Republicans are people too

[Nanners]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iff7mNsGK50

Maybe the best advertisement I have ever seen.

To all you smart alec libtards out there, the next time you are going to make fun of a republican just remember - republicans are people too.

[RidonKs]

this is another reason dissent will mount

that ad is insane btw

[nathanjizzle]

more semantics coming out from the conservative side.

[KevinNYC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDgpQBaziy0&index=4&list=RDWdf2yZfqDL8

[MadeFromDust]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iff7mNsGK50

Maybe the best advertisement I have ever seen.

To all you smart alec libtards out there, the next time you are going to make fun of a republican just remember - republicans are people too.
Lieberals are mean. It's just their nature. It's not possible for them to deny their own nature and be nice to Repubs

[Milbuck]

Bunch of arrogant bastards if you ask me. Doctors? Gourmet cooks? Drive expensive hybrids?

Being republican doesn't give you the right to shove your lifestyle in our faces.

lol

[nathanjizzle]

remember, liberals are the ones that progress society, republicans are the ones that hold on to only what they know. thats why liberals are young people, and republicans are old people.

[Nanners]

remember, liberals are the ones that progress society, republicans are the ones that hold on to only what they know. thats why liberals are young people, and republicans are old people.

nonsense. as the video pointed out, republicans drive priuses and shop at trader joes, so obviously they are progressive too.

[nathanjizzle]

nonsense. as the video pointed out, republicans drive priuses and shop at trader joes. republicans are very progressive.

no they dont. majority of them drive domestic and shop at jewels.

[Patrick Chewing]

remember, liberals are the ones that progress society, republicans are the ones that hold on to only what they know. thats why liberals are young people, and republicans are old people.


How could a younger, more immature person with less knowledge and experience progress society?

[Nanners]

How could a younger, more immature person with less knowledge and experience progress society?

yeah, everyone knows its old republicans that progress society.

[nathanjizzle]

How could a younger, more immature person with less knowledge and experience progress society?

what age did bill gates start his company? young people in their 20s have the unique combination of ambition and modern knowledge, and they take it and build upon it. What is usually the prime of a basketball player? 24-30? thats because they have the combination of youth and mental maturity. after that what good is all mental maturity and no youth? jason kidd? steve nash? its the same concept. people in their 20s have that combination.

[Akrazotile]

That ad is a flimsy cover trying to hide the fact that republicans are actually shape shifting reptilians.

[Ass Dan]

I am not a witch

[GimmeThat]

just because you can raise a flag, it doesn't make you a nation.

go get a boat and be a pirate if that's what you believe in.

[sweggeh]

That video was a waste of my time. I dont even know what Republicans are but I can already tell they are stupid.

[Dresta]

remember, liberals are the ones that progress society, republicans are the ones that hold on to only what they know. thats why liberals are young people, and republicans are old people.
I think you are actually the biggest moron on this board.

You slate 'republicans' without even knowing the difference between a 'republican' and a 'Republican'

I honestly can't believe anyone could hold such a naive and simplistic view as the on you outlined above - it really takes whole new levels of ignorance to think in such a way.

[Ass Dan]

I think you are actually the biggest moron on this board.

You slate 'republicans' without even knowing the difference between a 'republican' and a 'Republican'

I honestly can't believe anyone could hold such a naive and simplistic view as the on you outlined above - it really takes whole new levels of ignorance to think in such a way.


Is this your go to response for every post you disagree with politically?

I honestly can't believe anyone would use such a naive and simplistic ad hominem debate technique over and over again, it really takes whole new levels of what it is to be a simpleton to make your case in such a pathetic manner.

[Dresta]

Is this your go to response for every post you disagree with politically?

I honestly can't believe anyone would use such a naive and simplistic ad hominem debate technique over and over again, it really takes whole new levels of what it is to be a simpleton to make your case in such a pathetic manner.
What? What i said in that post had more to do with him not knowing anything about the words he uses, so the disagreement is linguistic and grammatical, not political: he is not even capable of using language to frame his points in a way that makes it possible to discuss his political views (or to even decipher them - they are likely poorly thought out and self-contradictory though).

