![]() |
Quote:
Naive, no. Paranoid, no. Common sense, yes. |
Quote:
Actually it wasn't the speech itself that was causing the uproar and fury, it was the fact that there was a lesson plan being distributed with it, and that parents were not going to be able to look at the contents of the lesson plan ahead of time. Believe it or not some of us actually care what our children are being taught in school and don't just use it as a daycare ;) Keeping it secret gets people all worried about what's in it that they want to keep secret. They could have avoided a lot of the controversy by being more open about it in the first place. As it was one change was made after it became public, notably getting rid of the essay on how the children could help Obama. It's a lot like the Air Force One photo-op over New York where they decided not to warn folks about it. The actual activity was not all that stupid, but their secrecy and handling of it was pretty boneheaded. |
Did all the nation's parents get preparatory packets when Reagan spoke to schoolkids when I was a kid? Or Nancy for that matter?
|
Quote:
Quote:
Really?? You two actually believe this?? :rolleyes: If that's so - I've got some lovely oceanfront property in Arizona - can I interest you in it? |
Quote:
even more egregious because Regan was actively pushing trickle-down economics and the evils of taxes during his speech. i haven't read obama's speech contents yet, but i'm fairly certain there's nothing quite so political in it |
Quote:
lol all i can do is laugh. the boogeyman is around every corner hmm? |
Quote:
ditto. mmm...Debs! :D |
Quote:
Yeah, I know, it's hard to imagine that I don't think he's actually dumb enough to follow through with an ulterior motive once he's aware he'll be caught out doing so ;) More seriously, where do you see any disconnect with that? He's an element (not alone to be sure, and not either the leader nor the worst) of as vile a force of evil that has ever existed within this nation & a part of the greatest threat we have ever faced to our viability or worthiness as a nation. Something like a little propoganda is somehow beneath him? I most definitely think not. |
Hey, I actually like this one ""You compromise when the middle ground is acceptable."
It sums up my unwillingness to give the bastards an inch and ultimately to stop them by any means necessary. When the middle ground is not acceptable, compromise is no more an option than capitulation. |
Quote:
HEH!!!!!!!!!! I like you... You make me laugh. I am pretty sure I have never in my life written "LOL", but, this did, in fact, make me laugh out loud. Love it. Absolutely, love it. |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not on the right-wing boat here saying that Obama had some sinister plan. Still, this was handled very poorly, IMO. Come out with the curriculum to the schools weeks before (with a summary of the speech). Then, after all that has been provided, you can give the above document with questions/statements like the ones above. By doing it the opposite way, the administration was giving red meat to Lions (right-wingers) and acting shocked they started to eat it. |
Quote:
:lol: I'm not surprised by this. It's just sad that there are people that actually think that way just because of his politics. Hell, I live in Taxachusetts, the first state to OK gay marriage, and I don't even feel that way about Republicans. |
Quote:
Which I think is Obama's Jedi mind trick. He did some shady things in the way he presented this speech (I have not been following this story, so I will take your word on it) and people, rightly, questioned him on it. The media, being lazy and liking sensation, reported it as "GOP attacks Obama school speech as socialist indoctrination." And, of course, it was not. Now, can you see Obama giving a speech in 6 months about the "Party of No" and laughing as he goes through a list of GOP obstruction and says, "and you remember, I told kids to work hard and stay in school, and they said 'NO!' to that. It's crazy." Basically, I think that Obama is giving them red meat b/c he knows that, in the long run, if he can implant the meme that GOP=crazy protesters, then people will start to tune out any legitimate GOP protest. All of which is very sneaky by Obama. But that's the kind of politician he is. If Ronald Reagan was the master at Tyson-style boxing (just kicking ass and leaving you Minnesota), then Obama is like watching Judo. Hillary, McCain, Palin, now the GOP members in Congress. His mode of operation is subtly egging on his opponent while appearing to keep his hands clean and then, one day, the story is about how the opposition is losing it. He's a great politican. Such a good politician that a fair chunk of the country does not seem aware that he is a politician. |
Quote:
There's zero, none, nada, zip in the speech he gave to kids today. No asking to write letters either. The only problem I had with the speech was, he could have left out the 'god bless you and god bless America' part. Oh, GHWB DID ask kids to write letters though back in '91. |
Quote:
I approve. But that should be for tomorrow's speech ;) Quote:
Well, this is why the fact that the "liberal" media label is so silly. It's not liberal at all- it's just stupid and sensationalist. SI |
Quote:
Careful, you have to separate the policies, the motivation for those policies, and related actions, goals, and results from something as casual a word as "politics". Otherwise though I can relate. I find it equally sad that there are people in this country who actually don't see the problems, so we're just in different boats from the same manufacturer (one may be more expansively equipped than the other however;). |
I don't see what the big deal about the school thing was. When I was in school, we watched videos of Ronald and Nancy Reagan talking about drugs.
