How Republicans Blew It
- Thread starter foxpaws
- Start date
Relevance? Or are you hiding behind foxpaws red herring without giving it any thought first?
Do you even think before you post?
You cannot find one post in this thread where I have in any way "whined" about someone injecting politics and ideology.
You are gleaning confirmation from NOTHING.
As I said in post #97:
it seems that the only way you can defend your point is to get more nasty and belligerent.
Thanks for proving my point. 
Again, relevance?
trying to claim "you inject things into a debate too" is IRRELEVANT to the point being raised. It is simply childish misdirection to avoid criticism; a red herring. To actually think, in any way, the point you are making counters the points I have raised is exceedingly intellectually sloppy, if not dishonest.
- You are claiming to not inject religion into a debate when your sig's and avatar's are aimed at doing that.
- I am not claiming to not inject politics and ideology into a thread when my sig's and avatar's do that.
FYI: you STILL haven't shown ONE POST in this thread where I "whine" about someone injecting politics and ideology into a thread even though you claim in post #101 that this thread serves as proof of that. Basically, you were lying in post #101.
It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
-President Abraham Lincoln
-President Abraham Lincoln
you have still not shown how an avatar or sig interjects anything. does it speak?
is it rational? can it argue?
It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
-President Abraham Lincoln
bingo!
i never said you do. i said you whine of sigs and avatars. this thread is proof.
once again, you are dishonest. but we know of your lies and deciet.
you don't want HONEST discussion, you just want what agrees with you.
i interject religion?
by now we all know how much we enjoy and value the richness of each other here
Anyways this WP article offers some further opinion on the thread topic.
I can laugh while crying about the thought of paying for all the services to near future have no or meagre savings penuried retirees.
Future Watch:
Care for a cigarette old man?
I hear they're good for the country
now that smoking has become downright patriotic
The Republican crackup
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033101663.html
By Matt Miller
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Has anyone else noticed that seemingly well-adjusted Republicans have been driven insane by the passage of Obamacare? You can catch them muttering under their breath, whimpering on editorial pages and howling to the moon that this Democratic victory is the death knell for much that we cherish in American life. When I first saw a Republican friend jump out the window in this fashion, I assumed it was an isolated incident, or even politically motivated play-acting. Now that I've seen countless others follow suit, however, it's a phenomenon that merits deeper psychological inquiry.
As a matter of objective reality, after all, this Republican derangement seems an absurd overreaction. How could taking Mitt Romney's health-care plan national be seen by any balanced person as the beginning of the end? Still, everyone knows that too many big, stressful changes at once -- such as getting divorced, changing jobs and moving homes -- can push even sturdy people over the edge. Three sudden emotional shocks likewise explain the Republican crackup.
Shock 1: Losing big. For starters, Republicans simply have not lost on an issue this big in decades. Media coverage features so many breathless political ups and downs that it's easy to assume each party tastes victory and defeat in equal measure. But as a matter of ideology, these overheated fights take place between the 45-yard lines on a field that conservatives shrewdly tilted to their advantage several decades ago. That President Obama could move the debate to the 40-yard line and win is something the modern GOP has never experienced. Republicans mauled President Clinton when he tried to do the same; after 1994, Clinton's "wins" were trumped-up and tiny. Republicans have so successfully framed the debate for so long that they don't know what it feels like to be thoroughly beaten. Who wouldn't feel disoriented and angry?
Shock 2: The quest for security. The next blow is the dawning awareness that the quest for economic security in a global era is reshaping politics. The instant premise of Republican analysis -- that the public will never tolerate Obamacare's repeal once it is implemented -- concedes the point that health reform will bring a measure of security that families crave. The Republican psyche is having so much trouble digesting this reality, though, that the party is resorting to the kind of condescending arguments for which they normally damn liberals. Who's got more contempt for the average American? Liberals who say everyday Kansans vote Republican because they're too dumb to grasp their own economic self-interest? Or conservatives who now say voters are too dimwitted to see that Obamacare will devour their freedom?
Deep down, Republicans know they haven't developed serious policy responses to the economic anxieties of the middle class. This (rightly) scares them.
