|
Election 2010: Red Tsunami (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Xilver
I always wondered what republicans find so horrifying about socialism? I just can't grasp what is so vile and repulsive with helping other people who aren't as well off as the rest of us? |
When I work 40 hours a week I want all the money I make to be mine. Mine mine mine. Mine!!!
I'm not giving anything to the poor, the lazy or whoever else holds his hand and wants to live a better life based solely on the work I do for him.
So... will I get visited by three ghosts now? |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
wow you're such a pillar of altruism. self serving prick. |
Last I checked you're meant to vote for your own interests wit. The issue comes when you know what your interests are, and you come up with some bull excuse to try and sell it to other people.
"I think we should invade iraq because I'm a mercanary" is a legit thing to say(disregarding making iraqi lives worse), if you're a merc and you want to invade iraq because of nukes or something then that's an issue. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
When I work 40 hours a week I want all the money I make to be mine. Mine mine mine. Mine!!! |
yeah, the money you earned all by yourself, right?
| quote: |
This morning you were awoken by your alarm clock (powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy). You then took a shower (in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility). After that, you turned on the TV (to one of the FCC regulated channels) to see what the national weather service (of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) determined the weather was going to be like (using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration). You watched this while eating your breakfast of (US Department of Agriculture inspected) cereal and taking your blood pressure medication (which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration).
At the appropriate time (as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory), you get into your (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved) automobile and set out to work (on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation), possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel (of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency), paying in cash (legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank). On the way out the door you deposit any mail you have to be sent out (via the US Postal Service) and drop the kids off at (public) school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work (thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration), enjoying another two meals (which again do not kill you because of the USDA), you drive your (NHTSA) car back home (on the DOT roads), to your house (which has not burned down in your absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department).
You then log on to the internet (which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration) and post on www.freerepublic.com, www.redstate.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right. |
|
|
|
| Zharen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
This is why your country will never get anywhere when it comes to healthcare. Most other nations care about their own fellow citizens and also realise that primary prevention is far cheaper than secondary prevention and associated treatments.
Not the US though. You guys wouldn't even help your own neighbours, let alone the rest of the populace. Bunch of selfish, uneducated pricks. |
Sadly, THIS. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
What do you mean "all of a sudden we need 60 votes"? It's called following the Constitution and making it extremely difficult for a simple majority take over regardless of party; it's part of the checks and balance structure of our system and it's always been that way. It is part of parliamentary procedure that moves a bill to "cloture"... the simple majority is used for legislation once it is out of conference. |
That's actually not true - cloture as a tool of legislative obstruction is an entirely modern phenomenon, and not one that you'll find in the Constitution.
| quote: | | And yes, OBVIOUSLY the people were pissed over (American style) liberalism... the Democrats who got booted were the ones who voted for Obama's agenda, and were replaced with fiscal conservative republicans who openly opposed Obamacare, bailouts, Cap and Trade, etc. I know to admit that you're wrong is painful because it would force you to acknowledge you fell for the lofty rhetoric, but you can't spin the election results any other way. The country voted in an historic way to blunt the Obama liberal agenda. |
I think that's a simplistic way to view it. 34 Democrats voted against the Waxman cap and trade bill - 19 lost on Tuesday. Additionally, 34 Democrats also voted against health care reform's passage. 16 have lost so far, and 3 elections could be headed for a recount.
You can't really say that this election was a refutation of a liberal agenda when Blue Dog moderate Democrats were the most devastated House caucus. If anything, I think it's a clear case of Democrats who abandoned the President's agenda being abandoned by the liberal electorate. Turnout in those districts among registered voters under the age of 30 was under 8% - not gonna be a good night for Democrats when young voters stay home.