The areas where it seems like the biggest issue with parents are the areas that have the lowest ranked educational systems. Perhaps it's not a bad idea to send your kids to school and stop making our nation less intelligent. |
Quote:
Quote:
I think a lot of non-political and fairly rational people are worried about changes in education/health care. These people don't want to be insulted by the media or talked down to for being crazy by the administration/congress. The hardcore republicans are going to quibble with pretty much everything to begin with. When you start giving them actual reasons to quibble - and then act shocked and talk down to them when it happens, I think you hurt your own cause long term. The best move would have been to handle this properly and then play the "they're a bunch of nuts" card once the fringe still bitched. It would resonate a lot more. Quote:
It seems what you're saying is that Obama is OK saying he's incompetent as long as people think republicans are crazy. At that point, we're arguing who the better suitor for your daughter is - the antisocial younger person without a job or the gainfully employed older man coming off his 7th marriage. Is there even a distinction worth fighting for at that point? |
Quote:
This is the environment of politics in this generation and either the administration deals with it or they put their hands over their ears singing "Nah Nah Nah" and acts shocked when people question things. The reality is that parents and schools had access to incomplete (and somewhat puzzling) information before this speech. The easy way to avoid this is to clearly define the purpose and content before trying to make changes. When that doesn't happen, many people (including those who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh) may be confused/worried and have concerns. There's a danger here of painting everyone with a concern on cap and trade, public health care options, school curriculums, social security or current debt levels as some right-wing nut job. Eventually, a vast majority of voters is going to be among that group and you don't want them remembering how they were called "nutjobs" for having that concern in the next election. You don't have to dignify all the concerns, but you shouldn't be putting down everyone with concerns on a daily basis as well. |
Quote:
This isn't a concern about the material. If George W Bush was doing this, these same people would have no problem with it. It's just partisian hackery and people treating political parties like they treat their local sports teams. I don't care if people don't send their kids to school. Just pointing out that these "concerned parents" are also the parents of some of the dumbest kids in our country. Perhaps if they spent less time worrying about some dumb political bullshit and more about how well their kids were doing in school, they wouldn't be pulling our nation so far behind others. |
Quote:
Care to look at the academic achievements the GOP voter's kids vs the Obama voter's kids in a lot of those states? Bet it won't paint a picture you'll like. |
Quote:
Quote:
I would say the masses that simply follow what they are told to do in the papers - without even knowing that there may be changes to their kid's lesson plan (or even caring) - are much more of a problem. I'd rather have a parent show up to a teacher/school meeting with misguided concerns than one that simply outsources parenting to Spongebob Squarepants. But, I guess as long as they vote the proper way, it's all the same to you, right? |
Quote:
I don't think Obama, or Dems in general, get the benefit of the doubt here when they withold information due to the perception that they just "might" be leading the country into more serious troubles than we have faced in the past year. I say "might" because you have to put into context with the perception by most that our House and Senate don't actually "read" the bills in front of them(i.e. "now the Pres wants ME not to read something"...or some similar feeling). I think this is a culmination of a building sentiment by even reasonable people (caveat time...of course there are crazies in every viewpoint). If this just happened to be 2003 or 2004 and Obama happened to be President...housing market is booming, economy is growing, everything "seems" to be going well by most people's anecdotal evidence (save for some initial skepticisms with Iraq)...I think Obama doesn't get questioned on something like this. I do think this is very indicative of the fundamental disconnect ALL politicians seem to have with the general public these days (maybe they always have) where they believe the American public elected their "read between the lines" intentions rather than voting the other assholes out. Quote:
This is fine when you have very high public opinion polls and the country is doing well by most standards...but this type of gamesmanship can really backfire on him when the general public is paying more attention. The goal for him (and any Pres) is to get things moving to the point that most people stop paying attention to the issues and go back to living their lives...tough to get there with near 10% unemployment, though. |
i didn't see this, but my mother said she saw something on the news about a school system in Arlington, TX where they didn't show Obama's speech because they "didn't want to take away from classtime" and yet next week they're sending 27 5th grade kids on a 2 hour bus ride to see former President Bush speak.