Shock 3: The death of the tax issue. The final shock is the cruelest of all: the demise of the tax issue that's defined the Republican brand since Ronald Reagan. There's been no shortage of conservative carping since the health-care vote that we're now doomed to have a value-added tax to fund the runaway welfare state. Well, earth to GOP: Taxes have always been destined to go up as baby boomers retire and we double the number of people on Social Security and Medicare in the years ahead -- and the scale of that retiree commitment is far greater than the tab for Obamacare. Trying to blame health reform for the higher taxes in our future is another species of the denial that has left GOP tax talk almost comically detached from reality. But this is just the GOP acting out its fears. When a party discovers that core aspects of its political identity no longer offer meaningful answers to the nation's problems, the torment is acute. Yet what else can we say of the GOP now that "rugged individualism" won't suffice to save American workers from competition from China and India, and when taxes are sure to rise, no matter how many Republicans we elect?
The signposts in the Republican universe have been abruptly altered. So don't let yourself become desensitized to the sight of conservatives stumbling, lost in the night, the way you avert your eyes when passing poor homeless souls on the sidewalk. Suffering is subjective. There are people on the street who really think they are Jesus. There are Republicans in our midst who really think Obama's version of Romneycare equals socialism. There but for the grace of God -- and maybe a little less sloppy thinking -- go we.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Fixed that for ya.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It all makes sense if you ignore all the major elections in the last year.
And Obama's tanking approval numbers.
Yeah it's all about a 'football game' between the Republicans and Democrats. It has nothing to do with taking over the country and dropping the anvil of government on our heads, right?
Wrongheaded analysis. It's the lack of votes that make repeal so unlikely, not public opinion, you moron.
Oh, is that why Obama ran on a platform of tax increases for everybody? Oh wait...
Not to mention this entire paragraph is a red herring as Obama's spending so far has NOTHING to do with the baby boomers. So the solution to the baby boomer problem is...SPEND SPEND SPEND? Spend like there's no tomorrow? Blooming idiot logic.
Somebody translate this into English.
Somebody translate this into English.
He's saying rugged individualism no longer works in a world moving towards security through healthcare as an economic model and republicans running on tax cuts will not be able to deliver long term due to demographics.
The Washington Post article either demonstrates the authors complete lack of understanding of what is going on or a deliberate effort to misrepresent the truth.
The author is Matt Miller and he is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. That's the George Sorros funded far-left group that has an unprecedented amount of power in Washington, DC right now.
In fairness to Miller, he's what the left considers a "centrist." But, in candor, that's because he's a pragmatic, well-intentioned, soft tyranny kind of guy, and not radical.
I have seen a one-party political system just begin the aggressive, unconstitutional take over of 1/6 of the economy though. And the education system. Against the will of the people.
I have seen the government just pass a bill, against the will of the people, that robs of us of our liberty, our independence, violates the constitution, destroys the principles of limited government, states rights, and personal freedom. And I did see a government that is racing us towards economic collapse.
First, look at the outcome of the Mass. Health Care system right now. It's a failure.
Second, Obamacare is much more than the compromise that was RomneyCare.
And lastly, individual states have the right to pass bad policy if they wish to. Infact, that's the right model. The federal government does not have the constitutional power or authority to do this.
There's no "we'll gettem' next weekend" at play here.
Once you lose liberty and freedom, it's damn near impossible to get it back without massive upheaval.
This man is a fool for not understanding this.
But I don't think he does. He's a progressive left kind of guy, one who thinks that decisions should be centralized, and that professional planners should make all decisions for us. The constitution and those principles are so 18th century and just don't apply anymore. I'm sure he's looking at the Chinese for more "good ideas."
more freedom isn't a "serious policy" response to those in the political class of the left. The only "policy" responses are MORE government. All things must be responded to with MORE government, less liberty.
More importantly, if it were true, the DNC wouldn't still be lying about the cost of the bill.
Fact is, most people, even those that naively support the bill don't understand how much it will actually cost. It has been presented to the public as a bill that not only won't cost more, but it will SAVE money.