The true story of the election is a Republican party that effectively marketed obstruction as a rallying cry. And a Democratic party that was completely ineffective. Votes taken to save face electorally only had the impact of marginalizing the base. With a few notable exceptions (i.e. Feingold), the most liberal members of Congress were re-elected. It's the moderate Blue Dogs that were painted extreme on the right and too moderate on the left - they were the ones truly victimized on Tuesday.
| quote: | | The Republicans aren't getting ahead of themselves... they actually understand this time that they can't up like they did before, and will be on an extremely short leash. The outcome? That remains to be seen of course. They are actually in a perfect position right now: control the House, object, propose stuff the people want that they know Obama will veto and run on that against him in 2012. |
Obama's not going to face many vetos if you can't get your agenda through the Senate... let's not get ahead of yourself. Also, I'd be super interested in seeing the types of policies you expect to be proposed. So far Boehner, McCarthy, and Cantor have been mum on an agenda. Pence referred to the Pledge for America, but that wasn't so much a policy agenda as a series of philosophical maxims. What do you expect a Republican Congress to try to do? Repeal health care? Beyond fighting the good fight to get those temporary tax reductions for the upper 1% extended indefinitely without cutting any significant spending to offset the loss in revenue, I mean. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
No... I believe the health care industry should be treated like any other industry in this country and let the market and competition work naturally to lower costs. Why the hell can't I buy a great insurance plan from a company 2 miles over the border from me in South Carolina? It's ing STUPID... tens of thousands of state and federal government regulations on wasteful bull that could ease so much of the cost. Ever notice how most people can pay out of pocket for their pets at the Vet, be it for checkups, x-rays, immunizations, surgeries, medications, etc.? No insurance needed there because they don't operate on the ed up system we have for the health industry. |
Haha, what are the demographics of people who own pets and take them to the vet? I think you've missed the point about who isn't insured. If you've got a better idea for how to drive down costs to the consumer at the emergency room than insurance, I'd love to hear it.
Bush famously declared that we already had universal health care in this country - called the emergency room. What he cynically doesn't mention is that emergency care does nothing to either prevent future health care crises (and costs), and it just results in costs being passed on to other consumers. Legally emergency rooms can't deny anyone care - but in order to cover bills that can't be paid, the cost of emergency care in this country has sky-rocketed.
Insurance does defray costs for the consumers in many ways - to deny that just isn't being forthright with the facts. |
|
|
| jonSun |
damn. now i know what the17ss feels like. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, the money you earned all by yourself, right? |
I wasn't (entirely) serious, but that text seems rather idiotic. People pay for their electricity, water, etc.
But as for a brief serious contribution:
Definitely there's a large difference between political positions in the US and Germany, so a discussion about socialism or other directions are futile.
However regarding German politics I feel that the government has completely lost track of what should be its tasks and what shouldn't. In my opinion, the government should provide functional institutions and structures, i.e. schools, roads, social security, etc. What it shouldn't do is support individuals. That's precisely what happens in Germany, there are millions of idiotic grants for all kinds of people. Parents, single parents, unemployed parents, parents who take a timeout from their job, kids, kids from parents receiving welfare,... all this needs to stop and the money needs to be directed towards institutions instead of individuals: schools, education, culture, day-care centres etc. This is my main problem with what I consider socialism: it has a completely wrong concept of what the state should do.
Now I don't know how these things are in the US and who stands for what. But I know that I hate in leftist hippies and hipsters who live in a stupid ideological dreamworld. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
I wasn't (entirely) serious, but that text seems rather idiotic. People pay for their electricity, water, etc. |
well yeah, its not really to be taken literally imo. just that those on the right always ignore the contributions of third parties when they claim everything they have achieved has been "all themselves".
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
But as for a brief serious contribution:
Definitely there's a large difference between political positions in the US and Germany, so a discussion about socialism or other directions are futile.
However regarding German politics I feel that the government has completely lost track of what should be its tasks and what shouldn't. In my opinion, the government should provide functional institutions and structures, i.e. schools, roads, social security, etc. What it shouldn't do is support individuals. That's precisely what happens in Germany, there are millions of idiotic grants for all kinds of people. Parents, single parents, unemployed parents, parents who take a timeout from their job, kids, kids from parents receiving welfare,... all this needs to stop and the money needs to be directed towards institutions instead of individuals: schools, education, culture, day-care centres etc. This is my main problem with what I consider socialism: it has a completely wrong concept of what the state should do.