It isn't political disagreement at all: the child is just wrong in what he thinks the words he is using mean; he knows nothing about the word 'liberal' or the word 'republican' or even that liberalism and republicanism were traditionally things that went hand in hand, so it is impossible to have a proper political debate with him - he just doesn't know close to enough for it to even make sense.

[HitandRun Reggie]

What? What i said in that post had more to do with him not knowing anything about the words he uses, so the disagreement is linguistic and grammatical, not political: he is not even capable of using language to frame his points in a way that makes it possible to discuss his political views (or to even decipher them - they are likely poorly thought out and self-contradictory though).

It isn't political disagreement at all: the child is just wrong in what he thinks the words he is using mean; he knows nothing about the word 'liberal' or the word 'republican' or even that liberalism and republicanism were traditionally things that went hand in hand, so it is impossible to have a proper political debate with him - he just doesn't know close to enough for it to even make sense.


What ever side this guy's on, I want to be on the opposite. :sleeping

[NumberSix]

What ever side this guy's on, I want to be on the opposite. :sleeping
He's definitely one of the more intellectual posters on insidehoops. Maybe you should be a little more thoughtful when reading his posts instead of just dismissing them because the nuanced points he makes aren't immediately apparent.

[DukeDelonte13]

He's definitely one of the more intellectual posters on insidehoops. Maybe you should be a little more thoughtful when reading his posts instead of just dismissing them because the nuanced points he makes aren't immediately apparent.


yeah real intellectuals posts on gimmick "intellectual" accounts on basketball message boards. Dresta is a sad f*cking moron. :oldlol:

[Dresta]

yeah real intellectuals posts on gimmick "intellectual" accounts on basketball message boards. Dresta is a sad f*cking moron. :oldlol:
:cry:

Why does it have to be a gimmick exactly? I post on here pretty much what i think; i may embellish or exaggerate at times, but i'm not doing anything more complex than posting a few thoughts in straightforward english. Unfortunately, you are a good representation of the anti-intellectualism that pervades the United States (most countries these days, actually, but particularly there), that distrusts anything it can't understand, and seems to think someone who speaks correctly is a snob for doing so. I don't consider these 'intellectual' discussions: they are things everyone should have some understanding of, and i've discussed similar topics in bars and pubs before - it's nothing special, so stop being so insecure about it.

I've posted on here less than you have. I probably spend a good deal less time on here than you do. And i post on here because i like to, because i enjoy it, because i find it useful to put down my thoughts so as to make them more coherent, and perhaps to explore them more deeply. What is your issue? I don't follow specific individuals i've barely exchanged a word with around threads having a go at them because i'm an insecure little tosser with a fragile ego like some.

[RidonKs]

I think you are actually the biggest moron on this board.

You slate 'republicans' without even knowing the difference between a 'republican' and a 'Republican'

I honestly can't believe anyone could hold such a naive and simplistic view as the on you outlined above - it really takes whole new levels of ignorance to think in such a way.
duuuuude :lol

who cares? of what use is the term 'republican' in the current system? the current system IS republican. i'm not sure you appreciate how confusing it is for ordinary people who don't follow politics on a daily basis that the two major parties in the united states are called "Republican" and "Democratic". the same way its confusing in canada, though perhaps less so, to vote for candidates of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party and then you have Democratic Socialist Parties and Christian Democrat Parties and Socialist Parties and Communist Parties and Golden Dawn (neonazi party in Greece) and Labour Parties and the rest.

and none of those parties actually represent very much at all to do with what their name suggests they SHOULD. how the hell is an engineer or a a fisherman or an executive assistant supposed to keep up with all of this shit? it's a total mess of propaganda.

but all of that forgotten, that's still a reeeeal petty gripe you got there.

[NumberSix]

duuuuude :lol

who cares? of what use is the term 'republican' in the current system? the current system IS republican. i'm not sure you appreciate how confusing it is for ordinary people who don't follow politics on a daily basis that the two major parties in the united states are called "Republican" and "Democratic". the same way its confusing in canada, though perhaps less so, to vote for candidates of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party and then you have Democratic Socialist Parties and Christian Democrat Parties and Socialist Parties and Communist Parties and Golden Dawn (neonazi party in Greece) and Labour Parties and the rest.

and none of those parties actually represent very much at all to do with what their name suggests they SHOULD. how the hell is an engineer or a a fisherman or an executive assistant supposed to keep up with all of this shit? it's a total mess of propaganda.

but all of that forgotten, that's still a reeeeal petty gripe you got there.
Don't forget, China is pretty much the same politically as the German nationalist socialist worker's party.

