fire", and strike at the heart of liberty.
To me, the real problem is not that some banker drives a Maserati and I might drive a Jeep. The real problem is that the guy driving the Maserati, be he super wealthy or connected politically - takes control of the governmental levers and work to prevent me from not only reaching his level, but exercise undue control over all aspects of my life for his own benefit.
You want to know what my biggest objection to socialized health care is? Its not even the money, though I do care about that. Its not even that I think it would deteriorate care for those who arent rich enough to afford to bypass the and go above the system with private-only care, though that bothers me as well.
Its the fact that once everyone is paying for everyone elses health care, you now have a strong argument that govt also needs to have a say in how you live your life. After all, how fair is it that I only eat brussel sprouts and tofu, yet pay for the quintuple bypass surgery of the guy who eats nothing but McDonalds burgers?
Once you give up the fight for the principle that you should be your own master, once you give up the idea that government exists to protect your individual liberty, you give up your strongest argument against tyranny of all types.
Sometimes protecting liberty means that the guy who makes 10trillion dollars also gets his wealth protected by the same principle. Sometimes protecting liberty means that kids who are born to incompetent parents have to grow up in poverty because their parents have more kids than they can afford to care for.
But in the end, we are all forced to make a choice. Do we stand up for our rights as individuals and keep govt in check, knowing that this paradigm admits that the world will be an unequal place, that some will have much and others will have little?
Or do we buy into the idea that we can achieve something better by abandoning our rights, and put ourselves under govt control with the idea that a powerful govt can make us more equal? I obviously do not think the collectivist, govt control path can work. I think it creates more misery in the long run, even in benign areas like Sweden -where big oil money helps fund the State, those on the bottom are getting sick from their govt housing. Selective "deregulation" happens that enriches connected bureaucrats - deregulation in this sense is not free market deregulation, but simply a power grab by connected people. Already they are feeling the sting of govt power. And Sweden is probably the best Statist place on the planet.
In a free market republic, it is possible to counter the influence of concentrated wealth with an informed electorate, and a govt small enough that its actions can be tracked and can be held accountable at the polls. It doesnt always happen that way, but at least it is do-able. The more power govt has, the bigger and less directly accountable it gets, the more power the Elite have - be they wealthy Elites or political Elites.
To me, this is the true face of the enemy. And in an age where a panopticon society is not only possible but marching inexorably onward.. I think we give up any fight for individual liberty, and hand over any personal power to govt or any other outside entity at our own peril.
I see concentration of power as a problem. Yes, wealth and power can certainly go hand in hand. But if you focus on one, and not the other - you achieve nothing, in fact I think the results are usually counter productive.
I also think you need to tread very carefully when addressing the issue. It would seem to be an indisputable and self evident fact , contest it if you want but - most attempts at legislation and many attempts at regulation do not reach the STATED goals of the proponents of said legislation, and instead have myriad other effects. Often times, when trying to shoot the "enemy" , the legislation misses and hits a bystander instead.
Often times the bystander was the real target of those crafting the legislation or regulation - but it would not have been politically feasible to target them openly.
Also, something I consider more important that wealth concentration is wealth fluidity.
However, on a similar note - its a historical fact that the better communication becomes, the greater centralization of power becomes possible. The kind of micromanagement of society that is now feasible - never before has been feasible in the history of the world, so we are treading on unfamiliar ground.
The problem I find with most "progressive" attempts to right the power/wealth balance, is that they completely ignore what I consider the primary opponent - which is societal control and class ossification - and even engage in "friendly fire", and strike at the heart of liberty.
To me, the real problem is not that some banker drives a Maserati and I might drive a Jeep. The real problem is that the guy driving the Maserati, be he super wealthy or connected politically - takes control of the governmental levers and work to prevent me from not only reaching his level, but exercise undue control over all aspects of my life for his own benefit.
You want to know what my biggest objection to socialized health care is? Its not even the money, though I do care about that. Its not even that I think it would deteriorate care for those who arent rich enough to afford to bypass the and go above the system with private-only care, though that bothers me as well.
Its the fact that once everyone is paying for everyone elses health care, you now have a strong argument that govt also needs to have a say in how you live your life. After all, how fair is it that I only eat brussel sprouts and tofu, yet pay for the quintuple bypass surgery of the guy who eats nothing but McDonalds burgers?
