liberalism has failed/we are doomed (politician, banks, Ohio, million)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Part of the debt issue could be solved right there.
Part? Half the national debt was commercial bank bubble credit rolled onto the public sector. And we kept the private debts in place meaning the tax payers where put into debt twice for the same debt. Its mind boggling how the public believes what it believes to me. Meanwhile the FED piles on while Obama says more debt is the solution. We just need to borrow our way out of debt.
And that makes his Revolution liberal all of sudden? Of course, modern day Republicans have become so radically regressive that they will even claim Reagan as a card carrying commie.
A Democratic Party that was willing to compromise with Reagan on numerous front (unlike modern day Republicans obstructionism).
Plus, ever since the Reagan Revolution, our politics have steered to the right. America was much more economic liberal after WWII up to Reagan. We strengthened our safety net rather than attacked them, we happily invested into public infrastructure, we appreciated unions and progressive taxation, we appreciated a clean environment and workplace safety. It was a time period where the tide really lifted all boats.
It was a time period where we had a strong middle class and decrease in economic stratification. Sadly, since the Reagan Revolution, we have seen the opposite. We have seen a hallowing out of the middle class and middle-wage jobs. Increase in economic stratification with low economic mobility on both ends of the spectrum. We have attacked our safety nets (even Obama is proposing to cut SS). We have cut taxes much more than we have cut spending.
Thanks to neoliberal conservative policies over the last 30+ years, the tide did not life all boats, as promised. However, Republicans are hellbent in their desire to roll back the liberal gains of the previous decade.
They believe that if we attack old people, cut back on education spending, roll back environmental and workplace safety measurements, attack unions, increase taxes on the poor and middle class, cut food aid, education, and health care spending on children, and not invest into American's decaying infrastructure all while giving rich more tax breaks every thing will be great.
The Conservative vision of America is a dystopian future.
What compromise did RR obtain? He had 7 of his 8 budgets rejected by the dems. Reagan also was stiffed by the dems per TEFRA and amnesty. Promises made by the dems that they never kept.
I made damn good money, in the blue collar sector, under RR union or not. And I'm sure many people loved the deregulation that RR fought for every time they either bought an airline ticket. Liberals have never ever 'made any gains'. They throw our money at any type of program they can construct to buy votes and stick all of us with the bill.
Where is this alleged 'right lean' in politics you speak of? The 1993 Clinton Tax Heist sure as hell was not right leaning. The continuing spiral in govt spending is not 'right leaning' either.
The 'safety net' is ragged and torn. SS is done in 2037. Medicare is dead in 2024. And unions have screwed themselves. I know that from working for Hostess Brands for thirty years. The left plays kick the can with everything that it should be addressing. Infrastructure? Our bridges and roads have been a mess since the 1980's. I do not recall them being addressed until Obama's sham stim plan. And even then, Obama used the BS infrastructure ruse as a front to give away money to his political buddies. And libs played kick-the-can with the levees in N.O. which were the cause of the Katrina disaster. And the environment? Get serious. Gore lined his pockets using the lie about global warming. Obama criminally blew our money on Solyndra and other failed green initiatives as he attacked oil and coal which we do need. *******s have made a career out of throwing money at failed education models as the inner city students in the USA continue to test in the lower 10% globally. All the while they kiss the teacher's unions' arse in order to get their donations and votes. Liberalism is cancer at best.
I feel one of the biggest mistakes people make is to try and replace knowledge with experience. Not saying you aren't intelligent, I don't know one way or the other, but I do know I'm not going to take someone's word for it because they have "experience." Living long does not earn anyone bonus respect points in my book. People who actually do have experience and wisdom I respect, but not all old people are created equally.
And no, I'm not enamored with anyone here. I don't know if that other person is educated, but I do know you denounced education and diverging away from party lines. That was bad enough for me to chime in.
I denounced whose education? This is a forum. A faceless medium where anyone can be anything. If I proclaim to be the former King of Siam, do you believe it?
And you can sneer at real life experience all you wish. In real life, you do not have your books and Honor Society rep to get you through. You can toss some of your education in the trash when you get out of school. Career academics who prefer to use their education as a shield generally have failed in the real world. And my 'old' arse knows a little more than you may be willing to admit.