Now that it has passed, we're seeing the dialog, often from fellows at the CAP, mentioning the huge cost, the likely need for a VAT tax, and things like that in passing during conversation, interviews, and articles like this one.
Just like they have started to now acknowledge the "cost savings" associated with the "death panels" they previously said didn't exist. Or the fact the bill is also designed as a tool of redistributing wealth.
It's just trickling out into the discourse, being states rather matter of fact and offhand, like everyone knew this already, it's not big deal.
And people will either gradually just come to accept it without much more thought, or when they get outraged, they'll argue that it wasn't a secret and you should have known before hand.
The author is Matt Miller and he is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. That's the George Sorros funded far-left group that has an unprecedented amount of power in Washington, DC right now.
In fairness to Miller, he's what the left considers a "centrist." But, in candor, that's because he's a pragmatic, well-intentioned, soft tyranny kind of guy, and not radical.
I haven't noticed that.
I have seen a one-party political system just begin the aggressive, unconstitutional take over of 1/6 of the economy though. And the education system. Against the will of the people.
I have seen the government just pass a bill, against the will of the people, that robs of us of our liberty, our independence, violates the constitution, destroys the principles of limited government, states rights, and personal freedom. And I did see a government that is racing us towards economic collapse.
...the tone of the article is offensive, and it's one that being repeated by the proponents of this government expansion. The belittling. The mockery. And the refusal to actually address any of the actual arguments and principles that oppose the bill.
For many reasons-
First, look at the outcome of the Mass. Health Care system right now. It's a failure.
Second, Obamacare is much more than the compromise that was RomneyCare.
And lastly, individual states have the right to pass bad policy if they wish to. Infact, that's the right model. The federal government does not have the constitutional power or authority to do this.
The imagery here is that people who defend the constitutional, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility are little more than latch-key adolescents dealing with a broken home?
This isn't a sport.
There's no "we'll gettem' next weekend" at play here.
Once you lose liberty and freedom, it's damn near impossible to get it back without massive upheaval.
This man is a fool for not understanding this.
But I don't think he does. He's a progressive left kind of guy, one who thinks that decisions should be centralized, and that professional planners should make all decisions for us. The constitution and those principles are so 18th century and just don't apply anymore. I'm sure he's looking at the Chinese for more "good ideas."
As we've discussed here-
more freedom isn't a "serious policy" response to those in the political class of the left. The only "policy" responses are MORE government. All things must be responded to with MORE government, less liberty.
If this were true, Obama wouldn't have spent 2008 lying about how he wouldn't raise taxes on most people.
More importantly, if it were true, the DNC wouldn't still be lying about the cost of the bill.
Fact is, most people, even those that naively support the bill don't understand how much it will actually cost. It has been presented to the public as a bill that not only won't cost more, but it will SAVE money.
Now that it has passed, we're seeing the dialog, often from fellows at the CAP, mentioning the huge cost, the likely need for a VAT tax, and things like that in passing during conversation, interviews, and articles like this one.
Just like they have started to now acknowledge the "cost savings" associated with the "death panels" they previously said didn't exist. Or the fact the bill is also designed as a tool of redistributing wealth.
It's just trickling out into the discourse, being states rather matter of fact and offhand, like everyone knew this already, it's not big deal.
And people will either gradually just come to accept it without much more thought, or when they get outraged, they'll argue that it wasn't a secret and you should have known before hand.
The "quest for economic security" is an exceedingly dangerous illusion that can and will destroy a civil society. It is ultimately the goal of security from economic concerns; something that is not possible in the real world. When polices are acted to provide that for a society, society suffers and, in the long term is torn apart. That is because those policies make the perfect the enemy of the good and throw out the (proven to work) good in order to work toward the (unproven and based on elitist postulations) perfect.
This article has is bass ackwards. "Rugged individualism" is really the only system that is ultimately sustainable in the long term.
The article is also exceedingly economically ignorant. Viewing increased taxes as somehow "inevitable" under the utterly foolish assumption that tax revenue would go up; ignoring the fact that people's behavior changes in response to tax increases, ultimately leading to a loss of revenue. Static vs. Dynamic economic analysis.
You would do well to glean insight from authors possessing some degree of economic knowledge, unlike this author.