Once you give up the fight for the principle that you should be your own master, once you give up the idea that government exists to protect your individual liberty, you give up your strongest argument against tyranny of all types.
Sometimes protecting liberty means that the guy who makes 10trillion dollars also gets his wealth protected by the same principle. Sometimes protecting liberty means that kids who are born to incompetent parents have to grow up in poverty because their parents have more kids than they can afford to care for.
But in the end, we are all forced to make a choice. Do we stand up for our rights as individuals and keep govt in check, knowing that this paradigm admits that the world will be an unequal place, that some will have much and others will have little?
Or do we buy into the idea that we can achieve something better by abandoning our rights, and put ourselves under govt control with the idea that a powerful govt can make us more equal? I obviously do not think the collectivist, govt control path can work. I think it creates more misery in the long run, even in benign areas like Sweden -where big oil money helps fund the State, those on the bottom are getting sick from their govt housing. Selective "deregulation" happens that enriches connected bureaucrats - deregulation in this sense is not free market deregulation, but simply a power grab by connected people. Already they are feeling the sting of govt power. And Sweden is probably the best Statist place on the planet.
In a free market republic, it is possible to counter the influence of concentrated wealth with an informed electorate, and a govt small enough that its actions can be tracked and can be held accountable at the polls. It doesnt always happen that way, but at least it is do-able. The more power govt has, the bigger and less directly accountable it gets, the more power the Elite have - be they wealthy Elites or political Elites.
To me, this is the true face of the enemy. And in an age where a panopticon society is not only possible but marching inexorably onward.. I think we give up any fight for individual liberty, and hand over any personal power to govt or any other outside entity at our own peril.
However, on a similar note - its a historical fact that the better communication becomes, the greater centralization of power becomes possible. The kind of micromanagement of society that is now feasible - never before has been feasible in the history of the world, so we are treading on unfamiliar ground.
I wanted to comment specifically on this point. So far exactly the opposite is happening - Orange Revolution in Ukraine, Arab Spring, Russian protests... these are all examples of communication enabling and empowering individuals to push back against the government. Twitter, Facebook and all other social media enabling unprecedented levels of social involvement. Youtube and Smartphone Cameras enabling citizens to scrutinize over actions of officials and police to much greater degree.
I am still on the road, in hotel. But when I am able, I will get further into this. I will agree that some of what you say happens, but overall when talking about trends - oppression in on the march, and pushback is a tiny tiny percentage of the overall trend.
I see several inadequacies in your observation, on several levels.
Look forward to my spiel in a few days. I have to fly out of Laguardia on Sat, so expect me to be especially motivated to rant on this subject.
Back to the topic, who cares how the world sees Republicans? I for one could care less about how our client states view the "infinite clown fight" of American politics. Do any of us really care which group of Commie scum run Germany? Like children, they grow resentful and sullen towards those who protect and nourish them.
Appears you are still living under "America, Fuck Yeah!" delusions of grandeur. Way the world sees Republicans reflects on the way the world sees America and that affects how the world reacts and cooperates with America.
While Ahmadinejad might agree with your point "who cares how the world sees", his example isn't exactly one we want to follow. Not in the age of global economics, capital and trade.
There are a bunch of tea party groups. Some of them have in fact be co-opted by statist interests. That much has been established here, no need to watch the video.
No need to comment then, because the video isn't about specific tea party but rather hijacking of conservative movement everywhere. Feel free to stick your head in the sand, but doing so will not make it go away.
No need to comment then, because the video isn't about specific tea party but rather hijacking of conservative movement everywhere. Feel free to stick your head in the sand, but doing so will not make it go away.
No need to post the video. Since The Occupy Wall Street movement has had the same thing done.
No need to comment then, because the video isn't about specific tea party but rather hijacking of conservative movement everywhere. Feel free to stick your head in the sand, but doing so will not make it go away.
I pretty much was agreeing with your point of view, with the caveat that the tea party is not monolithic and can vary widely by region and particular group. ( as we have discussed before )
But now, you say I stick my head in the sand?
Seriously, have you been eating lead paint for lunch this week or something?
Thats a 25 minute video, and I dont need an AJE video to tell me about what is happening with the TP, or the conservative movement. You yourself should already know that I am quite aware, which is what gets me.
Sometimes it seems like you ignore everything anyone else says, or just dont connect the dots.