Now I don't know how these things are in the US and who stands for what. But I know that I hate in leftist hippies and hipsters who live in a stupid ideological dreamworld. |
i mostly agree with you. i think unemployment benefits are a necessary evil (and cheaters should be punished) but i agree that the state's responsibility shouldn't extend to taking care of people willy-nilly. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You are perpetuating the same stupid premise over and over. The GOP did not have the votes to stop anything. You had Democrat majorities across the board, and still do until January, and if all Democrats vote with Obama, there's nothing the GOP can do. What was "watered down" about the bill? You only consider it that way because single payer didn't start immediately... but it's on the way by design. The notion that stonewalling Republicans derailed a would-be successful president is adolescent. And those who identify themselves as liberals constitute 20% of the people here, not even close to a majority.
What do you mean "all of a sudden we need 60 votes"? It's called following the Constitution and making it extremely difficult for a simple majority take over regardless of party; it's part of the checks and balance structure of our system and it's always been that way. It is part of parliamentary procedure that moves a bill to "cloture"... the simple majority is used for legislation once it is out of conference. We use simple majority in the Houses of Congress, then it is supposed to be a difficult and slow process and that is GOOD for the country and it's pious nonsense to suggest otherwise. What is the point of a two-party democracy if not to present clear, alternative views of the role of government?
|
Except they dont need that many votes. They just need one prick to filibuster everything, which is amazingly what they did. You you need me to find you a chard of filibuster use ob the last 50 years of so. because it is out there and it shows that since the dems took power the filibuster usage went up about threefold. Now tell me that isnt intentional blocking.
And dont try to play me. You know very well that in normal proceedings it takes a simple majority to pass a bill. Once in a while someone might filibuster and the passing requires a 60 seat majority. For the past two years, almost everything required a 60 seat majority. Would you be saying the same thing if the dems were doing this? Filibustering everything the republicans were trying to pass, they campaigning on how republicans cant get anything to pass.
Also i didnt buy your percentages of liberals in the us the first time you posted the numbers and im not likely to do so the more you post them. Yes people may perceive a lie as truth the more you say it, but im calling you on your BS.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
And yes, OBVIOUSLY the people were pissed over (American style) liberalism... the Democrats who got booted were the ones who voted for Obama's agenda, and were replaced with fiscal conservative republicans who openly opposed Obamacare, bailouts, Cap and Trade, etc. I know to admit that you're wrong is painful because it would force you to acknowledge you fell for the lofty rhetoric, but you can't spin the election results any other way. The country voted in an historic way to blunt the Obama liberal agenda.
|
Fiscally conservative republicans? Please, youll make me die of laughter. Im an economist so obviously i know nothing about this, so why dont you explain to me how are huge tax breaks on one end and wasteful spending (yes, im calling the republicans out on wasting money) on the other fiscally conservative or responsible?
The republicans take in just as much pork as anybody else in the government, yet just because they have an R to their name they are supposed to be fiscally responsible? If you really wished for a fiscally responsible republican party you should throw every single one of those bums out on the street and find some people that cant be bought.
Obamacare? If it passed in the form it was originally intended in it would be a good think, for the economy and for the peple. With this mess thats the result of dems caving in on stupid republican ideas...who knows. What it does show if we believe your poll numbers (which we dont but for the sake of the argument lets go with them) is that the majority of americans are self centred bastards who dont care about their fellow citizens. Such a nice system, where some people to choose between food or a doctors checkup, because they cant afford both, and those that can dont care about those that cant.
Bailout. Lets forget for a second that the first round was done by Bush (and that TARP ended up making money) Like GM or Chrysler? Think they and the million people they employ would still be here without the government stepping in? Would you rather have a million more people out of work? How about banks? What do you think would happen if we had a cascading bank failure? Bah, why bail them out, better for the economy anyway right?
And what of those people that are out of work? The general position of your conservative friends is " them, they are lazy bums anyway", hell a few of them were running on that position this year! Because that is spot on what the economy needs, a huge percentage of the population without any cash flow to add to the economy.
