Close

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 37
  1. #1
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4790

    Default Ideological Spectrum redux

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    After

    looking at this chart, how did we get to where we are

    now?


    political poll chart.gif


    http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Co... l-Group.aspx



    With the number of conservatives at double the number of liberals since at least 1992, we

    can only assume that A) Conservatives have been sleeping and B) Moderates change their votes along with their

    overcoats.

    Seeing how Obama won the 08 election with strong Moderate support makes me question the makeup of

    Moderate opinion and motivation. Throwing their support to an empty candidate like Obama as they voted against Bush

    was an exercise in unthinking irresponsibility, if not stupidity. With a little work, one could easily find out

    what kind of President Obama would be, he is no real surprise now that his silent agenda as a candidate is now

    coming to pass. Now we see the Moderates running away in droves with acute buyer's remorse.

    If Conservative and

    Liberal thought is underpinned by ideas and principles, what does a Moderate consistently believe about anything? I

    suppose one could say he/she is a "fiscal conservative but social liberal" or some such, but do those two carry

    equal weight in one's system of ideas? To what extent do such things as morals, sense of justice, concept of

    freedom, role of government, personal responsibility or personal liberty play together in the scheme of one's life?

    Each of these would be defined differently, and would place as different priorities, in a Conservative or a

    Liberal. With the economic crisis just at the time of election day, did Moderates simply vote their wallets?



    Its too complex trying to predict voters, and more so with Moderates I guess, but its very clear that we remain

    a center-right country. The trend, as I see it, is two-fold. One, Moderates, whatever they are, are shifting away

    from the guy they brought into office. I believe this is in direct response to Obama's extreme positions on

    everything from socialization of business to his amateurish foreign policy. As well, there is a common thread

    working through his agenda that equates to reduction of personal freedom and the minimalization of America. Second,

    Obama/Reid/Pelosi have pulled Conservatives out of the closet. Their strong reaction is in direct proportion to the

    cause.

    Americans do not like their President bowing to Arab tyrants any more than they like their government

    trying to ram through a health care program that is very clearly against their collective will.


    This kind of

    behavior does not help

    matters:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO1oJPps1I

    http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-l...-negotiations/
    Last edited by idesign; 01-08-2010 at 09:04 AM.


  2. #2
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    Some of what you say is right, in my opinion. Especially about people leaving Obama support in droves

    as a result of his agenda and demonstrated incompetence. However, I think you are over-simplifying matters to some

    degree. Political views can better be expressed on a grid rather than a simple line. Try this political compass test

    yourself and you'll see what I mean.
    http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

    A big part of why Obama got elected, I think, is the overall disgust with the way things are and have

    been. His hope and change mantra was only seen superficially. The tough questions of how he would handle specific

    situations were rarely asked and never answered. The few actual promises he made, like transparency in government

    and bipartisanship, were quickly forgotten, if he ever really meant them. I personally believe he was working off a

    script, saying the things he was told to say based on public opinion polls. In all honesty, can you imagine Obama

    without a teleprompter in front of him? Everything he says is carefully scripted for

    effect.


    The next

    presidential election is a ways off. I am concerned about what he is going to do between now and when we vote this

    coming November. Its pretty obvious that he is going to lose his super majority at that time and I suspect that many

    who do not lose their seats will change positions when the DNC loses power to coerce them. So, he is pushing hard to

    get a very flawed health care bill through before he loses the ability to do that and he is doing the same with cap

    and trade, he knows that next year he'll have no ability to do anything and will essentially be a lame duck.



    My biggest concern

    though is the immigration reform bills that are starting to drift in. The estimates vary but let's say its 20

    million illegals that he can turn into democratic voters. Do you think it improbable that he will legalize them

    simply for the votes? If that happens, with the strong public sentiment against it, what is going to be the public

    reaction? Will enough people then turn against him and fire him in 2012 or will he gain enough support through

    amnesty to get reelected? My guess is he is betting on the latter.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    5604

    Default

    Many people I know voted more

    against the Republican party than for Obama.

    Remember:

    "The grass is always greener over there." (So people

    look for change.)