I have nothing against AJE, but am not going to immediately drop everything to watch a 25 minute piece that, according to the title and short overview, is simply going to tell me things I already know.
Alright then, you are aware of radicalization of conservative moment. Objections withdrawn. Reasons I brought this issue up a) to make sure this issue doesn't get rationalized/excused away b) I found AJE comprehensive expose on it interesting, even if all individual issues are not news to me it was still good summation.
Ron Paul won just 3 percent of the votes in the Tea Party straw poll. The straw poll had four candidates spend 10 minutes on a conference call answering questions, and then 23,000 Tea Partiers voted. Not only did Paul lose to Newt Gingrich, who got 31 percent, and Michele Bachmann, who got 28 percent -- but he came in behind Mitt Romney, who earned 20 percent. Worse, 64 percent of the patriots said they were "unenthusiastic" about voting for Paul -- only Jon Huntsman performed worse.
In October 2010, a Public Religion Research Institute study found that more than half of Tea Partiers say America is a "Christian nation" -- more than the 40 percent of evangelicals who think that.
In October 2010, a Public Religion Research Institute study found that more than half of Tea Partiers say America is a "Christian nation" -- more than the 40 percent of evangelicals who think that. They're social conservatives on same sex marriage. Another poll last year found that 88 percent of supporters of the Tea Party support Arizona's tough immigration crackdown. This fall, 60 percent of Tea Party Republicans said the best way to ensure peace was through "military strength" -- compared to 47 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of voters over all, the Pew Research Center found. The survey found that 81 percent of Tea Party Republicans want military spending to stay the same or increase.
Appears you are still living under "America, Fuck Yeah!" delusions of grandeur. Way the world sees Republicans reflects on the way the world sees America and that affects how the world reacts and cooperates with America.
While Ahmadinejad might agree with your point "who cares how the world sees", his example isn't exactly one we want to follow. Not in the age of global economics, capital and trade.
Who said anything about Team America? My question remains unanswered. Observe:
The Germans, and all NATO countries, live under the aegis of US protection, freeing up their budgets for the sort of vast social spending that you, Sinij, appear to advocate. So why should we, as Americans, care what they think? I'm guessing you don't have children, or this analogy I'm about to describe would leap out at you without explanation. The analogy is this: do you take your minor children's opinions into account when planning a family budget? Answer, no. The reason for this is because children are not responsible for themselves; someone else must care for them. This is analogous to the situation in Europe or any of our other client states: they aren't responsible for themselves, they must have someone to look after them. Let's count the ways:
Monetarily- they have tried the Euro and it has failed, so it's back to the dollar Economically- Who funds the IMF? Answer: Uncle Sam Militarily- do I really need to spell it out? NATO sans USA couldn't topple Khaddafi Diplomatically- Who funds and houses the UN? Answer: Uncle Sam
So again, please explain to me why we should care what some Eurorag thinks of American politics, and what bearing this has on the American political climate? How's the "reset" thingy going? How does the world view Democrats? Is this leap to compare my views with Ahmadinejad's simply a twist on Godwin's Law?
Alright then, you are aware of radicalization of conservative moment. Objections withdrawn. Reasons I brought this issue up a) to make sure this issue doesn't get rationalized/excused away b) I found AJE comprehensive expose on it interesting, even if all individual issues are not news to me it was still good summation.
Are you prepared to discuss the radicalization of the progressive movement?
The Germans, and all NATO countries, live under the aegis of US protection, freeing up their budgets for the sort of vast social spending that you, Sinij, appear to advocate.
Who are you protecting "the world" against? These days war is waged in finances and cyberspace, you only need bare minimum 'boots on the ground' to keep occasional backwards dictator in check. The world moved on, your views have not.
Quote:
How does the world view Democrats?
Rather well, but your ilk was too busy smearing Obamas world tour as "apologist" to notice that it actually turned around political situation in US favor.
Are you prepared to discuss the radicalization of the progressive movement?
Yes. Thankfully radicalization of Republican party and consequent exodus of moderate and centrist conservatives into Democratic fold put Democrats firmly into centrist position.
[quote=Cheerio] The Germans, and all NATO countries, live under the aegis of US protection, freeing up their budgets for the sort of vast social spending that you, Sinij, appear to advocate.
Who are you protecting "the world" against? These days war is waged in finances and cyberspace, you only need bare minimum 'boots on the ground' to keep occasional backwards dictator in check. The world moved on, your views have not.