yeahhhhhhhhhh....hypocrisy!! |
This is very similar to molson's complaints about the end of life counseling in the healthcare debate. I agree that there's a legitimate concern about the materials being late and vague, so the correct response to that would be to complain that the materials are late and vague. However, instead the argument is that Obama is going to indoctrinate our kids. Now the sensible middle ground position is that Obama wasn't planning on indoctrinating our kids completely, but there was probably going to be some indoctrination, so comparing him to Mao wasn't really out of bounds and if it was it was really Obama's fault anyway..
It was all crazy. Every last bit. |
Great editorial by former Reagan staffer Bruce Bartlett. Does a great job of capturing the difference between today's fiscal conservatives and old fashioned fiscal responsibility. (He does, though let Reagan off the hook for his deficits)
Quote:
|
Quote:
I hate such arguments, and I've seen Andrew Sullivan make them all the time. Mostly because the idea is that Obama is just a super sneaky Machiavellian guy who is just trying to bait the Republicans. Ie, he's just a troll. I don't believe that for a second. Mostly because its people trying to cover up for Obama doing something utterly stupid in planning, and secondly, according to the popularity ratings, it doesn't seem to be working all that well. The simplest argument is that Obama messed up, but the Republicans went over the top because they are run by the extremes. But some on the Obama side want to make him out to be a superman, which is just utterly ridiculous and where this idea of "The One" comes from. |
Quote:
We're not talking about "late" and "vague", we're talking about not available at all at first, and then a trickle as folks complained. And again the issue was not so much the speech as it was the "lesson plan" he wanted to provide. Sure, some folks were yelling about indoctrination, just like some folks defending him are using that minority in an effort to drown out the legitimate gripes. With the lousy record of the education establishment and the declining performance we see, you'll find more and more parents who want to know upfront what's being crammed down their kids throats. Asking me to just "trust them" is not going to fly. |
Quote:
Well, the latter might conceivable come up with something worth the 2 hours ride (okay, actually the trip as part of a larger event that includes a Texas Stadium tour and several former Cowboys speaking as well). The former ... not a fucking chance. |
Quote:
In fairness, I can't honestly lay the contents of that lesson plan as his feet directly. I'd actually be surprised if that wasn't the work of a minion far enough down the food chain that he wasn't even particularly personally aware of it until after the controversy arose. I'm not putting a political spin in the speech past him, I'm just putting something that low priority as beneath his level of active decision making. |
Quote:
missing the point. but i pretty much figured that'd be your response. |
Quote:
Maybe that was true at your local level, but I haven't seen one prominent voice argue anything other than this was an attempt to indoctrinate. I don't for a second believe that nationally the majority opposed weren't worried about some vague indoctrination threat. I'm not trying to drown out legitimate gripes, as I said, if there are legitimate gripes, yell about those. This isn't about anything other than a bunch of crazies who have somehow gotten to be the dominant faction of the GOP spewing whatever bullshit they think can win tomorrow's news cycle. |
Quote:
I hate to keep tossing all of the Libertarian's alternatives out there to every argument each side continues to make but how about this one... The NEA is such a huge determent to any kind of education reform and while the Democrats are by far the love of the NEA, the NEA doesn't seem to do too bad when the Republicans are in office either. Why not abolish federal involvement in education all together? This is what it sounds like what you might be hinting at. And believe me education won't fall apart, the Feds are responsible for about 5% of total education spending in this country. Once the NEA loses its federal stranglehold on education the states will start doing what is right and busting the unions up there. Right now they are so scared by programs like "No Child Left Behind" that they never take on the unions. By the way I am a teacher and I think I would do better in a non-socialized field. I openly fear that doctors will begin working in the type of government bureaucratic field that I work in. And while there are lots of great people in education, even some beyond inspirational, there are also a lot of duds and rotten eggs. Most teachers know who the pieces of shit are but like the police officer's blue code of silence it's career suicide to push against the NEA and the status quo too much. |
Quote:
I get the point you are trying to make. (Bush beating treated different in Texas than Obama) But really I think you are missing the point in your argument. Seeing a former president in person is a little different than watching a president on TV. How often do you get a chance to see the president/former president in person? How often is Obama (or in that case, any president) giving a speech about something on tv? |
Fines proposed for going without insurance - Health care reform- msnbc.com
I see the idea of fines for not having insurance could on deck. |
Follow-up to previous post...