    The general American voting public also buys one heck of a lot of sponge sharpeners as hawked

    on TV infomercials.

    I suffer the curse of intelligence, and have had to come to grips with the fact that the

    majority of people in this world aren't as observant/smart/thoughtful etc as I, and I suspect that many of the

    "pros" here on this forum are in the same observant/smart/thinking class as I am.

    Personally I just could not

    vote for the Republican agenda. I liked much of what McCain stood for, but I also had some serious issues. I could

    only hope that there was enough strength in the checks and balances of the Congress to help act as a control to

    whatever policies were going to be pushed. The fact that this so called "health plan" is finding resistance even

    from Democrats gives me hope. It's not a done deal, and there is always a chance things will get passed after the

    November change to improve things. No law is really permanent. Witness the reversal of the Constitutional amendment

    concerning alcohol prohibition.

    I can't really "blame" Mr. Obama for the direction we are headed in now. That

    course was laid years ago thanks to the likes of Jessie Jackson and his pushing of an "Entitlement" agenda. And that

    the "common man/woman" is apparently too dumb to know what they want (which unfortunately may be all too true...) so

    he will of course take on the burden of leading us all. To his tune.

    The one thing of course that is *really* to

    blame in my mind is the fact that so few eligible voters even bother to vote. "A Nation of Sheep."

    My quick

    thoughts.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  4. #4
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    6742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rbt View Post
    The fact that

    this so called "health plan" is finding resistance even from Democrats gives me hope.
    Perhaps the

    "resistance" is due to the lack of a "public option". Critics say "the majority of Americans don't want a

    government health care program", but consider

    this poll:

    To

    probe for answers to these and other questions about how Americans view health care, WorldPublicOpinion.org and the

    Brookings Institution conducted a poll among 1400 Americans. The size of the sample answering each question

    varied, though all had over 800 respondents. The margin of error varied from +/- 2.6 to 3.5 percentage points.


    The survey was fielded September 26-October 5, 2009 by Knowledge Networks, a polling, social science, and market

    research firm in Menlo Park, California, with a stratified random sample of its large-scale nationwide research

    panel. This panel itself has been randomly recruited from the national population of households having telephones;

    households without internet access are subsequently provided with free web access and an internet appliance. Thus

    the panel is not limited to those who already have home internet access. The distribution of the sample in the

    Web-enabled panel closely tracks the distribution of United States Census counts for the US population on age,

    race, Hispanic ethnicity, geographical region, employment status, income, education, etc. Upon survey completion,

    the data were weighted by gender, age, education, and ethnicity. For more information about the online survey

    methodology, please go to:

    www.knowledgenetworks.co

    m/ganp
    .
    Key findings were:
    1. The Role of Government in Health Care
    Three in five Americans

    believe that the government has the responsibility to ensure that citizens can meet their basic need for health

    care
    ; however, this number has declined significantly over the last year, and is no longer bipartisan,

    presumably in response to the current debate. Three in five also see health care as a right, not a

    privilege.
    Views are roughly divided as to whether the government should generally provide health care services

    directly.
    2. Assessments of Current Situation
    Two out of three Americans, including clear majorities

    of all parties, believe that the US government is doing a poor job of ensuring that people can meet their basic

    needs for health care.
    A majority thinks that the present health care system is not viable because costs are

    rising while more people are going onto Medicare. Large majorities are concerned about whether they and Americans

    in general will be able to get health insurance at a price they can afford. However, there is less concern about

    the quality of health care: views are divided as to whether, on its present trajectory, health care will worsen.


    3. Reaction to Health Care Debate
    As the partisan debate has grown more intense, far more people have

    become less supportive of both parties’ ideas than have become more supportive of the ideas of one party. People

    express substantial levels of anxiety about the subject of health care. More express fear that the government

    action will make the health care system worse than express confidence that government action will help. People are

    divided as to whether the government can afford to reform health care in the current economic environment.
    4.

    Specific proposals

    Nearly all of the specific proposals for health care reform are endorsed by a majority.