Is it really? So Hezbollah has stopped firing rockets at Israel and is now just launching DoS attacks? The Iranian have renounced nuclear weapons and are in the counterfeit business? To the point, the "bare minimum" sum total of all European NATO powers was UNABLE to remove a backwards dictator without US help. Remember how well NATO handled the breakup of Yugoslavia?? It's not a matter of whose views have moved on, as you stated, but human nature.
Are you prepared to discuss the radicalization of the progressive movement?
Yes. Thankfully radicalization of Republican party and consequent exodus of moderate and centrist conservatives into Democratic fold put Democrats firmly into centrist position.
Is this some kind of irony you are going for where the literal meaning of what you just said actually means it's exact opposite? What, pray, is centrist about:
progressive tax abortion on demand yearly deficits of almost 50% enormous expansion of the welfare state amnesty for illegals gays in the military gigantic increase in scope and size of all regulation near total shutdown in development of new energy massive expansion of government in medical, educational, and financial fields
If you think these things are centrist, please explain what in YOU OPINION would be a radical leftist agenda? Because it appears to me that you are so far to the left that your whole worldview is hopelessly skewed
Who are you protecting "the world" against? These days war is waged in finances and cyberspace, you only need bare minimum 'boots on the ground' to keep occasional backwards dictator in check. The world moved on, your views have not.
Is it really? So Hezbollah has stopped firing rockets at Israel and is now just launching DoS attacks? The Iranian have renounced nuclear weapons and are in the counterfeit business?
As Vietnam with US, Afghanistan with Soviets, Iraq with US and now Afghanistan with US showed is big military means fuck all against insurgents entrenched in their own territory fighting guerrilla warfare. As to nukes - how is spending more on traditional military (boots on the ground and carriers) going to make them less of a threat? Days of Cold War, when that stuff mattered, are over. Go back to your rocking chair, grandpa.
Quote:
To the point, the "bare minimum" sum total of all European NATO powers was UNABLE to remove a backwards dictator without US help.
Why is US in the business of "removing backwards dictators" and invading/bombing various third world countries?
Are you prepared to discuss the radicalization of the progressive movement?
Yes. Thankfully radicalization of Republican party and consequent exodus of moderate and centrist conservatives into Democratic fold put Democrats firmly into centrist position.
Is this some kind of irony you are going for where the literal meaning of what you just said actually means it's exact opposite? What, pray, is centrist about:
progressive tax abortion on demand yearly deficits of almost 50% enormous expansion of the welfare state amnesty for illegals gays in the military gigantic increase in scope and size of all regulation near total shutdown in development of new energy massive expansion of government in medical, educational, and financial fields
If you think these things are centrist, please explain what in YOU OPINION would be a radical leftist agenda? Because it appears to me that you are so far to the left that your whole worldview is hopelessly skewed
Centrist? When you look past loaded language - just about everything. One day Conservative movement will wake up and realize that pandering to ultra-right not only does them great disservice, it also not at all representative of US population views.
Here is example you might be able to understand - imagine if PETA and Greenpeace virtually dictated Democratic policy? What do you think would happen to Progressive movement?
Lol sinij, the "backward dictators" quote was from your post you numbnut! Removing khaddafi was not started by the US, but by the peace loving nations of Europe, who get their oil from Libya. The US had to step in and save their. acon, as usual.
The only other 3rd world dictator I can remember invading recently was in Iraq. IIRC the UN kicked his ass in '91, he failed to comply with the terms of the instrument of surrender, and so the US once again had to do the heavy lifting. We should have left after that but oh well
Are you prepared to discuss the radicalization of the progressive movement?
Yes. Thankfully radicalization of Republican party and consequent exodus of moderate and centrist conservatives into Democratic fold put Democrats firmly into centrist position.
Is this some kind of irony you are going for where the literal meaning of what you just said actually means it's exact opposite? What, pray, is centrist about:
progressive tax abortion on demand yearly deficits of almost 50% enormous expansion of the welfare state amnesty for illegals gays in the military gigantic increase in scope and size of all regulation near total shutdown in development of new energy massive expansion of government in medical, educational, and financial fields
If you think these things are centrist, please explain what in YOU OPINION would be a radical leftist agenda? Because it appears to me that you are so far to the left that your whole worldview is hopelessly skewed
Centrist? When you look past loaded language - just about everything. One day Conservative movement will wake up and realize that pandering to ultra-right not only does them great disservice, it also not at all representative of US population views.