You should read The Road To Serfdom.
In fact, frankly, your big problems seems to be that your primary source of information is simply news stories. When it comes to politics that isn't enough. If you don't understand the worldviews behind it, you have no point of reference and only ultimately cannot judge these things except from an exceedingly ignorant and ultimately irrational point of view.
Hume famously said "reason is the slave if the passions". With out an understanding of the various philosophical points of view here, that is all you are left with judging a position by what seems the most pragmatice and the most emotionally appealing. However, any point is pragmatic, given certain philosophical assumptions. So it comes down to who can get their message out there the best and make it appeal the most to emotion; not on actual reason and objective thought. The only way to fix that is to gain an understanding of the different philosophical points of view involved.
Cal has recommended the Federalist Papers, which are invaluable. As he has said, reading and understanding them is better then a 4 year degree.
I would also add Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions to that list. It is an objective, scholarly (yet readable) presentation of a unique, but very accurate, dichotomy of world views drawn between what he calls the "constrained" vision and the "unconstrained" vision.
The Road To Serfdom is also invaluable in understanding why certain policies kill productivity, are not economically sustainable, are incompatible with the rule of law and ultimately open the door for tyranny.
This article has is bass ackwards. "Rugged individualism" is really the only system that is ultimately sustainable in the long term.
The article is also exceedingly economically ignorant. Viewing increased taxes as somehow "inevitable" under the utterly foolish assumption that tax revenue would go up; ignoring the fact that people's behavior changes in response to tax increases, ultimately leading to a loss of revenue. Static vs. Dynamic economic analysis.
You would do well to glean insight from authors possessing some degree of economic knowledge, unlike this author.
You should read The Road To Serfdom.
In fact, frankly, your big problems seems to be that your primary source of information is simply news stories. When it comes to politics that isn't enough. If you don't understand the worldviews behind it, you have no point of reference and only ultimately cannot judge these things except from an exceedingly ignorant and ultimately irrational point of view.
Hume famously said "reason is the slave if the passions". With out an understanding of the various philosophical points of view here, that is all you are left with judging a position by what seems the most pragmatice and the most emotionally appealing. However, any point is pragmatic, given certain philosophical assumptions. So it comes down to who can get their message out there the best and make it appeal the most to emotion; not on actual reason and objective thought. The only way to fix that is to gain an understanding of the different philosophical points of view involved.
Cal has recommended the Federalist Papers, which are invaluable. As he has said, reading and understanding them is better then a 4 year degree.
I would also add Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions to that list. It is an objective, scholarly (yet readable) presentation of a unique, but very accurate, dichotomy of world views drawn between what he calls the "constrained" vision and the "unconstrained" vision.
The Road To Serfdom is also invaluable in understanding why certain policies kill productivity, are not economically sustainable, are incompatible with the rule of law and ultimately open the door for tyranny.
This article is a prime example of a lack of understanding of the world views involved. The author may have a dim understanding of the roots of the left wing point of view, but those roots are mostly taken as dogma by him and beyond being questioned. His entire article is then written from that perspective.
It only even sounds remotely reasonable to those ignorant of the various world views in play here. In fact, the article plays off that ignorance and serves as a propaganda piece to marginalize the conservative point of view.
It only even sounds remotely reasonable to those ignorant of the various world views in play here. In fact, the article plays off that ignorance and serves as a propaganda piece to marginalize the conservative point of view.
Here is what you quoted from me in post #101:
Difference is, we don't whine about someone injecting politics and ideology into a debate while having those sig's and avatars...
And here is your response:yes you do. this thread is a case in point.
Now, who is the liar?"How Republicans Blew It."
The Republicans failed to prevent Obamacare from being passed simply because the Democrats have over whelming control of 2 of the branches of the government, and they are aggressively packing the 3rd.
The Republicans "blew it" by failing to represent the constitutional conservative principles that were expected from them resulting in their losses in 2006 and 2008.
They blew it by embracing the concept of "compromise" when dealing with radical policy. When one group supports constitutional values and the other supports statism, there is no "compromise." That's simply incremental-ism.