    Large majorities favor a public option limited to those who are not receiving insurance through their employer,

    cross-state purchasing and requiring insurance companies to accept every applicant and to not drop sick people for

    making a mistake in their original application form.
    More modest majorities favor tort reform, a public option

    for all who wish it, an employer mandate, and an individual mandate. A modest majority opposes the government

    directly providing health care.
    4a. Public Option
    A majority favors a public option available to all,

    while three-quarters favor one limited to those who cannot get insurance through their employers. Interestingly, a

    modest majority of Republicans, as well as large majorities of Democrats and Independents, favors a limited public

    option.

    4b. Cross-State Purchasing
    Two-thirds favor the idea of cross-state purchasing, including

    large majorities of all parties. A large majority finds the argument in favor of cross-state purchasing

    convincing, while a substantial majority finds the argument against it unconvincing.
    4c. Insurance Company

    Regulation

    Overwhelming majorities of all parties favor the government requiring insurance companies to

    accept every applicant for coverage and prohibiting insurance companies from dropping a sick person because of a

    minor mistake in his or her application form.
    4d. Tort Reform
    A modest majority favors the idea of tort

    reform, including a plurality of Democrats. The argument in favor of tort reform is found convincing by a large

    majority, while the argument against it elicits a divided response.
    4e. Employer mandate
    A large majority

    is convinced by the argument against a proposed requirement that all but the smallest businesses either provide

    health insurance to all their workers or pay into a public fund to cover the uninsured, but a strong majority also

    finds the argument for such a requirement convincing. A modest majority favors such a requirement.
    4f.

    Individual Mandate

    A modest majority favors requiring all people to have health insurance for themselves and

    their children, with a subsidy for those who could not afford it and a penalty for those who refuse. Views break

    along party lines. Interestingly, majorities of both parties find convincing arguments both for and against an

    individual mandate.
    5. Cutting Health Care Costs
    An overwhelming majority thinks that it is possible to

    cut waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system without denying people the treatment they need. Estimates of

    the magnitude of waste, fraud, and abuse are substantial and approximately equal for private and public health

    care.
    6. Impact of Health Care Reform on Taxes and the Deficit
    Six in ten believe that health care

    reform will lead to at least somewhat higher taxes and that the deficit will increase at least somewhat. Those who

    believe that taxes and the deficit will go up are less supportive of reform, but only those who believe that their

    taxes and the deficit will become a lot greater depart from majority positions in support of major health care

    reforms.
    7. Perceptions of US Health Care System
    Contrary to frequent assertions in the health care

    debate that the American health care system is the best in the world, most Americans have more modest and

    realistic assumptions about how the American health care system compares to other highly developed countries.


    Most Americans have a good understanding about which health care programs are government sponsored and which are

    private.
    8. Older Americans
    Older Americans are generally less supportive than younger people of the

    government taking on new obligations (obligations that could potentially compete with Medicare). However a

    majority, albeit a relatively smaller one, does support the idea that the government is responsible for ensuring

    access to health care, a slight majority favors a generally available public option, and a large majority supports

    a limited public option. Older Americans report that they are following the health care debate more closely than

    do persons of other ages; they also express more worry about the issues of health care.
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  5. #5
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    6742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth View Post
    The few actual promises he made, like transparency in government and bipartisanship, were quickly

    forgotten, if he ever really meant them.
    I can actually remember some attempts at

    bipartisanship and the response was basically "FU". As far as transparency in government goes, some things take a

    bit of

    time
    :

    CQ

    Weekly
    ’s Maura Reynolds wrote about the Obama administration’s successes and failures in

    achieving its transparency goals six months into the term. Reynolds quoted

    Ellen Miller, Sunlight’s director, about how

    many of their transparency initiatives are still in development and how the kinks are being worked out. “A

    default position that government data will be accessible to the public in machine-readable format is a huge step

    forward,” Ellen said. “Is it moving as fast as I’d like? Of course not. But I can be patient

    while this unfolds.”
    also

    consider:

    As an example

    of the steps taken in response, the White House, for the first time ever, now publishes the names of everyone

    who visits
    . We are also publishing online never-before-available data about federal spending and

    research
    . At Data.gov, for instance, what started as 47 data sets from a small group of federal agencies has

    grown into more than 118,000 today
    – with thousands more ready to be released starting this week. And in

    March, the Attorney General published updated FOIA guidelines, establishing a presumption in favor of voluntary

    disclosure of government information – an important step toward enabling the American people to see how

    their government works for them. There have been other advancements, from providing online access to White House

    staff financial reports and salaries, adopting a tough new state secrets policy, reversing an executive order that

    previously limited access to presidential records, and web-casting White House meetings and

    conferences.
    And Obama was concerned with transparency in government long before he went on the campaign

    trail:

    The bill was introduced by Senator Tom

    Coburn
    , for himself and Senators Barack Obama,

    Tom Carper and

    John McCain on April 6,

    2006
    .[1] After two "secret holds" placed by

    Senators Ted Stevens, a

    Republican, and

    Robert Byrd, a

    Democrat were revealed and

    removed[4][5], it was passed unanimously in the Senate on September 7, 2006 and by the House on

    September 13, 2006. The bill was signed into law by

    President

    George W. Bush on September 26,

    2006.[6]

    in a

    bipartisan bill
    , did someone mention bipartisanship??

    [QUOTE]On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama, along

    with Senators Carper, Coburn and McCain, introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and

    Accountability in Federal Spending Act of

    2008
    .

    Last edited by Mtnjim; 01-08-2010 at 02:27 PM.
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  6. #6
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth View Post
    I think you are over-simplifying matters to some degree.

    Political views can better be expressed on a grid rather than a simple line. Try this political compass test

    yourself and you'll see what I mean.
    http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

    The few actual promises he made, like transparency in government and bipartisanship, were quickly

    forgotten, if he ever really meant them. I personally believe he was working off a script, saying the things he was

    told to say based on public opinion polls. In all honesty, can you imagine Obama without a teleprompter in front of

    him? Everything he says is carefully scripted for effect.


    ...he is

    pushing hard to get a very flawed health care bill through before he loses the ability to do that and he is doing

    the same with cap and trade, he knows that next year he'll have no ability to do anything and will essentially be a

    lame duck.


    My biggest concern though is the immigration reform

    bills that are starting to drift in. The estimates vary but let's say its 20 million illegals that he can turn into

    democratic voters. Do you think it improbable that he will legalize them simply for the votes? If that happens, with

    the strong public sentiment against it, what is going to be the public reaction? Will enough people then turn

    against him and fire him in 2012 or will he gain enough support through amnesty to get reelected? My guess is he is

    betting on the latter.

    Yes, I started a thread on the Political Compass

    here, and am aware of how complex political

    leanings are. I was trying to make a point about Moderates, and questioning their voting behavior and motivations.

    I agree that Little Barry's election was mainly a result of dissatisfaction in the status quo, but that does not

    excuse the lack of vetting on the part of Moderates before they went to the voting booth and tripped the lever.



    One can understand a Liberal or a Conservative. Driven by principle and idea they are at least somewhat

    predictable. What is a Moderate? And how do you explain them as a voting bloc? Is it a matter of changing with

    the wind?

    The defining issue in 08 was the economy. Are moderates primarily driven by money, leaving social

    issues in the back seat? They were instrumental in electing a predictably authoritarian social liberal, with all

    the economic baggage that comes with that. Did they give up anything meaningful from their bag 'o beliefs to cast

    that vote? Or nothing? Was there anything even in that bag, did they even have a bag to begin with? They fell for

    slogans and jingoism, now they're running the other way as they see their Hope and Change turning into a nightmare.

    I just don't know who these people are. I know there's really no answer, I'm just wondering who the rats are on

    this sinking ship.

    My own cynical opinion is that O was swept to office by an uneducated and ignorant "Moderate"

    swing electorate who just wanted to feel good. I understand his own party voting his way, but that would not be

    enough for him to get elected. It was a pitiful showing for a country steeped in vigorous debate and informed

    criticism. Its a sign of bad things to come.

