fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
How cute. But I'm not interested in you nearly as much as you are in me. Buh-bye, now.
How Republicans Blew It
- Thread starter foxpaws
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Let's be clear.
1. You asked LOADED questions, of the 'do you still beat your wife' variety
2. You don't really CARE what I think, your purpose is only to be an ankle biting troll, taunt, or express your disapproval
3. If I answered your LOADED questions, you'd only sneer or ask more followup LOADED questions.
You're an open book. And as I said, you're extremely lean fare and I'm not that interested.
So why should I bother.
Go have a circle jerk with hrmwrm, you guys are charter members of the 'Fossten sucks' Internet Warriors Club.
ford nut
Local nut case
Let's be clear.
1. You asked LOADED questions, of the 'do you still beat your wife' variety
2. You don't really CARE what I think, your purpose is only to be an ankle biting troll, taunt, or express your disapproval
3. If I answered your LOADED questions, you'd only sneer or ask more followup LOADED questions.
You're an open book. And as I said, you're extremely lean fare and I'm not that interested.
So why should I bother.
Go have a circle jerk with hrmwrm, you guys are charter members of the 'Fossten sucks' Internet Warriors Club.
All I did was point out a comment you posted.
The only part you have correct is... I don't really care what you think.
This is funny as hell.
You of all people ....a moderator.:bowrofl:
Funny chit.
I just stated that you haven't here. No complaining, why would you say that Cal?
Maybe I won't burn in that 'special place in hell' maybe you fry or fricassee there, in that special place where Foss will be watching me from above.. or should we say 'on high'..
Splitting hairs aren't you Cal?
THEMOJOMAN
Dedicated LVC Member
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
demotiv time!
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Looks like you're taking a little editorial license yourself there.
You're the last person who should be accusing someone else of splitting hairs. Glass houses and all that.
Looks like this thread has devolved into a flame and troll session.
It was a critical observation in context, but it's not important. The point wasn't that you're being hypocritical, merely that I'm not proselytizing on the internet.
Thanks for confirming my point.
Nope, not splitting hairs.
I stand corrected.
But the broader point still remains. If some is making arguments with using their religiosity to give them authority or strengthen their argument, then it seems reasonable that it is a subject for discussion. I personally wouldn't go in that direction, but that doesn't make it wrong to do so. The people most critical of what Fossten in this thread are the same ones that constantly interject religion into discussion seemingly solely in an effort to provoke or attack Fossten based on faith.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Correct. The difference is that you two aren't worth anything original, so I make exceptions in your case.
Your sig always has religion or atheism as it's theme.
....Says the defensive member with a history of confrontational avatars and signatures.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
^^^^Ouch man. That'll leave a mark.
*owned*
*owned*
Yeah, those two concepts are not at all connected.
No, we are talking about you claiming you do not inject religion into a thread when your sig and avatar do precisely that.
Difference is, we don't whine about someone injecting politics and ideology into a debate while having those sig's and avatars...
Continuing the lie...
it seems that the only way you can defend your point is to get more nasty and belligerent. You have proven countless times that your views concerning politics and especially religion are based more in mindless dogma then in an actual understanding of the point of view you are espousing and/or attacking.
you exemplify Edmund Burke's famous statement:
it is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion
And since your signature and mine includes 'Nazi' and "Fascism" should we assume that as soon as we enter a discussion "Godwin's Law" has reared its ugly head? If it is in a signature it has been injected (through some sort of osmosis) into the conversation - correct? Is that what you are implying here shag?
And Foss's signature obviously shows an overriding jealously of someone who can afford Italian shoes. Perhaps he can't afford them himself, or the ones in his size just aren't that stylish. Should that affect how his posts are viewed? Should we view them through the filter of 'hater of 4" stilettos'? I know Foss, that you are so upset that Christian Louboutin isn't making the Ernesta Bow in your size.
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
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.