Wake The Fuck UP!

[Damocles]

There was no Socratic method intended. My questions were straightforward. One cannot debate unless one understands opposing views. We don't have sophomores, so I wouldn't know.
I think one thing that many seem to have in spades here, is the readiness to believe the worst of a post and jump to uncharted conclusions. Perhaps it comes from the Humpty-Dumptyness of the average American and his understanding of words.
Obama should have taken a controlling government interest in the banks. No private companies are going to invest in them and at present he is throwing good money after bad. Nationalise them. Fear not. It will happen.
Of course he should introduce a fairer tax system. I am not familiar with your system at present other than you pay a huge amount more than we do. So those who can, should and those that cannot, shouldn't.
Medicine in the US doesn't need socialism it needs a bloody Atomic bomb. The present system, as I understand it, is absolutely scandalous. Take away the onus from employers, scrap the parasitic insurance companies and let each and every citizen contribute. Employers would be more willing to hire and more willing to honestly meet their financial obligations to society.
Power must be wrested away from those who believe they have bought the right to govern. Hold those who have dragged you down accountable.
Reduce military spending, supply better education, get real. Learn to lose a little.
Lose your imperialist ideas. Stay at home and sort out the mess that once was proud America.

So, you are saying he isn't "right of center" then?

You did not answer the very direct question. In what ways do you believe he is "right of center"?

As for whether or not it was a sophomoric attempt at the Socratic Method, well... I present the idea that we have already participated in discussions whereupon you would be able to determine whether or not I met the criteria of an uniformed "humpty dumpty" American or not, thus the inane questions about how I thought the path toward nationalizing banks might be socialistic and thus not "right of center" was a particularly sad attempt at it.

The question asked of you was not a litany of things you believe would "improve" the US, it was quite directly, "In what way do you think Obama is 'right of center'?" as you had stated before.

One thing I know, I do not want to replace the current health care in the US with the system developed by the Brits or by the Canadians. I especially do not want a governmental entity developing a "best care" scenario whereupon health care is effectively rationed.

 

[WinterBorn]

I occasionally think back to when Bush was throwing out the idea people should be able to use their retirement funds for private investing. Imagine the nightmare we'd have now if that had come to pass. I think it would have dwarfed the mortgage defaults. It could have resulted in an entire generation slipping into poverty.


I think the fear of socialism or, more accurately, social policies has greatly diminished since the general population had a taste of "free enterprise", à la Bush.

Do you think Social Security will be there for you when you retire? Unless you are already retired, its not going to be there. I am in my early 50s and have no doubt the money will be gone when I retire. So the difference between Bush's plan and the current plan is just a matter of where themoney went, not whether people will be able to live on it or not.

Both parties have been screaming "They will steal your retirement money!!" for decades.

 

[zappasguitar]

In the wake of our new socialist dictatorship, I find it absolutely fascinating, how many brain-dead idiots who call themselves 'conservative', want to line up and proclaim to be 'moderates' for the sake of hopefully engaging the left in meaningful dialogue. You would think, John McCain's political demise would have been enough, that they would have gotten a clue with that, but nope... nadda!

(R)Sen. Orin Hatch - Utah, came out today to reassure us on the right, that he has personal spoken to 'his friend' Obama, about the SCOTUS pick, and he takes him at his word that he will pick someone who will be fair to all people, rich and poor, etc.... Senator Hatch? The primary fundamental function of a judge on the Supreme Court, should be to follow the Constitution, without regard to what is "fair" or "unfair" to people based on their richness or poorness.

Hatch is just the latest McCainanite Republican, who apparently still believes we can work with the left for meaningful changes to benefit all. Here on this very board, there are "right wing" types who claim to be "fiscal conservatives" who are falling all over themselves to appear "objective" and "reasoned" to the left. It's as if, getting your clock cleaned is not enough, you gotta hop right back up and continue to mutter the same mindless bullshit you were before.

These people can not be "worked with" in any regard. Unless you are somehow okay with turning our capitalist free-market nation into a Marxist-Socialist wet dream. If that is the case, then by all means, keep pretending you have a chip in the pot here, and by being "objective", the left will give your thoughts some consideration. Send me an invite to the Winterfest in Hell, will ya?

I realize the Republican Party is a bit of disarray at the moment, and if past recent history is any indication at all, we will end up with some watered-down hodgepodge of semi-conservative issues to confront the Obama-mania which seems to have swept the nation. It's time for you people who see yourself as "moderate conservatives" to WAKE THE FUCK UP!