    The chart above should be expected, and I expect is in part a

    result of lazy conservatives finally getting around to reading up on what's going on and getting their bearings. I

    also expect that many self-named moderates are really liberals who think the majority of the country actually

    believes in such things as global warming and eat-the-rich brand of social-justice-through-bigger-government.


  7. #7
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4790

    Default

    Brookings is and liberal think

    tank, not an independent, professional polling group. This "poll" was simply a survey of people they went out and

    recruited, provided free internet access to, and asked leading questions of.

    From

    Gallup:
    Majority of

    Americans Still Not Backing Healthcare

    Bill

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/124715/Ma...care-Bill.aspx


    Ras

    mussen:

    Health Care Reform
    42% Support Health Care Plan, 52% Oppose





    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...<br /> reform


    Quinnipiac:
    52% disapprove 36%

    approve

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?... /> <br /> 5


    I could go on and on, but you get my point, and this is not a health care thread.

    Ideology is

    driving this debate, and the dwindling support for gov't health care is following Obama's own falling support. It

    could indeed be the bellweather for his ultimate downfall as an effective president for his party. Leaving out the

    left and right, since we can assume their positions to be predetermined, the center is seeing both the agenda of

    this crop of liberals, AND the manner in which they hope to achieve it. Neither is very palatable to any save

    around the third or so of the population who lean in that direction to begin with. Conservatives are becoming

    activists, and Moderates are leaning in their direction. Liberals are pushing as hard as they can, while they can,

    knowing the window is closing.
    Last edited by idesign; 01-08-2010 at 07:45 PM.


  8. #8
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    5604

    Default

    I think I have to consider myself a

    "moderate." And I find the way I vote is usually based more on voting the least crappy candidate/party platform. And

    frankly it comes down between either the Republican or Democrat because no matter how much one would like it, an

    "independent" really has no chance.

    I can't recall the last time I actually voted "For" a candidate. What I

    have to do year after year is look for the "lesser of the evils." More a matter of voting "against" what I feel is

    the least desirable option.

    My biggest concern at the moment is the attacks on the US Constitution,

    specifically the Bill of Rights. IMO the Republicans want to dismantle the 1st Ammendment (especially freedom from

    religion - and I reference #43's push for "faith based" programs, or in other words to me, those that often have an

    agenda to seek converts to the religion of those providing the programs, as an example. And I can't help but feel

    that the organizations that get the most "opportunities" are conservative Christian. Also notice how big an issue

    the feelings of "Evangelical Christians" influenced Bush's path.), and the Democrats want to toss the 2nd

    Ammendment. Neither position gets my support.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  9. #9
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    The reason I brought up the

    compass is because I rated more or less in the middle between conservative and liberal and strongly towards

    libertarian. So, in some ways I could be called a moderate but I cannot stand Obama and feel he is the bigger threat

    to our society. The Christian agenda is bad too but the huge spending and loss of liberties under the liberal

    program has really bothered me. In my view, the liberal agenda is only a step towards socialism and socialism is a

    demonstrated failure.

    As for voting, I won't vote if I feel no candidate is a good choice. It seems like

    accepting failure to vote for somebody just to vote against somebody else. In that I am different from most people.

    However, a vote for either major party is a vote for the staus quo, in my eyes, and the status quo is what got us

    where we are. Needless to say I didn't vote for McCain or Obama. Had Condoleesa Rice been running she would have

    had my vote though.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    5604

    Default

    What we truely need on the ballot is

    a choice of "None of the above."

    But that will probably never happen as Mr./Ms. None will probably win by a

    landslide every time. Much too much of a shock to the established parties. It would become so overwhelmingly

    apparent that neither (or most any) party is worth a shit they would lose whatever "power" they think, or would like

    to believe, they have.

    I suppose in a way we already have that option as reflected in the vast numbers of

    eligible voters who don't vote at all. I know there are times I will leave a position/office unvoted on. However I

    ALWAYS go to each and every polling, especially the "unimportant" primaries, as that is where they like to stick the

    tax hikes and other sneaky pork-filled propositions.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  11. #11
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    I probably said that badly. I

    go to the polls every time and agree with you about the pork filled bills. My tactic is to vote no or against or to

    stop anything and everything unless a really good case is made to do otherwise, which is rarely. I don't think we

    need any new laws and I don't think we need any new taxes. We are being ruled, regulated and taxed to death.