Here is example you might be able to understand - imagine if PETA and Greenpeace virtually dictated Democratic policy? What do you think would happen to Progressive movement?
Are you able to answer a direct question or not? In answer to your question; both of those groups have values well within the normal range of typical progessives, ie not extreme
I was reading this this article and stumbled on following quote:
Quote:
The left has moved right. The center has moved right. What constitutes a controversial position is a moving target.
Xenophobia. Demonization of the United Nations and the Federal Reserve. Radical reduction of federal budget and influence. Conflation of federalism with socialism. Cult of states rights. Christian exceptionalism. Return to the gold standard. Not to mention the dismantling, in the name of jobs, of the entire regulatory infrastructure of the nation.
Then ask me direct question instead of "Have you stopped beating your mother for the day?" smear-baits.
Quote:
In answer to your question; both of those groups have values well within the normal range of typical progessives, ie not extreme
I don't think you are equipped to make a distinction from your ultra-right position. From your point of view, and you admitted as much, centrists positions are "liberal agenda".
"progressive tax" - was always the case, look at historical picture and you will see top tax bracket averages much, much higher than what it is now. Its only after cult of "trickle down" was born that we started dismantling progressive taxation, immediately wealth accumulation at the top shot through the roof and everyone else is poorer as a result.
"abortion on demand" - its called woman's rights. Roe v. Wade was settled during 70s, 40 years later and this issue is under attack again due to bible thumpers hijacking conservative movement. Plus for all your "small government" folks - why should the government/church participate in private citizens reproductive activities?
"yearly deficits of almost 50%" - look at your own bedfellows, how much of that deficit wasted in Iraq or unwarranted tax cuts for the rich?
"enormous expansion of the welfare state" - this has nothing to do with aging and retiring baby boomers, hasn't it?
"amnesty for illegals" - That was Ronald Reagan. Plus this country was built by "illegals", otherwise it would still be Tribal Indian territory.
"gays in the military" - another evangelical extreme right issue, everyone else doesn't care ether way as long as it stays behind closed doors.
"gigantic increase in scope and size of all regulation" - yes like repeal of Glass–Steagall Act that allowed banks to engage in reckless gambling with other people's money and caused financial meltdown.
"near total shutdown in development of new energy" - ??? If anything, exactly opposite is true - Progressive are trying to push alternative energy and diversification from oil. You mean more risky deep water drilling, like in Gulf?
"massive expansion of government in medical, educational, and financial fields" - I will give you educational, everything else just not there.
So out of NINE points, you have ONE THIRD of a point. Plus two points (military gays, abortions) exemplify radicalization of what left of conservative movement.
"near total shutdown in development of new energy" - ??? If anything, exactly opposite is true - Progressive are trying to push alternative energy and diversification from oil. You mean more risky deep water drilling, like in Gulf?
"near total shutdown in development of new energy" - ??? If anything, exactly opposite is true - Progressive are trying to push alternative energy and diversification from oil. You mean more risky deep water drilling, like in Gulf?
I thought Progressives didn't like Nuclear energy because of the risk of having a nuclear meltdown? Nuclear Plant design approved If this is the same link you posted, where did you get that quote from? The link you provided needs to have a log in to be seen. That's why I'm posting the link and the text. I'm wondering where you got that quote from and can you provide any facts that BUSH stalled the Nuclear plant from being built?
Text from link.
Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission unanimously approved a radical new reactor design on Thursday, clearing away a major obstacle for two utilities to begin construction on projects in South Carolina and Georgia.
A blog about energy and the environment. Go to Blog » The decision, a milestone in the much-delayed revival of plant construction sought by the nuclear industry, involves the Westinghouse AP1000, a 1,154-megawatt reactor with a so-called advanced passive design. It relies more heavily on forces like gravity and natural heat convection and less on pumps, valves and operator actions than other models do, in theory diminishing the probability of an accident.
Two reactors are planned for the Southern Company’s plant near Augusta, Ga., and another two at the Summer plant of South Carolina Electric and Gas in Fairfield County, S.C.
In an unusual step, the commission waived the usual 30-day waiting period before its approval becomes official, so its decision will be effective in about a week. That moves the utilities closer to the point where they can start pouring concrete for safety-related parts of the plant.