Stop pretending you have some ideological basis for not supporting conservatism, whether it's social or fiscal. Stop trying to play the PC game of throwing social conservatism under the bus, to please the lefties! Forget about being "liked" by the left, it doesn't matter what you do, even if you completely support and endorse their agenda, you are still the fucking enemy to them, and you'll never gain any credibility from them.

Gone are the days of Bill Clinton, where right-wingers could poke and prod a Democrat populist president into adopting conservative issues, we are now dealing with radical '60s anti-establishment Socialists. These people want to re-fucking-write the Constitution! They are not the least bit interested in hearing what you have to say, or giving any consideration to views from anyone right of Stalin.

It's time to not only wake the fuck up, but to grow up as well! You may indeed have a strong principled foundation for your views, and you may wish that we lived in a nation that recognizes those views, but the reality of the situation is, it's going to come down to those who believe in capitalism and democracy, and those who believe in socialism and communism. Those are your choices, not some off-shoot concept of fiscal conservatism devoid of social conservatism! That particular ideology doesn't work anyway! Without the benevolence and considerations of social conservatism, the purely fiscal conservative is left looking like a greedy capitalist bastard by the left, and that unfortunately is not going to win many elections. So, give it up, accept that you are either going to support Conservatism or Socialism, you can't have a "Perfect World" here.

Mostly, it's time to wake the fuck up, and stop pretending we can be "diplomatic" with those on the left. We can't be diplomatic, we can't compromise, we can't "work together" on a damn thing. Stop believing it, stop trying to convince people of it, stop pushing for trying it some more. The longer you spend, trying to do this, the longer they will remain in complete control of our lives, and if something doesn't change quickly, they will make the controls permanent, and we will lose a great nation. There is a time to rest on your principles, and there is a time to stand up and fight, and this is the time to fight. But first, you need to WAKE THE FUCK UP!

Funny that during your little tantrum you mentioned "growing up".

Seems like manybe you should take your own advice.
After all, a grown up doesn't need to resort to vulgarity to make his point.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well that sucks.

Out of curiosity, would you rather see your representatives strike bargains with the left that are designed to slow the erotion of constitutional restraints, or would you rather they sat on their arses, collected their Congressional paychecks, and just let the chips fall as they may?

For example, there are only two choices for Obama's pick for the SCOTUS:
A) One in which GOP Senators provide their input and make bargains
B) One in which GOP Senators do not provide input and bargaining

Instead of Republicans lining up to support whatever Obama picks, in some sort of attempt to look like they are getting along.... Why not use this SCOTUS pick to educate the American public between the difference in a Constitutional Originalist, and those who feel the Constitution is a living document that can change in meaning with the times?

Nothing Republicans do is going to change who Obama picks, we'll end up with some left-wing goofball who no more deserves to be on the SC than the man in the moon, and that's just the facts of life. But this is an opportunity, a chance for Republicans to show the people what they stand for, and why. Instead, they seem to be content with playing footsie with Obama and pretending they are all big buddies who can work together... I am sick to death of that shit!

Even in your assessment and distilled choices A. and B., you completely miss the point! You post them as if A. is a valid option, as if Obama is actually going to consider Republican input! Trust me, he ain't listening to any Republican! No amount of republican diplomacy is going to magically change that! You think this is a possibility, because, if the president were an objective Republican, he would listen to input from the left, and we'd end up with another Souter.

@Lowaicue: I am not the least bit interested in debate with the left. I already know I don't prefer or desire Socialism. But thanks for the offer.

@Zappas: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

 

[Bonestorm]

Instead of Republicans lining up to support whatever Obama picks, in some sort of attempt to look like they are getting along.... Why not use this SCOTUS pick to educate the American public between the difference in a Constitutional Originalist, and those who feel the Constitution is a living document that can change in meaning with the times?

Nothing Republicans do is going to change who Obama picks, we'll end up with some left-wing goofball who no more deserves to be on the SC than the man in the moon, and that's just the facts of life. But this is an opportunity, a chance for Republicans to show the people what they stand for, and why. Instead, they seem to be content with playing footsie with Obama and pretending they are all big buddies who can work together... I am sick to death of that shit!

Even in your assessment and distilled choices A. and B., you completely miss the point! You post them as if A. is a valid option, as if Obama is actually going to consider Republican input! Trust me, he ain't listening to any Republican! No amount of republican diplomacy is going to magically change that! You think this is a possibility, because, if the president were an objective Republican, he would listen to input from the left, and we'd end up with another Souter.

@Lowaicue: I am not the least bit interested in debate with the left. I already know I don't prefer or desire Socialism. But thanks for the offer.