    A

    radio station, some years ago, promoted a campaign called D.R.I.P.

    Don't
    Return
    Incumbant
    Politicians

    I

    still practice it. Term limits for all.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  12. #12
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4790

    Default

    Bel and Rbt, I can understand

    both of your points of view. Given the perceived lack of a discernible choice, you'll simply avoid choosing

    between flawed candidates. I agree with your assessment, but not your strategy.

    What I'm wondering is what the

    voting "middle" is thinking, or not. As I said, there's no way to know, but its disturbing to me that a viable

    chunk of the national voting bloc is so easily swayed, especially now that the fruit of their votes is paying off so

    poorly. What the Moderates fell for in 08 is now pissing many of them off.

    I guess the whole point of my

    question is that who are the ones who swung when they should have held? I still believe that it was an ignorant

    segment who "believed" in a seductive but false Hope, and did not think.

    I'm concerned because the direction

    this administration is taking us is so much more than about socialism. National sovereignty and personal freedom

    are being compromised at every level, and its not by accident.


  13. #13
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    It isn't so much a strategy as

    an ethical dilema. Do you cast a vote for a person you believe is a crook just because he is less a crook than the

    other guy or do you vote based on your conscience and not vote when there is nobody to vote for? I think that voting

    for the lesser crook is a voting for the status quo so refuse to give them my vote.
    Quote Originally Posted by idesign View Post



    I'm concerned because the direction this administration is taking us is so much more than about socialism.

    National sovereignty and personal freedom are being compromised at every level, and its not by

    accident.
    Yeah, I mentioned that in a debate a few years ago on this forum. This country is moving towards

    socialism at an alarming rate. We are steadily losing our freedoms for things the federal government should have no

    hand in, while the federal government does not do the jobs it is supposed to be doing.

    I also see a lot of

    resentment building against the government and wonder how far that will go. Here in Texas there is a lot of talk of

    secession and Texas has that legal right. It was part of the deal when they joined the union. The talk has gotten

    louder and comes from places like the governor's office.

    Even that only worries me a little. What really has me

    concerned is the threat of violence if the goverment continues along the path it is on. I think it is coming and it

    will not be pretty when it happens. There are too many angry people the government is ignoring.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    5604

    Default

    I know I may get some flak for this,

    but the fact of the matter is is that Mr. Obama also had backing from a segment of the population that has felt

    disenfranchised for a very long time, especially thanks to the efforts of the Jessie Jacksons of the world. It may

    not have mattered what his policies are/were, but the fact he wasn't a good ol' southern white boy (Bush, Clinton,

    even Carter) I think had an influence. Politics, like the stock market, is less about logic and more about

    emotions.

    And yes, Texas has the distinction of having joined the "union" by way of a treaty. So They can leave

    anytime they want.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  15. #15
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rbt View Post

    And yes,

    Texas has the distinction of having joined the "union" by way of a treaty. So They can leave anytime they

    want.

    Hey Bel, got a spare bedroom at your place???


  16. #16
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idesign View Post
    Hey Bel,

    got a spare bedroom at your place???
    My kid seems to think half the military is going to end up in Texas

    if that happens. I may be renting space on the lawn.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    Perhaps this will give you some

    answers: http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...atrist_co.html
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  18. #18
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4790

    Default

    Great post! Worthy of a

    quote:

    "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice,

    voluntary cooperation and moral integrity — as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature

    will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose

    economic and social equality on the population — as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature

    will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their

    character and reduces them to wards of the state — as liberals do.
    "


    Socialism is bad enough on its

    own, but nationalization of the economy is only the tip of the iceberg of a gov't which seeks to establish

    authoritarian rule in all aspects of a society. Health care, energy (new executive EPA jurisdiction over carbon

    emissions), thought police (hate crimes), all deriving from an ideology who believes their power is an entitlement,

    not a privilege, or a responsibility to the electorate.