The decision also moves the industry toward the first test of a streamlined procedure in which the commission will issue a combined construction and operating license. Up to now reactors had to obtain a construction license and then undergo a long wait for an operating license, resulting in expensive delays in starting up reactors that had essentially been completed.
Many of today’s operating reactors were one of a kind. Under the new system, the utility will use a standard design preapproved by the commission, like the one endorsed on Thursday. The only remaining issue will be whether the utility was faithful to the authorized design. Southern and South Carolina Electric and Gas could get combined licenses soon.
The new licensing procedure is intended to cut costs, which ran so high in the last round of construction, in the 1970s and 1980s, that many projects were abandoned half-built.
In the emerging round of construction, Southern and South Carolina Electric and their partners have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars digging foundations for the projects. They have also brought in cooling water and taken other early steps that do not require approval of the reactor design.
In a statement welcoming the commission’s decision, Westinghouse said that about 3,000 high-paying construction jobs would be created at each plant site and that workers manufacturing components at factories around the country would benefit as well.
Of the 104 operating power reactors in the United States, the youngest entered service in 1996.
The four reactors to be built are the only survivors in what had been envisioned as a bigger field of new plants that narrowed over the last three years as investors ran into financial and other obstacles.
In fact, it is not clear whether ground will be broken on any additional reactors soon; industry experts say the biggest obstacle is that the price of natural gas remains quite low, making it difficult to produce electricity from a reactor at a price competitive with electricity from a gas-burning plant.
Congress has approved $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new reactors and there is considerable support for even more, but it is not clear that borrowers will emerge.
Among other design improvements, the Westinghouse AP1000 is supposed to shut down safely in the event of a loss of all electrical power, which is what befell the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan after the earthquake and tsunami in March.
Westinghouse says that a combination of automatic systems and design features would keep the reactor safe for three days without human intervention and that its core could be kept from melting indefinitely with only minimal operator effort.
The regulatory commission approved an earlier version of the AP1000 in 2006, but the design was later ruled out for American utilities when the agency adopted a rule in 2008 requiring newly constructed reactors to be able to withstand the impact of a crashing aircraft.
China is in advanced stages of constructing four units of an earlier version of the AP1000. The first unit is scheduled to go online in 2013, about three years before the first one would begin operating in the United States.
Westinghouse predicts that certification of the design by the regulatory commission will make it easier for the company to market the model around the world.
Opponents of the reactor, among them the North Carolina group NC Warn, have argued that no new designs should be certified until the lessons of the Fukushima accident have been fully absorbed.
And Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, and others have drawn attention to concerns raised by an engineer at the commission that a building surrounding the reactor containment might fail under some circumstances.
But the chairman of the commission, Gregory B. Jaczko, said that all of the panel’s safety concerns had been fully addressed.
“The design provides enhanced safety margins through use of simplified, inherent, passive or other innovative safety and security functions, and also has been assessed to ensure it could withstand damage from an aircraft impact without significant release of radioactive materials,” he said in a statement.
The decision is a rare instance of agreement among the commissioners, who have split this year over policy and management issues. Last week four of them testified before Congress that Dr. Jaczko had limited the flow of information to them and tried to cut them out of important decisions.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: December 22, 2011
An earlier version of this story included an erroneous headline. A new reactor design from Westinghouse was approved; two utilities did not win approval for nuclear power plants.
A version of this article appeared in print on December 23, 2011, on page B6 of the New York edition with the headline: Approval of Reactor Design Clears Path for New Plants.
"World most offensive shirt" is not the link I posted. Sorry about NYT link, they randomly try to paywall people.
Quote is from the argument with cheerio.
Not sure how I got the TOSH link in there, nonetheless here's the link for the NYTIMES
OK, so the quote was from something you and Cheerio were discussing. What about the facts about BUSH stalling on the new nuclear designs?
We had some good discussions a while back with ARKH about nuclear power. It would take a while to try and find the archives to those discussions.
I'm for using Nuclear power, hell I'm for using anything that get us away from sending Hundreds of millions, or billions to the middle east and other places to buy oil while we have the technology and resources here to do so.
I am strongly pro-science solutions, go nuclear, go fusion, go thermal! I am meh on oil, I'd rather see it saved for chemistry purposes than burned to heat or drive us.