[RidonKs]

Don't forget, China is pretty much the same politically as the German nationalist socialist worker's party.
oh my i didn't realize that, how did you come to that conclusion cuz i really wanna know for sure!

[Nanners]

Is this your go to response for every post you disagree with politically?

I honestly can't believe anyone would use such a naive and simplistic ad hominem debate technique over and over again, it really takes whole new levels of what it is to be a simpleton to make your case in such a pathetic manner.


Dresta might seem like a pedantic wannabe intellectual douchebag, but before you make fun of him, just remember that Dresta is a person too.

[NumberSix]

oh my i didn't realize that, how did you come to that conclusion cuz i really wanna know for sure!
Well, they're not actually communist. They're economically fascist, as were the Nazis. Socially, they have ethnic supremacist policies. They are openly oppressive against all non Han-Chinese minorities, they ban the use of languages other than Mandarin and they are openly hostile towards and oppress religious minorities. They openly spread state propaganda that demonizes Falun-Gong members the same way the Nazis did with the Jews.

[Dresta]

duuuuude :lol

who cares? of what use is the term 'republican' in the current system? the current system IS republican. i'm not sure you appreciate how confusing it is for ordinary people who don't follow politics on a daily basis that the two major parties in the united states are called "Republican" and "Democratic". the same way its confusing in canada, though perhaps less so, to vote for candidates of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party and then you have Democratic Socialist Parties and Christian Democrat Parties and Socialist Parties and Communist Parties and Golden Dawn (neonazi party in Greece) and Labour Parties and the rest.

and none of those parties actually represent very much at all to do with what their name suggests they SHOULD. how the hell is an engineer or a a fisherman or an executive assistant supposed to keep up with all of this shit? it's a total mess of propaganda.

but all of that forgotten, that's still a reeeeal petty gripe you got there.
Why do the things you post never have anything to do with what you are responding to? You've just listed a bunch of parties that have nothing to do with what i said, which was that if you're going to discuss politics in as authoritative manner as this:

'liberals are the ones that progress society, republicans are the ones that hold on to only what they know. thats why liberals are young people, and republicans are old people.'

Then you ought to know the difference between the Republican party and republicanism, between liberalism and the democratic party etc. Not many people in England don't know there's a difference between conservatism and the UK Conservative party - it's not much to ask really; not knowing these things makes discourse impossible and breeds ignorance. So apparently it is 'petty' to remark on the complete nonsensicality of the above? Really? Keep defending ignorance :applause:.

I always love how paternalists are referring to 'ordinary people' as if they hold some kind of wisdom that makes them special, and these 'ordinary people' just need to be looked after and protected by guys like Ridonks who know what's best for them etc. Nearly every 'ordinary person' has access to this information, so stop excusing their ignorance with your paternalist jargon.

[NumberSix]

Why do the things you post never have anything to do with what you are responding to? You've just listed a bunch of parties that have nothing to do with what i said, which was that if you're going to discuss politics in as authoritative manner as this:

'liberals are the ones that progress society, republicans are the ones that hold on to only what they know. thats why liberals are young people, and republicans are old people.'

Then you ought to know the difference between the Republican party and republicanism, between liberalism and the democratic party etc. Not many people in England don't know there's a difference between conservatism and the UK Conservative party - it's not much to ask really; not knowing these things makes discourse impossible and breeds ignorance. So apparently it is 'petty' to remark on the complete nonsensicality of the above? Really? Keep defending ignorance :applause:.

I always love how paternalists are referring to 'ordinary people' as if they hold some kind of wisdom that makes them special, and these 'ordinary people' just need to be looked after and protected by guys like Ridonks who know what's best for them etc. Nearly every 'ordinary person' has access to this information, so stop excusing their ignorance with your paternalist jargon.
There's also a problem of people thinking everything falls into the right-left spectrum. As if on every issue, there are only 2 option and then the space in between.

