Well somebody's drunk! A thread entirely about me? Let's do it.
Doin' mighty fine. I'm a bit drunk as well so I might not make the most sense. And you?
Well, I just started drinking today, so I'm good. Thanks.
I suppose if I had to pick one, I'd go with healthcare. Maybe not this administration per se, but I feel in time the government will learn that turning health care into a business and making money off of people's health is wrong. Obama has brought up some rather vague promises of universal health care, and mandatory health care for all children, both of which I belive are extremely important steps to changing out health care system. Obama is looking forward to the right direction, but I'm not yet sure of whether or not he will actually be able to make the fundamental change in our system that it truly needs.
I've seen and heard enough from Canadians who think that national healthcare is a bad idea. There is a reason they come here for major health problems. Socialized medicine leads doctors to places where there isn't socialized medicine. While they take an oath to save lives, many seem more content to save their wallets. I wouldn't mind the government taking over energy, personally. If it's run like water, sewage, and trash pickup, I see no problem. The only trouble I see is growing pot. LOL But being that I am out of that business now, I don't care who sees my power bill.
I'm not sure what you mean by "reconcile with American History". Are you referring to our history of capitalism? Why does capitalism always have to be the number one goal in the US? Where in the Declaration of Independence did we declare ourselves a nation of capitalists?
It's that whole property rights thing. I think that every law restricting executive compensation is a restriction of property rights. I think that the Supreme Court trying to restrict the sale of Chrysler to Fiat is a restriction of property rights.
People can criticize Obama for the very small introduction of minor socialism into the United States, but FDR went much further then Obama ever did, and brought us out of the economic funk we were in.
Aren't you a history guy? As far as I know, from college and all, the New Deal didn't have much of an impact, and it was, in fact, World War II that got us out of the Great Depression.
I'm not saying Obama is going to do that, but I think it's foolish to dismiss any minor variation of socialism as being the death of America.
I agree here. I don't think that everything this administration has done is a "minor" introduction of socialism, however. I think that forcing Wells Fargo to reduce shareholder dividends, blocking a private company, Chrysler, from selling out is a major restriction. And, of course, we can look to General Motors. I know Obama said he didn't want to run a car company, however, it is his baby, for the moment, and I think the people he put in charge are going to keep it his baby a little bit longer, in that none of them have ever run anything more than a non-profit. Insert GM/non-profit jokes here.
[quote[
Though it pains me to say it as a (reluctant) taxpayer, I feel the bailouts were necessary.[/quote]
For the banks, in that bankrupting the FDIC would have been disastrous.
I don't understand those with the "see what happens, let the strongest banks survive" attitude.
Agreed. However, letting the car companies go bankrupt, might have provided the leverage to disband the unions. Let me explain the problem with the United Auto Workers, for those who haven't read this from me before. Union worker, even those that have very menial jobs, such as the lug nut guy, get upwards of $40 an hour due to union pressure. Good for them. The problem here is that Toyota and Nissan can get factory workers here in Texas to do the same job for half the price. Furthermore, the Steel Workers Union requires high hourly pay for their employees. Toyota and Nissan can buy our scrap, ship it overseas, melt it down and refurbish it, ship it back, and sell it to us for a cheaper price than we can do it ourselves. Combining these factors allows Toyota and Nissan to sell us equivalent cars to GM's for two thirds of the price. Beyond those who feel that buying American is their patriotic duty, which car would you buy? Of course it's going to be the cheaper car (with comparative performance). This is what has led to the death of the American auto industry more than anything else. Allowing these companies to go to bankruptcy court allows them to plead for non-union labor, which makes their cars more affordable, which sells more cars, which allows them to hire more people, which reduces unemployment rolls, which leads to more retained revenue and adds new income tax revenue, which is good for everyone.
Well first off Communism and Anarchism are very, very different.
Agreed, again. I only compared them in that human nature makes both very inefficient.
Communism I agree is the perfect example of something better left in theory utilized in real life, because of the inherent greed that will always exist in human society.
I think laziness is a bigger problem than greed. With no prospects of raises based on performance or advancement, one will not work as hard. A reduction in productivity leads to falling revenue, which leads to bread lines.