I know a lot of posters on the extreme (you know who they are) make it seem like it not only wouldn't be an honor but it would be a chore to see either Bush or Obama in person. But most of the sane parts of this country would be honored to meet both. I am not sure I agree with a lot of the politics of either of them but meeting the President of the US? You guys probably kiss ungodly amounts of ass each day just to gain favor with the president of your company's division. |
My kid stabbed me in the leg after watching Obama, beware! The Cringer Independent School District will never show a President on our t.v. again.
|
Quote:
Seriously? I consider it a pretty big hassle or chore just to see half the low-end high muckity's in the world. The PITA (and often cost) involved with a Presidential meet and greet op (as opposed to actually being in a position to influence something or whatever) wouldn't even break my top thousand things to do list ... regardless of which living President you're talking about. Back in my working media days I passed up ops to meet Carter numerous times and the chance to cover a Bush I appearance up close, same as passing up chances to spend 15 seconds in the presence of several other celebrities. Just not my thing I guess. |
Quote:
Do I believe that it is impossible to deduce Obama's plans for the original speech from the content of the speech that he delivered? Yes, I believe that. I don't know what his original game plan was. I don't see how you or anyone else on this board can know it either, unless you have some sort of mindmeld-thing going on with the president :p Arles makes a brilliant point here. I voted for Obama, but he is gradually losing the independents, and the reason he is losing the independents is that Obama's most ardent supporters seem to believe that those who express apprehension or reservations about anything that the president says or does are wingnuts, and they do not hesitate to say so. Hell, they did it to Obama himself when he suggested that, back in the 1980s, Reagan's Republican Party was the party of big ideas. |
Quote:
i don't think you're a wingnut because you express apprehension or reservation about something that one might logically expression apprehension or reservation about (say the particulars of the healthcare reform packages or something). i think you're a wingnut because you apparently buy into the idea that this was some big conspiracy to indoctrinate children. that there was some secret speech that he was going to give that he scrapped at the last minute because glen beck and rush limbaugh sussed out his secret plan to steal all your children. that doesn't even pass the "common sense" test. |
Quote:
{shrug} Some things worth promoting, other things aren't. Depends on the ideology. I wouldn't expect liberals to have a problem with it as it hypothetically furthers their own goals. I really don't get a sense that anyone is particularly outraged that the left isn't bent out of shape about the prospect of propagandizing, I wouldn't expect them to be. But I am kind of bewildered at the apparent hostility toward those who are concerned about it. I mean, if it's just "oh hush, we won so deal with it" hostility, I can get that. But that's not the general vibe with this, it's more like not understanding why anyone would be concerned while the fact that you were able to link those clips says this sort of thing has a tendency to cut both ways. |
Quote:
wait wait...let me field this one for Jon. "Well I guess that just goes to show who's smarter." only the sad reality is that it isn't smarter to do that, it's just more intolerant and close-minded. |
Quote:
See? I knew conservatives were smarter than liberals ;) |
Quote:
Nicely done (observers should note that he posted before I did) although you did leave off the smiley face. As for the rest, lemme see here, for some reason there's a phrase about tolerance that's on the tip of my tongue here ... I'm sure it'll come to me later. |
beat you to it. only it has nothing to do with smarts. just has to do with being more intolerant, more close-minded, and insecure enough in the veracity of your positions not to be willing to have questions raised about them.