[RidonKs]

i believe i have as much wisdom with regard to politics as the baker has wisdom with regard to serving me a fresh loaf.

i'm not trying to be condescending here and i'm not sure why you are portraying it that way when you're the most egotistical prick on this whole site, at least among people who actually have a brain. and that's the real shame, that you can't relate to the people you surely loath -- i think that much is obvious at this point -- as the dumb philistine herd without a clue about history and philosophy and the intellectual endeavours and experiences YOU LOVE.

what you can't understand is a simple observation of the world; people are interested in different things. "ordinary people" is a euphemism not for the confused and bewailing masses who don't know what to do with themselves; it is a euphemism for people who DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DEVOTE TO LEARNING ABOUT THESE TOPICS. or choose not to use their time to pursue political understanding since they're too busy renovating a kitchen or going to yoga or housesitting for the neighbour or playing bingo or singing in a choir or running a business or tending to the garden or working to put food on the table for the family that's expecting a new addition any month now.




i'm not ignoring the topic at hand when i list a bunch of political parties. i am digressing on an issue i feel warrants much more attention than the fact that you spotted an erroneous use of the word 'republicanism' since i don't give two ****s about that

the digression concerns everything i wrote above, with the extrapolated concern that political parties brand themselves with classic/cliche terms while operating on a policy platform that has very little to do with their names. the democrats have very little to do with democracy. republicans have slightly more to do with republicanism. the christian democrat party in germany is a prime example. and so was the communist party in the soviet union which was a radical corruption of what communism actually meant up until the point the bolsheviks took control.

people are confused and they have every reason to be. political discourse in the united states especially but in canada as well is just appalling. in every conversation i seem to have with strangers, there's a necessity to just back them up and force them to define words like 'conservative' and 'progressive' and ground them with real world examples/applications.

the bottom line of this post is to suggest that it isn't particularly surprising. the every reason people have for being confused is the way information is currently organized to reach people. the internet is a mess. mainstream news is a disaster. newspapers that were already highly distorted but at least provided decent context are dying everywhere and scrambling to find an operational model that will rejuvenate print media or whatever becomes of its digital successor. radio is the most salvagable but is just so polluted with bullshit punditry or just raw entertainment of such an incredibly broad array that politics are going to have a hard time getting a real hearing through that technology. the television networks and the new premium channels provide about 90% entertainment and 10% news at best. most of the entertainment coming out of the networks is pure trash.

it's going to take a popular mandate to change the information we actually access, as opposed to just the information that happens to be accessible. yu think this mandate is impossible to achieve because it's all subjective anyway and how can i or anybody else possibly know what information should be put forward and what information should be constrained. let the free market decide in its glorious wisdom i'm sure you would say... the free market of ideas. i think we're all familiar with that.

well if you ever pull your head out of your ass and take a look at the real world dresta, you'll find that your complaint that any prioritization of THIS information over THAT information is just frivolous lefty dreamworld nonsense that could have dangerous ramifications? that complaint is a load of shit.

because there is ALREADY a prioritization of some information over other information. it's called the corporate media and it's how most people around the world, certainly most people in the western world, receive their information. their news. their perception of the world according to news organizations that call themselves things like "fair and balanced" and "your only source for knowing whats going on" with dumb slogans like "lean forward" or "you don't read the new york times?".

the perspective of the world that is presented to you is dominated by enormous privately controlled organizations that have existed for decades and sometimes centuries now, who have interests in every economic pie you could possibly name. i'm talking about general electric here. i'm talking about viacom. im talking about timewarner. i'm talking about disney and newscorp and cbs. the big six. the board of directors that represent the investments into these massive companies, and the top down structure of their management from ceo right on down to anchor and tech support. and the media output comes from subsidiaries of networks, which are equally invested in everything from industrial production to financial investment, entertainment, sports, the whole nine man. what picture of the world would you expect to come out of a news organization where the controlling interests are so conflicted?

[MavsSuperFan]

:lol its amazing that the GOP has so much power in this country.