Cap and trade. On this one im past caring and im just calling you a head. Sorry, but i cant stand your self imposed ignorance any longer.
| quote: |
The Republicans aren't getting ahead of themselves... they actually understand this time that they can't up like they did before, and will be on an extremely short leash. The outcome? That remains to be seen of course. They are actually in a perfect position right now: control the House, object, propose stuff the people want that they know Obama will veto and run on that against him in 2012. |
Now lets see what the people actually want. They want to work. A large part of the dmes failing this election was that there still arent enough jobs out there. We heard a lot from the republican leaders since the election...where are their plans to help the people? No plans to help the people. But they are quite vocal that their biggest agenda for the next two years is to get obama out of office. Not to get people jobs, improve the economy, stop shooting people ijn far away countries, make healthcare affordable, prevent another financial crisis...no, their major agenda is to get obama out of office.
And these are the people that you are trusting to do right for the american people?
HA!
let me say it again
HA!
Let the republicans come forward with a plan that will actually help somebody that needs help. And by that i dont mean that somebody who brings home 7 figures a year get a 6 figure tax break: How about helping someone that lives paycheck to paycheck. You know someone that actually needs money. Let the republicans bring a real solution to help these people and i bet you the democrats will be all to eager to jump on board with it. But sadly, with the same people in office as the years before, expecting a different result this time is just wishful thinking on your part. Second chance for the republicans? pah, show me a republican that really stands for what you think the whole party stands for and doesnt hold any other bat insane ideas and ill be all for that guy. That kind of republican doesnt exist, not today anyway and with the directions your party is taking its becoming increasingly obvious that the kind of republican that you want will never exist again at all.
And just to reiterate ma point, some the consequences of this election. The person thats sure the be the head of the energy comitte will be joe barton. You know barton, the man who of all the house members recieved the most money from iol companies, and who apologised to BP for the public outcry when they ed up the drilling earlier this year. The man who has a framed motto in his office "Fear god, tell the truth, make a profit". Easy to tell where his allegiances are. Or that due to republicans holding the house, any immigration legislation will have to go trough Steve King. You know the guy. He advocates a 12 foot high wall over all of the southern border. Oh, and he publicly stated that he would support a plan for amnesty, if for every amnesty given, a liberal was deported. Such a nice chap. And lets not forget Rand Paul. Yes we all love this guy, especially the racists among us since he doent like the civil liberties act and is on record that business owners should be allowed to discriminate based on race. Also hes a fake doctor. Real man of integrity. This are just some of the people taht you support, these are some of the people that you look to to solve your problems...and then you wonder why the civilised world think youre a bunch of ing retards.
And im not finished yet. You sday the american people rejected liberalism. You might want to check who voted in obama and the dems and who voted the republicans in. If you had bothered to check you would see that obama and the democrats won because they got young people to turn out in the elections. And where were the young people this time? Well polls show they made up about 10% of the vote, compared to the relatively huge attendance of...old people. Namely old white people. Those your supporters, those are the people who vote republicans in power. Which brings me neatly to
This. As i said in another thread, onservatism basically doesnt work. At least not over a long term. As a society progresses and generations change, unless it takes a weird turn somewhere, it will become more liberal. Just think of all the ways that your society changed over the last...oh lets say 60 years. Civil liberties, womens rights...liberal and progressive ideas or were the conservatives perhaps the ones that really championed them? So rejoice! Unless the republicans manage to things up beyond repair (which lets face it, whey can do), the old people who support them will slowly die out and be replaced with a younger, more liberal constituency. There will still be nut jobs on the right who only want their god and their gun, but in general, the society will move to the left. I bet you a beer thats whats going to happen. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Fine... does the CBS News poll work for you?
|
:stongue: Talk about spin-off. Good to know that challenge=repeal. You, sir, are a hypocrite. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
Also, forgot to add this. Given the alleged vast rejection of progressive ideas, the progressive caucus lots 4 out of 80 people. The blue dogs lost 24 members...out of 53, lmost half. The blue dogs were the ones that campaigned on not voting with the president on almost every issue and they were decimated, while Tom Perielo, who ran a thoroughly progressive campaign, was vocal about his support for health care and wore the democrat label as a badge of honour in his mostly conservative district (that went for McCain) and lost only by a narrow margin. One would think that off all people due to this vast rejection of liberal ideas, this guy would be booted out with no problem, yet he embraced obama and stayed competitive.
Rejections of liberalism.
HA! |
|
|
|
|