|
Quote:
which would of course lead to my retort that your phrase about tolerance and conviction is only a shield because you're either insecure and/or unwilling to take the time and engage in the intellectual exercise of examining your beliefs more closely. at which point you come back with "after X numbers of years of my life of dealing with people..." statement, and it's status quo. i think i got everything there, right? :) |
Quote:
No, it has to do with having a low tolerance for vermin like Obama & his liberal kindred as well as the worthless tripe that spews from their mouths on a regular basis. That's not insecurity, that's having even the most basic amount of common sense & decent judgement to be able to tell useful from useless. edit to add: That time we were pretty much typing simultaneously I think. But almost seriously, at some point, how much time do you honestly expect someone to waste listening to things they've already dismissed more times than Carl Sagan could mathematically express? Were it in within my power to do so, I'd silence a great deal of it forever, to avoid both the wasted time and the sheer annoyance of it as well as to avoid poisoning weaker minds less capable of adequate discernment. Absent that, I simply do whatever microscopic thing I can to discomfit the enemy whenever possible and whenever the opportunity cost makes sense. |
Have to agree with MBBF. The uproar about the uproar is more amusing than anything else. I think almost every conservative leaning poster here has said they don't really have that big of a problem with Obama's speech just what the department of education may have planned to do afterwards. So the other side (in an attempt to make the conservatives look foolish) spends stupid amounts of time arguing about how those are just FOX "talking points" and to prove it they somehow all amazingly end up with the same Democratic "But Reagan and Bush Sr. did it" talking points. LOL. Great independent thought on both sides!!!
|
Personally, I am most amused by the uproar over the uproar about the uproar.
|
Quote:
ahhh Jon :) |
Quote:
But no one is painting everyone who disagrees with Obama as a nutjob. Debates about public health care, current debt, social security, and cap and trade- these are all things that have legitimate facets to them. I don't want to say sides as that presumes there are just two opposing viewpoints when many of these issues are much more complex than that, even if many places want to boil it down to "either yer wit' us or agin' us". However, I think there's a fairly broad line here between airing legitimate complaints and giving the flat earth society a forum. And I think, similarly, there's a very big difference between those who espouse those different types of views. I also think these issues are exasperated by various media outlets giving equal time when there isn't equal merits to many of the arguments in a debate but I suppose that's another post for another time. SI |
Everyone keeps complaining about the focus on the nutjobs, but isn't that what it's come down to? Most politicians can't hold a simple town forum because of the nutjobs shouting them down about death panels and socialism. It would seem if the republicans wanted a true voice in this (and I wish they would) they would put forth an actual counter-proposal and encourage rational debate (like McCain did to his shouters) instead of being the donkey on Family Guy (no,no,no,no,no,no,no!!!). Unfortunately, you have scum like Grassley in the forefront and that really prevents things from happening.
On the other side, it would be nice if somebody stepped up and peed on both Pelosi and Baucus. |
Quote:
I think Grassley's a perfect example of what's wrong. He has generally been a pretty sane, reasonable conservative voice, but now he's had to embrace death panels to keep from getting primaried from the right or losing his coveted committee assignments. The discussion will stop being about the crazies when the crazies stop running the GOP. |
Quote:
When the thought that "I do not know, and I cannot know, what speech Obama would have delivered if there hadn't been so much attention paid to it," elicits the above, clearly we have reached a point where rational discussion is no longer possible. I think you have proved my point that Obama's most ardent supporters are freely flinging the term wingnut at those who reckon themselves Obama supporters, yet whose support of the president is not absolute and unquestioning. |
Quote:
I thought long and hard about that post - I actually debated whether I wanted to use the phrase "wingnut" in it at all, but since that's what the conversation was around I didn't want to change the word and confuse the discussion. Well that's true...you cannot know and do not know what speech he would have delivered. And neither do I. But that's like saying "I cannot know for certain that mankind walked on the moon since I have not physically done it myself, so I will choose to believe that they faked it." It just doesn't pass the "common sense" test. There's a lot of things you take on faith. You cannot see your social security accruing, but you take it on faith that it will be there. If you're religious you cannot see evidence of god, but you take it on faith. Common sense tells us that mankind walked on the moon. Common sense tells us that Obama intended to deliver the same speech before and after the commotion (commotion after all that was caused by the lesson plans drawn up by some jr. level somebody-or-other that i'm sure obama never even saw). My support isn't absolute and unwavering. Shit, if he comes out tonight and gives away the public option I'll tear the guy from pillar to post. I might anyways, because I firmly believe that single-payer was the way to go. But you can place a lot of that blame on the Congress as well as him. Wasn't necessarily a problem 100% caused by him. I'm dissapointed by the rendition and Guantanamo positions that he's taken. |
Here's how I see it (my opinion): The people from a particular political party who are not a wacko, nutjob, loon, crazy, etc, do nothing to distance themselves or speak out against the people who ARE a wacko, nutjob, loon, crazy, etc, that are in their same political party.