[RidonKs]

:lol its amazing that the GOP has so much power in this country.
its astonishing and extremely problematic and will become scary in due time as pressures around the world and right inside the united states continue to mount

[NumberSix]

i believe i have as much wisdom with regard to politics as the baker has wisdom with regard to serving me a fresh loaf.

i'm not trying to be condescending here and i'm not sure why you are portraying it that way when you're the most egotistical prick on this whole site, at least among people who actually have a brain. and that's the real shame, that you can't relate to the people you surely loath -- i think that much is obvious at this point -- as the dumb philistine herd without a clue about history and philosophy and the intellectual endeavours and experiences YOU LOVE.

what you can't understand is a simple observation of the world; people are interested in different things. "ordinary people" is a euphemism not for the confused and bewailing masses who don't know what to do with themselves; it is a euphemism for people who DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DEVOTE TO LEARNING ABOUT THESE TOPICS. or choose not to use their time to pursue political understanding since they're too busy renovating a kitchen or going to yoga or housesitting for the neighbour or playing bingo or singing in a choir or running a business or tending to the garden or working to put food on the table for the family that's expecting a new addition any month now.




i'm not ignoring the topic at hand when i list a bunch of political parties. i am digressing on an issue i feel warrants much more attention than the fact that you spotted an erroneous use of the word 'republicanism' since i don't give two ****s about that

the digression concerns everything i wrote above, with the extrapolated concern that political parties brand themselves with classic/cliche terms while operating on a policy platform that has very little to do with their names. the democrats have very little to do with democracy. republicans have slightly more to do with republicanism. the christian democrat party in germany is a prime example. and so was the communist party in the soviet union which was a radical corruption of what communism actually meant up until the point the bolsheviks took control.

people are confused and they have every reason to be. political discourse in the united states especially but in canada as well is just appalling. in every conversation i seem to have with strangers, there's a necessity to just back them up and force them to define words like 'conservative' and 'progressive' and ground them with real world examples/applications.

the bottom line of this post is to suggest that it isn't particularly surprising. the every reason people have for being confused is the way information is currently organized to reach people. the internet is a mess. mainstream news is a disaster. newspapers that were already highly distorted but at least provided decent context are dying everywhere and scrambling to find an operational model that will rejuvenate print media or whatever becomes of its digital successor. radio is the most salvagable but is just so polluted with bullshit punditry or just raw entertainment of such an incredibly broad array that politics are going to have a hard time getting a real hearing through that technology. the television networks and the new premium channels provide about 90% entertainment and 10% news at best. most of the entertainment coming out of the networks is pure trash.

it's going to take a popular mandate to change the information we actually access, as opposed to just the information that happens to be accessible. yu think this mandate is impossible to achieve because it's all subjective anyway and how can i or anybody else possibly know what information should be put forward and what information should be constrained. let the free market decide in its glorious wisdom i'm sure you would say... the free market of ideas. i think we're all familiar with that.

well if you ever pull your head out of your ass and take a look at the real world dresta, you'll find that your complaint that any prioritization of THIS information over THAT information is just frivolous lefty dreamworld nonsense that could have dangerous ramifications? that complaint is a load of shit.

because there is ALREADY a prioritization of some information over other information. it's called the corporate media and it's how most people around the world, certainly most people in the western world, receive their information. their news. their perception of the world according to news organizations that call themselves things like "fair and balanced" and "your only source for knowing whats going on" with dumb slogans like "lean forward" or "you don't read the new york times?".

the perspective of the world that is presented to you is dominated by enormous privately controlled organizations that have existed for decades and sometimes centuries now, who have interests in every economic pie you could possibly name. i'm talking about general electric here. i'm talking about viacom. im talking about timewarner. i'm talking about disney and newscorp and cbs. the big six. these are subsidiaries of enormous networks of industrial production, financial investment, entertainment, sports, the whole nine man. what picture of the world would you expect to come out of a news organization where the controlling interests are so conflicted?
We would all agree that private media which has a profit motive, and often a political motive has it's problems. But what's the other option? State run media? Call me crazy, but I would trust Fox or MSNBC over the state run media in Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc...

Can you really trust CNN? I dunno. But can you really a state run media outlet? The fact that the people in power controlling the media will obviously skew it as to keep them in power is just obvious.