Why do any of us care how liberal politicians speak about minorities. I couldn't give half a ****. Me being liberal doesn't automatically link me with any politician, period. I don't know what you think you're proving by saying "THA LIBRULS ARE RACIST TOO!"
I care because it is relevant in the political arena. Especially when they lie through their stained teeth about their 'inclusive' history in light of historical facts to the contrary. Feel free to ignore my truth if it bothers you.
Before you say that, please remember this. I understand you are Black, of African heritage. It was under LBJ that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were both passed. Both were very important in combating discrimination and voter disenfranchisement of Blacks.
And it was because a greater % of Republicans passed it. LBJ loved to call blacks 'ni--ers' frequently. Now let's hear three cheers for his most famous quote...........
“I’ll have those ******s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One -
Corporate welfare actually costs more money. Bailing out the banks cost more money than "social issues". Financing the war cost alot more money than that.
Tell it to all POTUS' who give money to banks and corporations. That would include Clinton and Obama.
I denounced whose education? This is a forum. A faceless medium where anyone can be anything. If I proclaim to be the former King of Siam, do you believe it?
And you can sneer at real life experience all you wish. In real life, you do not have your books and Honor Society rep to get you through. You can toss some of your education in the trash when you get out of school. Career academics who prefer to use their education as a shield generally have failed in the real world. And my 'old' arse knows a little more than you may be willing to admit.
If you had a basic understanding of formal argument, or just reasonable , you would cite authoritative sources, establish and agree on a premises, and have logical consistency . Thus no one would claim anything by their own authority. Your OP opened with a list of liberal sins as if anyone is required to defend them. By what authority? Did you even demonstrate and prove your own observations? If I said smart phones are dangerous I could force people to admit their own observations that people pay little attention to their surroundings. That again establishes observations with a common agreement which is authoritative for those who agree to accept it.
Take an Obama policy, juxtapose it to some authority they will be forced to defend. You could burn an Obama stimulus comparing it to an FDR one assuming he is an authority of theirs. You could , as I did, take principles in fields of science that show polices inconsistent with those findings.
Your OP was exactly what you said was pointless. You think liberals did this and that? Who are you, the King of Siam?
If I claimed to be an authority on Adam Smith and you accepted it then anything I said about him is authoritative. If you reject me as anonymous, then I may cite the writing of Adam Smith, just as I did, as authoritative on Smith.
Basic stuff and you just took down your own OP.This applies to you:
A faceless medium where anyone can be anything. If I proclaim to be the former King of Siam, do you believe it?
Why should anyone care what you said from the very beginning? That is what I told you and all you did was engage in personal attacks.
So far I have Adam Smith, JS Mill and BF Skinner, and your own logically inconsistent posts backing me up. What do you have?
If you had a basic understanding of formal argument, or just reasonable , you would cite authoritative sources, establish and agree on a premises, and have logical consistency . Thus no one would claim anything by their own authority. Your OP opened with a list of liberal sins as if anyone is required to defend them. By what authority? Did you even demonstrate and prove your own observations? If I said smart phones are dangerous I could force people to admit their own observations that people pay little attention to their surroundings. That again establishes observations with a common agreement which is authoritative for those who agree to accept it.
Take an Obama policy, juxtapose it to some authority they will be forced to defend. You could burn an Obama stimulus comparing it to an FDR one assuming he is an authority of theirs. You could , as I did, take principles in fields of science that show polices inconsistent with those findings.
Your OP was exactly what you said was pointless. You think liberals did this and that? Who are you, the King of Siam?
If I claimed to be an authority on Adam Smith and you accepted it then anything I said about him is authoritative. If you reject me as anonymous, then I may cite the writing of Adam Smith, just as I did, as authoritative on Smith.
Basic stuff and you just took down your own OP.This applies to you:
A faceless medium where anyone can be anything. If I proclaim to be the former King of Siam, do you believe it?
Why should anyone care what you said from the very beginning? That is what I told you and all you did was engage in personal attacks.
So far I have Adam Smith, JS Mill and BF Skinner, and your own logically inconsistent posts backing me up. What do you have?
If you dislike my style then take a number. I do not cede the point to anyone who claims there are ways to 'debate' POV's. I dismiss nuance where binary to-and-fro is called for. When you have anyone muddle what is essentially an up/down argument, I would submit that you have an adversary that wishes to 'muddy the waters' in an attempt to avoid the issue. We can fling links and sources around all day long. If that's the case, then let's have a battle of sources instead a colloquy amongst ourselves.
Historical references are inapplicable in today's political argument. You can cite Mill and I can cite Smith. you say Keynes and I say Friedman. So what? I would prefer using contemporaries instead of having a battle of historical references. How about Goldwater v LBJ? Or Reagan v Clinton? Volker v Bernanke? Something that is relevant to the here-and-now?
Obama's 'works', using your example, are incomparable to anything I have seen on my lifetime including the Great Society. I am assuming most people here were not around for FDR. And there was a time when the two major parties actually has some similarities in vision yet disagreed as to how to get there. Reagan got along with Tip either out of sincere fondness or out of necessity. Clinton and Newt in time were able to reach some type of accord on occasion. But since GW to the present, ranting,railing, name-calling, venom, all the above and from all sides. It is what it is. The tone was set early in GW's first term when the wars started. 'War criminal', 'Nazi', 'treason' and on and on. That is not discussion. That is not disagreeing agreeably. And now it has swung the other way per Obama. Yes, there is name calling. But there are also accurate assessments as to what his policies are doing to us now and what they are projected to do going forward................and it isn't pretty. Referencing FDR in an attempt to juxtapose Obama's policies mean nothing today. Zero. There are no similarities. LBJ is a far more apt comparative. So is Carter. And they were both inept for different reasons. Like a famous Democrat once said, "its the economy stupid". And if I perceive recklessness I personally will call it for what it is irrespective of whose feelings get hurt. This is not a Harvard style debating forum. This is merely a bunch of people with opinions. And if my name calling bothers you then I guess you suffer from self-loathing. As far as anyone caring about what I say, unlike you, wanting to be popular has never been an attractive trait in a person IMHO.
Last edited by butkus51; 04-07-2013 at 06:17 AM..
Reason: typos
You could save abundle by going to Community College for the first 2 years.
You could save some, but not so much. Also, going to Community College doesn't look as great on the transcript when moving into a university as going directly into a university. However, yes, it is a bit cheaper.
Obama's 'works', using your example, are incomparable to anything I have seen on my lifetime including the Great Society. I am assuming most people here were not around for FDR. And there was a time when the two major parties actually has some similarities in vision yet disagreed as to how to get there. Reagan got along with Tip either out of sincere fondness or out of necessity. Clinton and Newt in time were able to reach some type of accord on occasion. But since GW to the present, ranting,railing, name-calling, venom, all the above and from all sides. It is what it is. The tone was set early in GW's first term when the wars started. 'War criminal', 'Nazi', 'treason' and on and on. That is not discussion. That is not disagreeing agreeably. And now it has swung the other way per Obama. Yes, there is name calling. But there are also accurate assessments as to what his policies are doing to us now and what they are projected to do going forward................and it isn't pretty. Referencing FDR in an attempt to juxtapose Obama's policies mean nothing today. Zero. There are no similarities. LBJ is a far more apt comparative. So is Carter. And they were both inept for different reasons. Like a famous Democrat once said, "its the economy stupid". And if I perceive recklessness I personally will call it for what it is irrespective of whose feelings get hurt. This is not a Harvard style debating forum. This is merely a bunch of people with opinions. And if my name calling bothers you then I guess you suffer from self-loathing. As far as anyone caring about what I say, unlike you, wanting to be popular has never been an attractive trait in a person IMHO.
Prior to Reagan, Republicans were people who had a modicum of rationality. My first husband's dad, for example, a life-long Republican, was a very sensible man. He wasn't a nutjob, wasn't banging some Bible or wanting to make religious laws the law of the land, didn't spend his life hating the poor 24/7, and blaming them for the wrongs of the nation, and he absolutely wasn't an ignorant freak like the Republicans of today. My father-in-law (of Blessed memory) was a real man, a good man, not ostentatious, not a d**head like Republicans now are.
What goes by the name Republican now are a bunch of nefarious a-hs, most uneducated, some educated in shallowness and greed, blood-thirsty, punitive, psychopathic in nature, greedmongers that have hatred running through their veins. You can thank the little group that propelled Reagan into office, then GW Bush for that, and that includes religious nutjobs and their ilk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
spare me
However, yes, it is a bit cheaper.