And the Republicans blew it because they haven't explained both the pragmatic value and importance of personal and economic liberty, but the philosophical and historic necessity of it as well.
The constitution limits the power of the federal government because, they recognized as we all should, that government is naturally inclined to continue to expand and take liberty from it's citizens. It's human nature.
Remember, the Democrats have expressed this repeatedly. This healthcare bill is only the FIRST STEP. The starter house. The trojan horse.
The Republicans failed to prevent Obamacare from being passed simply because the Democrats have over whelming control of 2 of the branches of the government, and they are aggressively packing the 3rd.
The Republicans "blew it" by failing to represent the constitutional conservative principles that were expected from them resulting in their losses in 2006 and 2008.
They blew it by embracing the concept of "compromise" when dealing with radical policy. When one group supports constitutional values and the other supports statism, there is no "compromise." That's simply incremental-ism.
And the Republicans blew it because they haven't explained both the pragmatic value and importance of personal and economic liberty, but the philosophical and historic necessity of it as well.
The constitution limits the power of the federal government because, they recognized as we all should, that government is naturally inclined to continue to expand and take liberty from it's citizens. It's human nature.
Remember, the Democrats have expressed this repeatedly. This healthcare bill is only the FIRST STEP. The starter house. The trojan horse.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So since Obama ran on tax cuts, are you saying a) he lied or b) that it didn't work in getting him elected?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
04SCTLS, I've said this before, but you should read Atlas Shrugged as well.
Hume's quote was:
“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them”
When I first read this in Treatise of Human Nature I took it to mean that reason's role in guiding actions is limited to its ability in fulling a desire, a 'passion'. That we reason ourselves into doing what emotionally we want to do anyway. You obviously saw that differently shag...
But, since we have mixed religion in this thread - Hume has one of my very favorite quotes regarding religion...
"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one."
But, since everyone is adding to your reading list '04 - I would look at Robert Dahl's Preface to Democratic Theory as an interesting look at purely American politics - sort of a rebuttal to Madison actually. It is an interesting look at why has the constitution lasted this long - that perhaps our social checks and balances are what really hold the country together, and not the institutionalized ones.
"To assume that this country has remained democratic because of its constitution seems to me an obvious reversal of the relation; it is much more plausible to suppose that the constitution has remained because our society is essentially democratic."
But there is also this point about double peaked preferences and why an equal double peak has a tendency to end up in discourse (civil war). The parallels he draws have an almost eerie correlation to current times.
And what do you take from that quote?
Why is that one of your favorite quotes regarding religion.
That reason cannot convince us of God. That you are moved by faith (which is the 2nd 'miracle' in the quote - the miracle of faith), and that is what gives you the ability to grasp something which is beyond human experience.
That is why it is one of my favorite quotes - it builds on Hume's reason/passion quote and incorporates it into something that touches me on a very personal level.
A Constitutional republic is not a democracy. In fact, the injection of democracy has lead to our Constitution being slowly chipped away at.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Those who have been educated with soundbytes and mainstream media think that 'democracy' is the path that made America great.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Limited government is what made America great.
Now that government is massive, America will not be great.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Limited government is what made America great.
Now that government is massive, America will not be great.
You just nailed the big problem right there; political ignorance.
Far too many people only get their understanding of politics from newspapers, television and pop culture. they don't understand how that all stems from philosophy or even have an understanding of the philosophical viewpoints behind it. As they say, if you don't believe something, you'll buy anything.
Then in comes left wing rhetoric eschewing all philosophy and simply presenting their ideas as pragmatic in emotionally appealing tones; something that any ideology can and does do. The only difference is that, despite the fact that this is a center-right nation, liberal rhetoric has for generations dominated due a monopoly in the media and Hollywood. There is also the appeal of their rhetoric and ideas which actually turns a vices (greed, vindictiveness, envy, etc.) into a political virtue (social justice).
Another interesting corollary of your point is that foxpaws "recommended reading" is based in at least ignorance if not an outright attempt to deceive and mislead as to the nature of our government. Far from actually educating someone, it seems to promote disinformation and muddy the waters.
Foxpaws; always the propagandist.