Private media is really the only option. At least then there is at least somewhat of a motive to gain a reputation of being trustworthy. If Media outlet-A has a reputation for being more trustworthy than Media Outlet-B, well then M.O.B. has to try to be more trustworthy than M.O.A.. Or at least trick people into thinking they are.

At the very least though, Private media = options.

[MavsSuperFan]

its astonishing and extremely problematic and will become scary in due time as pressures around the world and right inside the united states continue to mount
There is almost zero pressure inside the US.
The GOP will hold the house in the midterms, and I think unfortunately will take the senate

Pressures around the world wont affect a nation as powerful as the US in any meaningful way.

Edit: in fact if anything the situation in america has gotten more stable for the status quo because the economy has recovered some and more jobs are being created.

[NumberSix]

:lol its amazing that the GOP has so much power in this country.
No more scary than the Democratic party. At least the GOP will tell you what they actually stand for. All the Dems ever tell you is that they stand for shit they have no intentions of EVER doing.

When the GOP tells you they want lower corporate tax rates, they're telling you the truth. When the Dems say they want higher corporate tax rates, they're lying to your face.

[RidonKs]

We would all agree that private media which has a profit motive, and often a political motive has it's problems. But what's the other option? State run media? Call me crazy, but I would trust Fox or MSNBC over the state run media in Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc...

Can you really trust CNN? I dunno. But can you really a state run media outlet? The fact that the people in power controlling the media will obviously skew it as to keep them in power is just obvious.

Private media is really the only option. At least then there is at least somewhat of a motive to gain a reputation of being trustworthy. If Media outlet-A has a reputation for being more trustworthy than Media Outlet-B, well then M.O.B. has to try to be more trustworthy than M.O.A.. Or at least trick people into thinking they are.

At the very least though, Private media = options.
not necessarily. though let me tell you, the state run news organization in canada (the cbc) is much more honest about issues than most tv stations and newspapers here including the globe and mail (our version of the new york times though its been cut to the teeth) and the national post (u might compare it to the wall street journal).... the cbc and the nytimes are roughly analogous though. and one is privately controlled, the other is publicly funded but independently operated. currently the cbc's budget is being slashed by the harper conservatives but that's another issue.

you're presenting an either or option when none exists. i mean technically private media imo as well is the only option. but if you define private media as merely the status quo, it gets us nowhere. there are plenty of cooperatively owned radio stations and independent papers that are outside the economic system of conflicting interests that present a wide variety of information from different perspectives. again you're just giving up and deciding that the current system of not only privately controlled media but also corporately controlled media is the only system possible. which is downright silly.

[Nanners]

We would all agree that private media which has a profit motive, and often a political motive has it's problems. But what's the other option? State run media? Call me crazy, but I would trust Fox or MSNBC over the state run media in Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc...

Can you really trust CNN? I dunno. But can you really a state run media outlet? The fact that the people in power controlling the media will obviously skew it as to keep them in power is just obvious.

Private media is really the only option. At least then there is at least somewhat of a motive to gain a reputation of being trustworthy. If Media outlet-A has a reputation for being more trustworthy than Media Outlet-B, well then M.O.B. has to try to be more trustworthy than M.O.A.. Or at least trick people into thinking they are.

At the very least though, Private media = options.

Do you trust the BBC? They are state run media.

[RidonKs]

There is almost zero pressure inside the US.
The GOP will hold the house in the midterms, and I think unfortunately will take the senate

Pressures around the world wont affect a nation as powerful as the US in any meaningful way.

Edit: in fact if anything the situation in america has gotten more stable for the status quo because the economy has recovered some and more jobs are being created.
i'm talking down the road in 10 years or so. i fully expect political stagnation to continue in the house and senate and a republican presidency is not outside the realm of possibility.... though hillary remains the favourite at this point imo.

not my favourite. but the odds are in her favour.

[NumberSix]

Do you trust the BBC? They are state run media.
The BBC and the CBC have to compete against private outlets though.


And by the way, no. I definitely don't trust the BBC. They have an obvious bias and a long history of very shady behaviour, including covering up pedophilia scandals.