It's like, "Oh, that's just crazy uncle Larry, we still love him though." No, get uncle Larry some damn help, he isn't helping your cause one bit and is making the rest of you guilty by association. |
Quote:
There are plenty of posters in this very thread that do exactly that. |
Quote:
In all honesty, I wasn't addressing FOFC, but, what we see on the news or read. Look at Van Johnson, I haven't heard anyone from the democrat side say anything at all. Unless I missed it. Look at Pat Buchanon and his Nazi/Hitler revisionist crap he's been spewing out the last few days, haven't heard any republicans call him out on his bovine scatos either. I think in these two instances, silence, is saying plenty loud and clear. Again, just my opinion and it's possible that I missed someone from their own politcal party call them out. |
Speaking of wingnuts who nobody can reel in, Sara Palin with an op-ed in the WSJ...
Quote:
Democrats are praying that she wins the nomination. I actually wish somebody with an intelligent voice in congress would write something rational...on either side. I don't think we'll get that though. |
You're going to have a lot of Republicans say there's no need to speak up when Obama's approval numbers keep dropping. Latest AP poll has his personal approval at 50/49 (it was 67/24 back in February), approval on health care at 42/52 (was 53/28 back in April), approval on economy at 44/52 (was 58/35 in April), and approval on handling of federal deficit at 33/56 (was 49/41 in April).
There are a lot of conservatives who aren't happy with the noise from the fringe, but as long as Obama's numbers keep dropping they're not going to have a great deal of traction to try and quiet them down. |
Just read up on the Van Jones thing. I was vaguely aware of it, but don't watch cable news or read blogs so missed most of it.
My god. Is there no vetting of any kind? Simply politically speaking, that was a no-brainer to not appoint that guy. |
Quote:
On other hand, I believe the GOP numbers are far worse, which says something... not that the extremes may necessarily care. |
Quote:
While the polling numbers are certainly going the wrong way in a hurry, I don't think much credit should be given to the vocal fringe of the Republicans. I think the Democrats and their ability to shoot each other in the foot repeatedly have been far more damaging to this administration and Democrat majority than anything the Republicans have done. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think lots of people are sick of both parties and the current climate of politics. The GOP is certainly letting far right people speak for them too much, while the Dems are dealing with Obama breaking campaign promise after campaign promise and showing himself to really be not much of a change, except that he's wasting all our money on something other than defense. As mentioned on the last page of the thread, we need a real third party with more moderate views to push the whackos off to either side and start shrinking government and getting it out of being in all the businesses it has no business being in. |
You're both right, but you're thinking too logically. :)
I don't believe the fringe is responsible for the falling poll numbers, but since they've been all over the media as the numbers are falling, there will be plenty of Republicans (as opposed to conservatives) who are willing to give them the credit. As for the GOP numbers being just as bad... that's largely true, though the GOP is starting to lead on a number of issues. Still, in politics, getting and maintaining power is always going to be more of a priority than having a coherent agenda. |
Quote:
let me field this one on behalf of our conservative posters: it's obviously because the statistical measurements were designed by dirty no-good liberals. ;) |
Quote:
I think we're starting to see that manifest itself in the House. There's a surprising number of representatives that aren't too reliable for either party. I think the Senate is quite a bit more polarized in comparison. It's certainly not a third party by any means, but there seems to be an increase in the number of reps who don't vote along party lines. |
I think the fringe has been effective because of the way the media has covered their arguments. When news organizations cover the daily outrage by equating crazy with rational, that's bound to lend an air of legitimacy to the crazies.