@Zappas: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

Awww. Poor guy.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Instead of Republicans lining up to support whatever Obama picks, in some sort of attempt to look like they are getting along.... Why not use this SCOTUS pick to educate the American public between the difference in a Constitutional Originalist, and those who feel the Constitution is a living document that can change in meaning with the times?

This can never happen. I've tried many times. Too many liberals are totally stuck on the idea that the constitution should have no meaning today because it's over 200 years old. They cannot fathom a limited federal government based on the constitution, though in one respect I can hardly blame them considering the multitude of states that failed their own citizens. Be that as it may, liberals have spent far too much energy over the last 90 years to consider the constitution as anything but a living document. They would much rather see a constitutional convention than return to an original intent. They abhor the ideals of freedom that the founders intended and, in truth, they should be upset about it. The USSC let both sides down numerous times with blatantly unconstitutional rulings in order to appease political agendas. Their failure is the inability for them to see the long term unintended consequences of the totalitarianism they envision imposing upon a group of folks who can be downright bloody minded about their rights, myself included. It is this inability of theirs that ensures the next waco will be much bloodier and deadlier.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This can never happen. I've tried many times. Too many liberals are totally stuck on the idea that the constitution should have no meaning today because it's over 200 years old. They cannot fathom a limited federal government based on the constitution, though in one respect I can hardly blame them considering the multitude of states that failed their own citizens. Be that as it may, liberals have spent far too much energy over the last 90 years to consider the constitution as anything but a living document. They would much rather see a constitutional convention than return to an original intent. They abhor the ideals of freedom that the founders intended and, in truth, they should be upset about it. The USSC let both sides down numerous times with blatantly unconstitutional rulings in order to appease political agendas. Their failure is the inability for them to see the long term unintended consequences of the totalitarianism they envision imposing upon a group of folks who can be downright bloody minded about their rights, myself included. It is this inability of theirs that ensures the next waco will be much bloodier and deadlier.

You misunderstand, I know liberals can't be educated on this, you are right about their views. I happen to believe this country is chock-full of people who simply have no clue as to what "constitutional originalist" even means. They don't know the difference, because they have never been shown the difference. This is an opportunity for Republican conservatives to present the argument, to show and define the stark difference in the two ideologies, for the brain-dead masses out there, who simply don't know any better. Forget liberals, we can't change them!

We can't define or show the difference, if our representatives are jockeying for a presidential phone call, so they can show everybody how cordial and diplomatic they can be with The One! In a way, I kinda get why they are doing it... the Clinton years... they remember what happened when they tried to be defiant with Clinton, but Clinton was a populist, not a liberal. He simply took their issues away by either adopting them himself, or triangulating them into a palatable compromise. Obama is a left-wing radical, he isn't going to do this.

Instead of Republicans in congress, sitting around hoping for a crumb to be thrown their way, if they are nice and treat Obama with respect, they should be screaming from the rooftops! Where is Bob Barr when you need him?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Where is Bob Barr when you need him?

he was busy trying to commandeer and subvert the Libertarian party, largely successful to a point. You guys are better off without him and we definitely don't want him. What the republican base SHOULD have done is got behind Fred Thompson instead of siding with that AZ dude.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

he was busy trying to commandeer and subvert the Libertarian party, largely successful to a point. You guys are better off without him and we definitely don't want him. What the republican base SHOULD have done is got behind Fred Thompson instead of siding with that AZ dude.

Well, Bob Barr is one of many politicians I have met over the years, and I can honestly say, the guy has conviction. As a member of the media in his district, I had to cover his town hall meetings, (back when town hall meetings were a new thing), and while most politicians would come in and have a 1-2 hr. meeting with the people, and answer some of their questions, and then leave... Bob would literally be the last one to leave. He would answer every question, and he would spend as much time as needed, explaining his positions. It impressed me, because it seemed like he actually cared about what the people had to say.

One thing about Barr, he wasn't going to play the diplomatic, let's all get along game, like so many Republicans seem to want to play with Obama. He stood on principle, even when it wasn't popular to do so, and he didn't care what anyone had to say about it. It's that kind of 'fire in the belly' approach Republicans need to adopt. Forget this McCain-like thinking of compromise and understanding! As long as republicans want to act like John McCain and compromise away their principles, the left will gladly let them!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well, Bob Barr is one of many politicians I have met over the years, and I can honestly say, the guy has conviction. As a member of the media in his district, I had to cover his town hall meetings, (back when town hall meetings were a new thing), and while most politicians would come in and have a 1-2 hr. meeting with the people, and answer some of their questions, and then leave... Bob would literally be the last one to leave. He would answer every question, and he would spend as much time as needed, explaining his positions. It impressed me, because it seemed like he actually cared about what the people had to say.