Anarchism as a system of government would never work either, but quite frankly the majority of modern anarchists don't want a total takeover of the US government. They don't want a bloody revolution, anarchists, despite their misleading label, are a wholly peace-loving almost neo-hippie culture. The movement is entirely focused on anti-elitism. What most anarchists believe in is a curb on some of our capitalistic excess and a large overhaul of our nations social/health/drug/ systems. I don't want to go entirely into this because quite frankly it could take up pages, but I'll just sum this answer up by saying that anarchism is really more of an awareness movement then a valid political one.
Once again I agree. I have another question here though. Modern anarchism is basically the idea, as I understand it, is life with the absence of a leader. If I'm wrong, stop reading.
I feel that a "natural state" would be fine, however, it wouldn't remain peaceful. Inherent in human nature is a desire for rules, and at some point, someone would try to impose some form of rule, which leads to a social contract.......leading to a government. It seems as if we would wind up back where we are at some point, so why not fix what we have instead of starting new problems?
Either dark red, or dark purple. I'm a dark kind of guy.
I'm a blue/green kind of guy.
There are quite a few valid ideals of the Republican Party, its not the Party that I have a problem with, as the original Republicans were true patriots at the very core of the word.
I am all for a smaller government, personally. It's easy to keep taxes low if there aren't over a million government employees.
I have a problem with the fundamentalist and xenophobic people who choose to join that party and distort it's views.
Me too. I feel I get lumped in with KKK and neo-Nazi members as a right winger. I'm a fucking Jew, so there is no way I am involved in those movements.
I'm sure I've mentioned before that the only reason I voted for Obama was because Ron Paul wasn't on the ticket.
Calling Ron Paul a modern Republican is a stretch. He's a libertarian, which is cool. I always found him somewhat creepy though, and all the Ron paul supporters I met seemed to have a cult-like devotion to him, which also scares me.
Among other things I support the issue of state rights over federal rights which many Republicans have taken up.
The 10th amendment push has begun. Watch out for it over the coming months. It started with a gun bill in Tennessee, but marijuana, gay rights, etc. all fall under this umbrella.
I'm also more in line with the Republican Party when it comes to environmental issues. That's right FTS, prepare to be shocked and overcome with joy, as I am not one of the gullible millions who believe global warming is going to ravage the Earth and kill us all if we don't drive hybrid cars. This carbon tax bullshit I see some liberals coming up with? Yeah, I'll pay for that tax the day I die thank you very much.
So you found it funny when they blamed global warming for the north easter late April snow storm? Apparently, global warming makes it cooler. Also, just a question, if global warming melts the ice caps and raises sea levels, won't the Earth's being covered with more REFLECTIVE water, cool the temperature right back down? It makes sense to me.....
Unfortunately any third party just doesn't stand a chance in our society, not now atleast. Perhaps in the future there will come a day when Americans finally turn to a third party, but right now it seems extremely unlikely to ever happen in our lifetimes.
Well, Ross Perot managed 20+%, so it's not that out of the question, however, he ascension of a third party to control of the executive and both houses of the legislative branch seems unlikely. I think a grassroots, ORGANIZED libertarian campaign could catch on. Hey, how would you like to be far right economically, paying low taxes in a completely free market, and slightly left of center socially, smoking a doobie and attending the wedding of your gay friends without storm troopers parading in and shutting you down? Sound good....cool.
But that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Third-party nominations are as much about spreading awareness and knowledge of your party's politics as it is about actually trying to win the presidency.
I think that this statement sums up the true goals of a party. A political party is nothing more than a lobby group with an organized platform of multiple causes. If only the libertarians could organize. There are so many forces, from anarchists to disenfranchised economic conservative pulling the party in a million little directions. Such a shame. True libertarian politics are actually where most Americans lie.
First things first the Libertarian party would need to both organize itself as more then an autonomous group of cells and try a media campaign to spread information about their party and it's policies. Plenty of celebrities are Libertarians, and that would be the first place to start. I know the calls of Hollywood elitism from the right would be massive, but it would spread awareness rather quickly.
Not only the right though. The left does a pretty good job of outing Republicans in Hollywood, and mocking them. Speaking of which, have you seen the Megan Fox comments? She said she would give the terrorists middle America (and their white trash, bible beating, gay bashing asses) in exchange for safety on the coasts. Quite a patriot, and quite the statement from a girl from lower middle class Tennessee roots who is covered in tattoos. I'd still hit it though.
Perhaps it would better reflect the demographics, but I'm a firm believer in the separation of the executive and legislative branches.
If we could still elect a President, then I think it could work. 30% of America does not identify with a party, and voting for a platform instead of a person might settle Congress in the middle instead of far right or left. All we need is some moderation. A little more left socially, a little more right economically, and I think that everything would be perfect.
I wouldn't exactly call the news un-valid, as they still report facts. But the political slant has indeed gotten ridiculious. I know you're a supporter of Fox News, but I just cannot stand the monumental amont of stupidity that is showcased on that network on an almost constant level. MSNBC though is almost as bad to watch with their constant overzealous obsession with Obama. Do we really need a five hour countdown to know what the President's dog is going to be? Do we need to see footage of the president eating a freakin' hamburger?
LOL. At least Fox puts some babes on to read the news. Courtney Friel, Megyn Kelly, Dominica Davis, etc....these women are nice to look at. They make a recession a bit more bearable.
CNN is decent at times, but only decent. I get the majority of my news straight from the AP though, so I don't really even have to deal with the news networks anymore. Who even has time to watch the news anymore?
I keep the news on while I work. I'm not going anywhere, and I get to know things as they happen.
CNN's problem is that it's boring. They have a bit of a leftward slant, but it would be bearable if they got someone other than Lou Dobbs and Larry King. Those guys put tweakers to sleep.
Never. Blogging is wonderful for the everyday man and woman, but real journalism takes more talent then setting up a blog. Can you imagine the Watergate scandal being broken through a series of blog posts? Me neither.
I actually could. Monica Lewinsky came from the Drudge Report, the forebearer of blogging. I just wish that these bloggers would hire an ombudsman to fact check what they report. And, something like the Huffington Post, which is just plain bitter, has such an obvious slant that I think they do more harm than good sometimes.
Unfortunately the newspaper seems to be slowly dying as we speak, so the future of journalism is very shaky right now. Who knows, in twenty years maybe the bloggers will be the new journalists. I can only imagine the decline in quality.
I don't think the newspapers have been of that high of a quality for some time. Editorial writers, advertisers, and reporters have all blended into one messy clusterfuck. Vanity Fair used to keep the advertisers and reporters fifteen floors apart so as not to bias the news. Now, with intraoffice networking, they are right next to each other.
To what? All our problems? Neither. He's not the savior that some people make him out to be, but he's certainly not the insane commie who's going to steal all of your guns that the right makes him out to be. It's so early in his presidency to even really judge him fairly that I think it would be ridiculious to proclaim him solution or problem at this point. Let's wait and see.
I am willing to wait and see, but I don't like what I have seen so far. I understand that it is difficult to perform every aspect of your job on live TV, 24 hours a day, but I haven't liked many of the policies enacted. Gitmo has become a major problem, both politically and logistically, along with the car companies. These are very discouraging. I didn't like his Cairo speech. I don't think a mea culpa in the Middle East, or starting a speech with a salama lakim (I hope I spelled that close to right) are not what a President, at war, should be saying. I know he was reaching out to moderate Muslims, however, that will get replayed and spun on Al-Jazeera and help with Al-Quaeda recruitment.
Absolutely. No matter how great his brother might be, it's not happenin'. I don't think theres anyone that can state Bush's presidency was anything but a failure, and the majority of the country knows this.
Jeb was supposed to be President first. He was supposed to be Governor first. The Georges Bush couldn't get past a family spat, and George wound up President first. I wish I had that kind of power. "I hate you Dad, I'm going to go be President just to spite you."
I would like to add, that I think history will be a kinder judge to Bush than current news media are. I think he thought everything he did was in America's best interest, and after we see a few performances of Presidents in this new world, he will be looked on a little more gently. You have to admire how he let nothing phase him, though. He went on with his agenda no matter what. We focus on the war, but No Child Left Behind had altruistic aims, and his idea of an ownership society was widely praised on both sides of the aisle, until the mortgage industry got a little greedy.
PHEW! That took a while. Good thing I'm still slightly drunk or this thread would've taken a lot longer to answer...
(Random Sidenote: Eddie Murphy is talking about "Party All the Time" on The Tonight Show right now. Amazing.)
Eddie Murphy is the man. Time for me to drink more.