"Some conservatives say President Obama plans to kill your grandma, Democrats say that's not true. We'll cover the both sides of the controversy next." |
private schools are doing just fine thank you very much.
|
Quote:
where are these polls? what time periods are they covering? when were they taken? what issues are they referencing? what areas of the country did they sample? Who took the polls? plenty of questions to be asked about those (note...i'm not seriously asking for answers to them...i've got work i should be doing, just pointing out that your citation was incomplete) |
Quote:
Who are these in the GOP? They've voted as a block against everything Obama's supported. |
Quote:
This I agree with. The national media is failing this country bigtime. |
Quote:
In general, there's definitely more Dems who are unreliable than Republicans. I think that has more to do with what I'd call the 'Specter' effect. There were a lot of candidates who ran as Democrats in the House elections on the pro-Obama/anti-Bush coattails just to get elected. I think we're seeing that there were a lot of Democrats elected who weren't quite as Democrat as they'd like you to believe. You can certainly sense that frustration in some of the House leaders on the the majority side of the aisle. They seem to be frustrated that they can't just ride the majority numbers to bill passage. |
Quote:
It's not an enormous difference, but so far during this Congress, more democrats in the house vote with their party than republicans. House voting with party scores | 111th Congress | Congressional votes database | washingtonpost.com |
Quote:
DINO's to go with the RINO's? |
Quote:
Can you show me one Democrat that only ran as a Democrat because of Obama? They would have declared they were running long before Obama was the nominee. Were they psychic? Historically the Dems are just more diverse ideologically than the Republicans. I don't have a perfect explanation for why, but getting the Dems to vote together has been a struggle for every leader since Truman at least. |
Quote:
I think this is more of an indication of where the wealth is. Based on census data one could reasonably argue that the Blue States have (a) The highest concentrations of wealth (b) The highest tax rates (c) The largest budget shortfalls despite a & b (d) Artificially high census figures in relation to education levels due to the amount of people who move there to pursue wealth So, by that one could draw the conclusion that blue states (and by extension, Liberal fiscal policy) ends up in a have/have not society where the poor vote for the candidate that will take the most from the rich (or appear to on the surface...which just gets moved to some other "fee" or price increases which screws them anyway). This is (admittedly a strawman) usually attributed (as a strawman) to Conservative fiscal policy due to the (desired) equality in income tax (or lack thereof) across the board. Does anybody really believe DC's public education system produced 47% Bachelor's degrees and 26% Advanced degrees? That might be an extreme circumstance, sure. How about the next few states?
Of those (including DC) none of them make the top 15 in HS Diploma residents(Colorado is 16th). So if education equals wealth (or access to wealth), they have a higher % of wealthy people but also a higher % of poor people whereas the red states have a more evenly balanced population (in comparison). On the other hand Alaska is #4 in HS diploma residents while California is 5th from the bottom (46th though Cali is 15/14 BS/Advanced degrees...perhaps reinforcing the have/have not argument). |
Quote:
You'll have to ask the person that said that someone ran only as a Democrat because of Obama. It certainly wasn't me. There's a huge difference between riding coattails that were increased in magnitude by Obama's historic candidacy and what you've stated in the above quote. |
Quote:
Ooh, there goes your streak, you missed that one by a mile. I'm not particularly planning to answer the question 'cause it'd open a whole different kettle of fish but you definitely were way off on my answer(s). |
At the risk of being lambasted for posting something from a conservative website, the Drudge Report has some information regarding House members on both sides who are opposed to the current House bill. It appears that Pelosi is not correct that she has enough votes to get the House bill through a vote. 44 Democrats still remain opposed to the current bill.