One thing about Barr, he wasn't going to play the diplomatic, let's all get along game, like so many Republicans seem to want to play with Obama. He stood on principle, even when it wasn't popular to do so, and he didn't care what anyone had to say about it. It's that kind of 'fire in the belly' approach Republicans need to adopt. Forget this McCain-like thinking of compromise and understanding! As long as republicans want to act like John McCain and compromise away their principles, the left will gladly let them!

I've no doubt that Bob Barr is a strong conservative with steadfast convictions, he just had no business trying to run on the Libertarian ticket. That being said, the republican base screwed up by attempting to teach the current republicans another lesson like 2006 when they should have been electing a strong republican like Thompson.

 

[Topspin]

I love the new improved slimmed down to just KKK and redneck republican party.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I love the new improved slimmed down to just KKK and redneck republican party.

says the party member with robert byrd

 

[Topspin]

check the last voting % dumber than a brick

 

[apple0154]

The point is when it's government run they can raise taxes to fund SS. If it was private where would the people, those who lost money, get funds?

Do you think Social Security will be there for you when you retire? Unless you are already retired, its not going to be there. I am in my early 50s and have no doubt the money will be gone when I retire. So the difference between Bush's plan and the current plan is just a matter of where themoney went, not whether people will be able to live on it or not.

Both parties have been screaming "They will steal your retirement money!!" for decades.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The point is when it's government run they can raise taxes to fund SS. If it was private where would the people, those who lost money, get funds?

Several points...

1. If it's government run, you can expect $2000 hammers and $500 toilet seats. Nothing the government has ever run, has been run efficiently.

2. To recover just the money Americans have paid into their SS, which politicians have stolen and already spent, we would have to tax every working American at a rate of about 95%, which will simply not work.

3. If SS were privatized, the funds would come from capitalism, as always. While the stock market does go up and down, historically, over the long haul, it prospers.

Here is the problem with liberal thinking.... You are under some misconception that government has a big ol' pile of money to do with, whatever they desire. If they need more, they can just tax the rich some more! That's not how it works. Government is broke, it doesn't earn an income, it only spends our money. We are now allowing government to confiscate about a third of what we make, and when Obama is finished, it will be around half of what we make. The more you tax the rich, the more the rich pull their money out of the capitalist system and put it into securities and offshore accounts, to keep government's hands off of it. So, the end result is, you raise tax and gain less revenue.

Social Security is insolvent. That means, at some point in the near future, SS will not be able to pay the recipients. This is what has happened with Government being in control and in charge of our retirement. Faced with this dilemma, some on the right have suggested we adopt a system which relies on the market more, and taxation less. Your side wants to simply keep the failed system we have now, and raise taxes some more, so that the politicians who stole our money the first go around, will have yet another opportunity to fuck us. That's your answer, that's your solution.

 

[signalmankenneth]

Dixie, you are a goddamn gift. It is my sole wish in life that people like you continue forever to dominate the Republican party. GOd bless you.

I hope people like Dixie dominate the GOP too, that's why GOP lost and will keep on losing! Their out of touch with most Americans! Why don't you all move to Texas and succeed from the union?!!

 

[DamnYankee]

I hope people like Dixie dominate the GOP too, that's why GOP lost and will keep on losing! Their out of touch with most Americans! Why don't you all move to Texas and succeed from the union?!!

Better idea- all you Democrats move out of the South and then the entire region will succeed from the Union. Good luck with the next war!

 

[Lowaicue]

So, you are saying he isn't "right of center" then?

You did not answer the very direct question. In what ways do you believe he is "right of center"?

As for whether or not it was a sophomoric attempt at the Socratic Method, well... I present the idea that we have already participated in discussions whereupon you would be able to determine whether or not I met the criteria of an uniformed "humpty dumpty" American or not, thus the inane questions about how I thought the path toward nationalizing banks might be socialistic and thus not "right of center" was a particularly sad attempt at it.

The question asked of you was not a litany of things you believe would "improve" the US, it was quite directly, "In what way do you think Obama is 'right of center'?" as you had stated before.

One thing I know, I do not want to replace the current health care in the US with the system developed by the Brits or by the Canadians. I especially do not want a governmental entity developing a "best care" scenario whereupon health care is effectively rationed.