    Its an ideology which holds our Constitution in utter

    disdain, and will circumvent it in any way possible, up to and including judicial activism, executive order and

    bending the rules of Congress.

    The right to bear arms is the last protection against tyranny, and I'm waiting

    and watching for the moment when this right comes under assault by this current gov't. It will only take the

    smallest but opportune time or event for it to start.

    Violence is abhorrent in any case, but is a necessary evil

    to combat greater evil. The freedom we have had for 200+ years was born in violent revolution, steeped in foreign

    and domestic war, and maintained with the idea that freedom is worth the cost of sacrifice, be it large or small.



    Its a crime against humanity if tyrants from within compromise their country against their will and revert it to

    a state of serfdom. It really is that simple right now.


  19. #19
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    You are beginning to sound like

    me. I am not and do not promote violence. However, I am pretty sure it is coming. An effort by the government to

    control weapons would likely trigger it, as would a number of other things. Personally, I think secession without

    violence would be the better choice but don't believe it will be allowed.

    The most interesting part will come

    when the military is ordered to take guns from citizens or, worse yet, fire on citizens. Many soldiers realize their

    oath is to the constitution and not the president. If the presidential orders do not defend the constitution, what

    then? Mass desertions and failure to follow orders? I expect so.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4790

    Default

    I don't even own a gun, and

    hope that I never have the need for one. However, at the first inkling that that right is being abridged, I'll

    know that its time to look ahead.

    This is an interesting conversation, do you think we'd be having this exact

    conversation a year ago? Did you imagine that we'd have a president attempting this scope of national pillage?


  21. #21
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    Maybe I'm paranoid but I've

    owned a gun for many years and keep a supply of ammunition close by. It seems to me the more the government wants to

    control guns the more we need them. If they fear us armed than we should fear them. What is sad, and I've commented

    on it before, is the ever increasing us and them attitude that I see from people regarding the government. It used

    to be our government, now it seems to be them and the government. Its like we are working at cross purposes and no

    longer are a part of the same team.

    A gun, or any weapon, is like insurance, in my eyes. You hope you never need

    it but you keep it just in case. The thing I've noticed about gun owners is that most of them keep it locked away,

    never take it out, never practice with it and never clean it. In that case, they may as well not have it as they are

    more likely to be hurt by it than anything else. They'd be better off throwing it at somebody than trying to use

    it.

    No, I don't think we'd have had this exact conversation a year ago. Bush push against our rights to some

    degree, as did Clinton. But Obama really makes me feel insecure about my rights and even more so about my freedom.

    He seems to have no regard whatsoever for honesty or the constitution.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  22. #22
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    5604

    Default

    "A government by the people, for the

    people and of the people..."


    Oh well...
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  23. #23
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    6742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rbt View Post
    "A government by

    the people, for the people and of the people..."


    Oh well...
    Sorry, over the past 30 years it's

    become a government by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations.

    Especially Wall

    Street and the huge banks.
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  24. #24
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtnjim View Post
    Sorry,

    over the past 30 years it's become a government by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the

    corporations.

    Especially Wall Street and the huge banks.
    That's somewhat true. However, those

    corporations also provide jobs. I also believe both parties are responsible for the percieved problems with

    corporations. Neither party is guilt free.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  25. #25
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4790

    Default

    And now, the play is hard toward

    government. By the Left, of the Left, for the Left.

    I think we should make Obamacare supporters give up their

    private health care, sign up for Medicare under a special provision, and send in their insurance premiums plus an

    extra 20&#37; tax to "reduce costs". This is essentially what they're proposing. Let's call it the

    Barack-Kennedy Reid and Pelosi Plan, or B-KRaP.

    If that little experiment works, we'll know they were right.

    If not, the only ones who suffer had it coming.

    Its interesting that Kennedy's "lifelong goal" was universal

    healthcare, and now its overwhelming unpopularity may (hopefully) be instrumental in giving his old Senate seat to

    the first Republican in 30 years, and eliminate the Dems super-majority in the Senate, and possibly derail

    Obamacare. Poetic justice if it happens that way.