DRUDGE REPORT: WHIP COUNT: DEMS LACK THE VOTES 2009® Quote:
|
Quote:
In rereading t a few times I can see your point, but that is one confusing sentence. |
Quote:
Alternatively, by looking at poverty rates, one could argue that blue states spend more on social services (even to the detriment of their budget balances) resulting in a "less poor" population. |
Quote:
At least it wasn't from the World Nut Daily or the Huffington Post. ;) |
Quote:
None of these votes counts matter yet. There isn't a blueprint for what the Senate is going to pass and until there is Dems in the House have complete freedom to make all the threats they want. Wait until the final bills get clearer and then you can start doing vote counts. How many Dems are really going to allow themselves to be the votes that killed healthcare reform? |
Quote:
As many of them feel like they might not get re-elected if they were to be the vote that passed Obamacare. |
Quote:
I wouldn't argue against that but I would add that paying out social services isn't much different than giving rebates for things like cash for clunkers...only you have to pay a middleman (i.e. the bureaucrat). But if you didn't give these government rebates the prices/costs would have to come down to the level that the majority (in a given area) could afford. This, in turn, would lower the profit for the wealthy business owner and keep "wealth" in relative balance. But all higher taxes/increased social services do is continue to widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It seems perfectly fine when times are good...but when times are bad and the wealthy stop spending/investing, etc...the poor who were accustomed to living on the "system" are looking to the government for help instead of being self-reliant enough to have planned, budgeted, and made arrangments to survive. This is how we are teaching the poor (i.e. presumably because they are less educated) to interact in society. I'm a believer that there will (and has to be) a poor class of people in every society that is not educated and does the menial tasks that are asked of them while the more talented do the things that require more talent. But it isn't like ALL rich people can maintain their wealth only by selling or catering to ONLY other rich people. Some do of course...but not all. The majority's buying power is the relevant item to consider...and therefore can and should be preserved to keep the wealthy in check. But the more social services you add the more you distort this balance. And you just end up bandaid-ing the bandaid-ed problems of wealth inequality in society to the point of making the wealth relationship so beyond complicated that the poorer classes could never know how exactly they get screwed...they just know they are screwed. So...here we are I guess. |
Quote:
I'd agree with this, in general. Even if they pass a crappy bill, given the amount of time it will likely take before implementation, how many swing voters would be affected by the time elections are up...and of those, how many might very well be on to the next topic by then. I think there are lots of reasons Dems should be worried about the mid-terms...but health care is probably...important, yes...critical, no. There are about 3-4 other things that swing voters(is this still used or am I old?) will be more influenced by. Not the least of which...the perceived Stimulus effects & Afghanistan(assuming we're still there). |
It's kinda sad, that the health care "debate" (and I'm indicting both sides on that for drowning out the signal with noise), has overshadowed the economic side.
There was some good news today, as a report from the government noted that the recession appears to be over (NOTE: Neither it, nor I, is saying that the EFFECTS of the recession is over, but it looks like the economy is going to grow by 3-4% (most of it business related spending). Still have a way to go, before consumer confidence is what it was, but it looks like we've threaded our way through the minefield. Newsroom |
Quote:
i wasn't exclusively trying to respond in your voice... |
Well, I'm fully ready to be screwed tonight
SI |
"The time for bickering is OVER"
Truer words have never been said... :D |
Quote:
I think this is the wrong thread for that. |
Quote:
That's what she said... |
Quote:
He's probably going to say something not nice about a group of people. Go figure. The red states aren't necessarily the lowest I believe. I think New Mexico and Arizona are among the bottom, and that is likely due to some extreme poverty in populous areas. As for down here, Georgians think important issues are state flags bearing the confederate colors and putting stickers on books warning people on evolution. That, and the best way to fight a drought is to pray for rain. I'm already looking for some private schools, though I think my area has some decent public schools. |
Politics must be for the daytime crowd around here....
|
Btw, I thought the speech was very well done. Consumer protection regulations on insurance companies, a health insurance exchange for the uninsured, and an individual mandate. Lets get it done!
And I voted for McCain, mind. |
Quote:
Socialist. |
Dola
I'm obviously jaded, but wasn't the Republican response rather shallow? |
They have a tendency to fumble their responses, but I don't remember the Demos being any better when Bush was prez.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.