The points I have mentioned are those that a true left of centre government would address. Obama will not grasp the nettle on the banks because the banks hold too much sway. He doesn't grasp it so he chooses to let it grow. That is right wing management in the present climate.
The health care system that is in place at present is failing. The time for discussion is past. It must be reorganised in much the same way as the British model for you to succeed AS A NATION and not just as a few elite members of right wing political parties. Don't believe me? Don't worry you will eventually.
A socialist president would put these matters and that of education and welfare at the top of his 'to do' list. Obama needs a substantial swing although it has to be said he IS beginning to show a more acceptable face of America. But you have many faces so its not possible to draw conclusions yet.
Has anyone ever counted the costs in cash terms of a) an education system that lags behind those of most other nations? So you have poorly educated leaders and mis-educated populations. b) A health care system that doesn't have, as its top priority, the aim of keeping the nation gainfully employed? So you have people dying or incapacitated and taken out of the workforce because they cannot afford medical treatment. c) a welfare system that allows great sections of the population to slip into dire need, crime and despair?
What are you people frightened of? You are in the shit, why are you so scared to pull yourselves out ?

 

[apple0154]

Several points...

1. If it's government run, you can expect $2000 hammers and $500 toilet seats. Nothing the government has ever run, has been run efficiently.

Why do people take one example from a multi-million dollar budget and blow it completely out of proportion? I recall reading about private companies which were sent bogus bills such as invoices for photocopy paper and the companies unwittingly paid them. The point being people make mistakes. There will always be inefficient people.

2. To recover just the money Americans have paid into their SS, which politicians have stolen and already spent, we would have to tax every working American at a rate of about 95%, which will simply not work.

It's not necessary to replace all the money. To suggest a country as rich as the US can not support it's retirees is nonsense regardless of how one looks at it.

3. If SS were privatized, the funds would come from capitalism, as always. While the stock market does go up and down, historically, over the long haul, it prospers.

The long haul. It's been said people who have 5-10 years until retirement may see their portfolio rebound. Some people require that money now. Today and tomorrow to live on.

Here is the problem with liberal thinking.... You are under some misconception that government has a big ol' pile of money to do with, whatever they desire. If they need more, they can just tax the rich some more!

Not just the rich. As I mentioned before universal medical plans in place in other countries do not cost the people anywhere near what private insurance costs citizens in the US.

The taxes are higher in other countries but when one compares "taxes and medical insurance" with "taxes and free medical" the cost of the latter is less. Taxes increase but the cost of other things, from medical to schooling, significantly decrease resulting in a net gain.

The more you tax the rich, the more the rich pull their money out of the capitalist system and put it into securities and offshore accounts, to keep government's hands off of it. So, the end result is, you raise tax and gain less revenue.

Not necessarily. Money requires stability. That's why people are hesitant investing in some foreign countries. For example, if you open a business in Venezuela or some other Latin American country who is to say the government won't confiscate it or rebels burn it to the ground.

As people become more aware of world events/countries (at least we can hope they will) they won't buy products made in countries that have poor working conditions. For example, look at some of the clothing firms where it was exposed child labor was involved.

Also, a law is needed to say where items are manufactured. People scream that if the government pushes a "buy American" policy other countries will retaliate. The solution is to label all goods. Let the consumer decide. As the economy grows progressively worse I'm betting people will buy US goods.

Social Security is insolvent. That means, at some point in the near future, SS will not be able to pay the recipients. This is what has happened with Government being in control and in charge of our retirement. Faced with this dilemma, some on the right have suggested we adopt a system which relies on the market more, and taxation less. Your side wants to simply keep the failed system we have now, and raise taxes some more, so that the politicians who stole our money the first go around, will have yet another opportunity to fuck us. That's your answer, that's your solution.

It's simply a matter of changing laws prohibiting government from touching SS just as it is a simple matter of saying the government will implement universal medical. The money is available. The problem is it's squandered on wars, for one thing.

It's just a matter of canceling other programs the government pays for. It's no different than how a family budgets. Everybody who owns a car can afford a motorcycle IF they sell their car. They simply made a choice to buy a car. The government has made a choice to spend the money on things other than medical and higher education. The money is there or coming in every year through taxes. Simply redirect it.

 

[NOVA]

When you use terms like "Socialist Dictatorship" to describe a basically right of centre administration you make yourself look stupid.
Whether or not I agree with your political stance, whether or not ANYONE agrees with your political stance, such terms negate any reasonable debate you might wish to engender.
You appear to be as mad as a hatter. I am sure you are not.

Actually ..when YOU describe the Dems as "a basically right of centre administration".... you make yourself look stupid.

Obama is a "Socialist" by Conservative standards and with an overwhelming majority in both Houses of Congress, this is as close to "dictatorship" as this country gets....

Now, for your own well being,..... step away from the Koolade..