  26. #26
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    6742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth View Post
    ...I also

    believe both parties are responsible for the percieved problems with corporations. Neither party is guilt

    free.
    Absolutely!!
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  27. #27
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    Well, the good news is that

    Kennedy's seat went to Brown. That breaks the democratic super majority. I suspect regardless of when they swear

    Brown in, the health care bill is DOA.

    A very liberal state voting in a republican is a sure message from

    voters. The message being that we are fed up and their jobs are at stake.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  28. #28
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4790

    Default

    The handwriting on the wall will

    be how the Dems handle their reaction to Brown's win. Push back with dirty tricks and there might be a revolution.

    Back off, and they'll lose fewer seats in November.

    Interesting Mass. demographic: It stacks up with I think

    around 36&#37; Dem, 12% Rep, with the rest being Independent, or whatever that state's word for them. Brown had to

    take almost all Independent voters to win, and this is a State which BO took by 26 points.

    Obama has not even

    made his first state of the union address, and his constituency has fallen apart.


  29. #29
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    5604

    Default

    Just as an aside, I'd like to

    express one opinion.

    There is a difference between "Health Insurance" and a "Health Plan." Too often these two

    items are lumped together.

    Health Insurance is for *unexpected catastrophic accident or illness* IMO.

    A

    Health Plan is day to day wellness care. Prescriptions, doctor visits, etc.

    Where I think one problem is, is

    that they tried to do it all at once, in one swell foop. Not a good idea. If they'd stuck to one or the other, kept

    it simple (and understandable) they may have had better success. And if they had set things up to phase in over

    time, slowly, step by step, everyone could see where things were going, where the problems were, what *needed* to be

    done next. If anything really needed to be done at all.

    The health care in this country does suck. It needs

    help. But they're approaching it like the politicians they are. People so out of touch with the *real* "average

    American" it's scary. We need a better way to do things, but at this rate, it'll never happen, at least in my

    lifetime. Not sure if that is good or bad...
    Last edited by Rbt; 01-21-2010 at 05:22 PM.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  30. #30
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6924

    Default

    Your right, they are completely

    out of touch. They also think our pockets are bottomless. If they would stop trying to find ways to reach deeper

    into them and do things to improve the employment picture, things would be better.

    That's very generalized, I

    agree. NAFTA, excessive regulation and taxation drove many companies offshore. They need to be attracted back to the

    US by providing a climate where they can earn a profit while paying a decent wage. Punishing the large corporations

    for being large corporations is self destructive. Entice well paying jobs back to the US and many things will

    improve right away, including the ability of millions to afford health care.

    Taxation is a problem at the

    individual level as well. The government does not create jobs, consumerism creates jobs. Every dollar the government

    takes is that much less for the economy and it is strangling our ability to compete on the world stage. Look at even

    something as small as my business. A 35% reduction in my tax burden would allow me to hire another person, that

    would be a salesperson. Because other companies would also have more money they would also be hiring and buying

    technology services from people like me. In the end, it would mean more products bought and sold and more people put

    to work. Tax revenue would actually increase!

    Not that I think the government needs more money. In reality, our

    government has become too large and sucks too much money for entitlement programs both at the individual level and

    the corporate level. I do not believe any business should be bailed out. Let them fail. It may hurt on the short

    term but the well run companies would be that much stronger in the long term. It also would reduce our tax burden,

    putting more money into the economy. People should not believe they have a right to indefinate support. They need to

    realize it is a helping hand to get them back on their feet. And it should only come with requirements for job

    training and hunting.

    All that would lower unemployment and contribute to the ability of more people to pay

    their own way. Then we can talk about who really needs help and who doesn't. It takes too long, right? Wrong! The

    democrats were going to start taxing us right away, which would have slowed the economy more, but not provide

    services for several years. My way would not add taxes, which would reduce jobs, it would increase jobs by cutting

    taxes. The time we could start providing medical services would come a lot sooner and be better funded.

    I don't

    believe the government should be in control of our health care, they have demonstrated their incompetence too many

    times already. That's another detail to work out later.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •