I'm a Republican, but I don't know why.

Darla said:
But the thing is, strict adherence to free market ideology and weakening (eventual, ending) of the social safety net, though a radically right ideology, is treated as mainstream by our media.

What liberals do you know who propose eliminating the free market and moving to a truly socialist society?

What liberals advocate for is a strong social safety net, and checks on so-called free trade, reflecting concern for the laborer, the poor, and the environment. That is NOT the opposite of the radical right position routinely espoused. It is treated that way, but it is NOT. It is in fact, a centrist position.

The actual opposite of the radical right ideology, would be out and out socialism, and you find me one proponent of socialism as an economic system who is getting a platform in main stream media.

The fact is, a centrist liberal position has been painted as the “left”. But it’s no such thing. And that is how the power elites are getting away with screwing not just the poor, not just the low income, but the middle class in this country. Because they have been allowed to frame a mainstream ideology as radically leftist, and a radical right ideology as mainstream.
Click to expand...

I've seen any politician on the right propose eliminating the social net of social security or medicare (any politician that has received national votes). So to say the Republican Party wants to eliminate those isn't accurate.
 
Darla said:
But the thing is, strict adherence to free market ideology and weakening (eventual, ending) of the social safety net, though a radically right ideology, is treated as mainstream by our media.

What liberals do you know who propose eliminating the free market and moving to a truly socialist society?

What liberals advocate for is a strong social safety net, and checks on so-called free trade, reflecting concern for the laborer, the poor, and the environment. That is NOT the opposite of the radical right position routinely espoused. It is treated that way, but it is NOT. It is in fact, a centrist position.

The actual opposite of the radical right ideology, would be out and out socialism, and you find me one proponent of socialism as an economic system who is getting a platform in main stream media.

The fact is, a centrist liberal position has been painted as the “left”. But it’s no such thing. And that is how the power elites are getting away with screwing not just the poor, not just the low income, but the middle class in this country. Because they have been allowed to frame a mainstream ideology as radically leftist, and a radical right ideology as mainstream.
Click to expand...


There is some truthiness to this, though, as a progressive, my trust for government & the ability of government to oversee certain programs & aspects of society is extremely limited. I am definitely not comfortable with the extent to which some other liberals advocate for greater gov't involvement, and also with a seeming disregard for whatever something might cost (a prime example is universal healthcare; while the goal is noble, I have yet to hear anyone on the left tell me how they will pay for it without breaking the bank).

I see gov't as having a much more active oversight role, in conjunction with a fairly unrestricted free market. Government needs to do things like prevent insurance fraud, unnecessary litigation, price spiking, & mandatory minimums/quotas for insurance denials. On the environmental front, government needs to set & enforce strict codes for industry, and set limits on things like emissions & pollutants. But the free market has a place once that oversight is established.

But yeah, I hate how liberalism is characterized as socialism; I just realized that I did that myself in the other post. It was inadvertant, and probably influenced by the way I always hear it characterized as such.
 
cawacko said:
So because most Democrats supported Bill Clinton does that mean progressive liberal ideology is dead? That is what your comparison is saying.
Click to expand...

a seperate argument. Just because republicans screwed the pooch does not necessarially mean the demoncrats did as well.
False argument.

althougth on the seperate argument I will agree that the dems have screwed the pooch somewhat as well.
 
Onceler said:
There really does have to be a healthy balance of the 2; moderates get slammed for being "wishy washy," but centrism is probably where it's at....
Click to expand...

No there doesn't have to be a healthy balance. You are confused because you are defining "failure" in a way that you think is objective.

So maybe the free market wont get everyone healthcare coverage . . . annnnd?

You say that's a failure, I say who gives a shit . . .

It's all about end goals.
 
Darla said:
But the thing is, strict adherence to free market ideology and weakening (eventual, ending) of the social safety net, though a radically right ideology, is treated as mainstream by our media.

What liberals do you know who propose eliminating the free market and moving to a truly socialist society?

What liberals advocate for is a strong social safety net, and checks on so-called free trade, reflecting concern for the laborer, the poor, and the environment. That is NOT the opposite of the radical right position routinely espoused. It is treated that way, but it is NOT. It is in fact, a centrist position.

The actual opposite of the radical right ideology, would be out and out socialism, and you find me one proponent of socialism as an economic system who is getting a platform in main stream media.

The fact is, a centrist liberal position has been painted as the “left”. But it’s no such thing. And that is how the power elites are getting away with screwing not just the poor, not just the low income, but the middle class in this country. Because they have been allowed to frame a mainstream ideology as radically leftist, and a radical right ideology as mainstream.
Click to expand...

that's exactly right, well put.
 
Darla said:
What liberals advocate for is a strong social safety net, and checks on so-called free trade, reflecting concern for the laborer, the poor, and the environment. That is NOT the opposite of the radical right position routinely espoused. It is treated that way, but it is NOT. It is in fact, a centrist position.
Click to expand...

"What I like is the center.." - lol.
 
Onceler said:
There is some truthiness to this, though, as a progressive, my trust for government & the ability of government to oversee certain programs & aspects of society is extremely limited. I am definitely not comfortable with the extent to which some other liberals advocate for greater gov't involvement, and also with a seeming disregard for whatever something might cost (a prime example is universal healthcare; while the goal is noble, I have yet to hear anyone on the left tell me how they will pay for it without breaking the bank).

I see gov't as having a much more active oversight role, in conjunction with a fairly unrestricted free market. Government needs to do things like prevent insurance fraud, unnecessary litigation, price spiking, & mandatory minimums/quotas for insurance denials. On the environmental front, government needs to set & enforce strict codes for industry, and set limits on things like emissions & pollutants. But the free market has a place once that oversight is established.

But yeah, I hate how liberalism is characterized as socialism; I just realized that I did that myself in the other post. It was inadvertant, and probably influenced by the way I always hear it characterized as such.
Click to expand...


But yeah, I hate how liberalism is characterized as socialism


Uh, you and me both. I've commented numerous times, that it's an intentional pejorative to link "socialism" and the democratic party.

For fucks sake, in great britain, or most of the social liberal democracies of the world, most members of the american democratic party would be considered Tories, or center-right politicians.

In the UK, Dennis Kucinich, and Harry Ried would be in opposite parties.
 
uscitizen said:
The republican ideology changed with Bush. Now if virtually all republicans had not supported him you would have a valid argument.
Click to expand...

The absolutly, side-splitting, knee slapping funny part about this, is that bush isn't doing anything substanitially different than what ronald reagan did.

Its the same shit different day. Cut taxes for wealthy investors, ramp up spending on the military industrial complex, a hawkish warlike foreign policy, and gutting government oversight and regulation.

Its the same damned shit.

But since Junior Bush's approval ratings are around 29%, and his abject failure as a leader is obvious, conservatives (recently) have been compelled to whine that bush really "isn't one of them." While they continue to worship reagan
 
Cypress said:
Confused Republican apologist writes:

I’m against the Iraq war, but I support the surge. I think the Iraq war was wrong, but I’m voting for John McCain. We may kill tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq, with foreknowledge of the consequences of our actions. But, we don’t mean or intend to kill them, and we can sleep easy at night knowing this.

I’m not saying I don’t believe in global warming. And I’m not saying there’s global cooling. But, if you take a ruler, and draw a straight line between one year and the 1990s, and one year in this decade, it shows a cooling trend. But, I’m not anti-science! Don’t label me as an anti-science wingnut! I don’t believe humans are causing global warming, but I’m also not saying the worldwide scientific community is wrong about that. I might have denied for 20 years that global warming was even happening, but then again maybe it is. But, maybe, with my ruler and my straight line between two data points, the earth is cooling. Who knows!! I’m not anti-science damn you, but I will vote for a party and for candidates who oppose stem cell research on moral grounds, and who deny global warming, and who advocate teaching creation science in public school science classes.

I’m virulently opposed to massive government spending. But, I support and will vote for a party who committed to continuing us in a three trillion dollar war in Iraq. Even though there weren’t WMD, or collaborative Bathiist ties to al qaeda.

And I don’t think there should be massive tax cuts, without commensurate massive spending cuts. But, I knowingly voted for a guy in 2000 who promised that we could have BOTH massive tax cuts, and massive spending increases in healthcare, military, and education.
Click to expand...

I get it.

Make up a silly story, attribute it to an unnamed "Republican", and then imply all Republicans are like that and bash them all for it.

And actual Republicans don't have to lift a finger or say a thing, to be badmouthed.

What an original concept. (not!) :lolup:
 
Cypress said:
Bush did exactly what he promised to do. And he had 99.9% republican support from congress to do it. Cut taxes, mainly on investment income and for the wealthy, and plunder the treasury and spend more money on the military, privitizing healthcare for the elderly, and No Child Left behind. And he gave republicans the war they wanted.

I didn't see waves of protest from republicans about all this, until bush's poll numbers dipped below 30%, and he cost them congress in 2006. And I still don't see any significant numbers of republicans in congress oppossing him on anything.
Click to expand...
Because all the posts talking about how crappy his social programs were escaped you, because they are inconvenient.
 
Grind said:
No there doesn't have to be a healthy balance. You are confused because you are defining "failure" in a way that you think is objective.

So maybe the free market wont get everyone healthcare coverage . . . annnnd?

You say that's a failure, I say who gives a shit . . .

It's all about end goals.
Click to expand...

It all depends on what kind of society you want to live in. I want to live in a society where I pay for health coverage, and they can't deny me when I need an operation based on some loophole that's tied into an arbitrary quota they have. I also want to live in a society where corporations are not free to pollute & develop as they see fit.

I know you don't care about those things, but I don't want to live in anything close to what your vision of a good & acceptable society is.
 
Onceler said:
It all depends on what kind of society you want to live in. I want to live in a society where I pay for health coverage, and they can't deny me when I need an operation based on some loophole that's tied into an arbitrary quota they have. I also want to live in a society where corporations are not free to pollute & develop as they see fit.

I know you don't care about those things, but I don't want to live in anything close to what your vision of a good & acceptable society is.
Click to expand...
So you think that governments don't create arbitrary quotas?
 
Onceler said:
What kind of strawman are you trying for here?

Can you ever debate anything honestly?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a dishonest response at all. I believe there are lots of things government does which unfairly give benefit to some industries or others, some companies over others and distort the marketplace. I'm not sure if that is what Damo had in mind.
 
Onceler said:
What kind of strawman are you trying for here?

Can you ever debate anything honestly?
Click to expand...
I asked a question, can you answer honestly? You suggest that companies will set arbitrary quotas and that your perfect society won't. The assumption is that it isn't companies running things or that they are regulated. During regulation has there never been an arbitrary quota created? Have you thought through your assumption of perfection built on a different group leading and setting the quotas? About a million other questions came to mind, but I brought up the one that seemed the least logical. "If it isn't free market there won't be arbitrary quotas." implied within your statement.

Basically I wanted you to eleborate on what would create this fantastic society of yours. It isn't democratic policy or it would have been created long ago with 40 years of control of Congress with many times the WH just chock full of liberal ready to sign whatever came from them.
 
Damocles said:
Because all the posts talking about how crappy his social programs were escaped you, because they are inconvenient.
Click to expand...

Everything that doesn't fit into his strawman world is automatically dismissed.... even when it agrees with the majority of what he is concocting.
 
Damocles said:
I asked a question, can you answer honestly? You suggest that companies will set arbitrary quotas and that your perfect society won't. The assumption is that it isn't companies running things or that they are regulated. During regulation has there never been an arbitrary quota created? Have you thought through your assumption of perfection built on a different group leading and setting the quotas? About a million other questions came to mind, but I brought up the one that seemed the least logical. "If it isn't free market there won't be arbitrary quotas." implied within your statement.
Click to expand...

Fuck off. This is exactly what you do.

I was talking about quotas very specifically in relation to healthcare, and in terms of quotas for DENYING coverage, which is against the public good. There are other areas where quotas may or may not be more beneficial, but to not acknowledge that I was talking about a specific area is inherently dishonest.

If you read further back, you will see that I believe in the free market, and in the gov't in more of an oversight capacity. I have not - nor will I - defend every government practice, and there are undoubtedly areas where they set quotas or regulations that are NOT in the interest of the overall public. I am not talking about government now; I am talking about a philosophy that I think should be applied & that might have more potential.

But you have to be a fucking idiot & chime in with a hit-the-broad-side-of-a-barn "you don't think gov'ts create arbitrary quotas", when I was talking about one specific instance.

So fuck off.
 
I see your lover chiming in, no doubt in your defense, but fortunately, I am unable to read what he is saying. No doubt it's incredibly insightful & open-minded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top