[NumberSix]

i'm talking down the road in 10 years or so. i fully expect political stagnation to continue in the house and senate and a republican presidency is not outside the realm of possibility.... though hillary remains the favourite at this point imo.

not my favourite. but the odds are in her favour.
I would vote for Hilary Clinton. She's basically a conservative. Better than the unintellectual clowns that the GOP keeps running.

[RidonKs]

The BBC and the CBC have to compete against private outlets though.


And by the way, no. I definitely don't trust the BBC. They have an obvious bias and a long history of very shady behaviour, including covering up pedophilia scandals.
aahhhh so now the problem isn't state operated media the problem is state operated media monopoly. yes i would have a huge problem with a media monopoly of any sort, though i agree a state monopoly is scarier.

let it be known in both the uk and canada and plenty of other countries around the world that the state funded media organizations operate in very competitive markets. in fact most state broadcasters are losing their audience at least currently. not so much the bbc i suppose it's always been more tactical than the cbc.

[MavsSuperFan]

No more scary than the Democratic party. At least the GOP will tell you what they actually stand for. All the Dems ever tell you is that they stand for shit they have no intentions of EVER doing.

When the GOP tells you they want lower corporate tax rates, they're telling you the truth. When the Dems say they want higher corporate tax rates, they're lying to your face.
Where did i say it was scary?

At least the GOP will tell you what they actually stand for.
Eh, some will, others will pretend to stand for stuff like social security and medicare. like any politician. Dems do the same.

When the Dems say they want higher corporate tax rates,
Some do talk about that, but some dems talk about lowering the corporate tax rate. Eg. bill clinton
[QUOTE]When the current 35% corporate tax rate was signed into law in 1993, it was on par with other nations around the globe. Many of those foreign rates have since lowered their corporate tax rates, setting the scene for the current tax inversion-friendly environment. For example, Canada

[MavsSuperFan]

i'm talking down the road in 10 years or so. i fully expect political stagnation to continue in the house and senate and a republican presidency is not outside the realm of possibility.... though hillary remains the favourite at this point imo.

not my favourite. but the odds are in her favour.

It basically is.

The GOP wont do well given demographic changes in presidential election years. Gerrymandering alone allowed the GOP to win the house.
http://i.imgur.com/5uB7q7l.png

The DNC got in total 1.4 million votes more than the GOP. but because of how congressional district borders were drawn the GOP won 234 of 435 seats.

Only dedicated voters vote in midterms. in years with a president on the ticket, the GOP is going to get its ass kicked unless it can appeal to Hispanics.

[RidonKs]

american politics are a shit show dude and 2016 is a long way away. i agree with you in probability but to suggest the gop has no chance to turn this around in two years is silly..... any number of things could lead to an implosion in the democratic party that would make the pendulum swing back towards a republican executive and house... maybe dems control the senate.

that imo is the worst case scenario and i'm somewhat grateful its unlikely. but it's not impossible. while false confidence sometimes becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, just as often it's the nail in your coffin.

[NumberSix]

Where did i say it was scary?

Eh, some will, others will pretend to stand for stuff like social security and medicare. like any politician. Dems do the same.

Some do talk about that, but some dems talk about lowering the corporate tax rate. Eg. bill clinton

http://fortune.com/2014/09/23/clinton-says-corporate-tax-rate-he-approved-needs-to-change/

Dems are more supportive of raising personal taxes on high income individuals. Which they did, (they allowed the bush tax cuts on the top 2% to expire)

In general the dems do support more social spending than the GOP though. The popular perception of the 2 parties is more or less accurate (at least relative to each other).

The only reason I expect the GOP to win big in the midterms is because less people vote in midterms
Which is ridiculous.

Nothing makes me roll my eyes more than the "pay their fair share" argument. As if "fair share" could mean anything other than a flat tax.

What these "fair share" whiners never seem to mention is that top top 20% in America already pays just over 90% of the taxes in America. The top 1% pays almost 40% of the taxes in America. Apparently, this is unfairly low.

[IamRAMBO24]

He's definitely one of the more intellectual posters on insidehoops. Maybe you should be a little more thoughtful when reading his posts instead of just dismissing them because the nuanced points he makes aren't immediately apparent.

Agreed. Dresta gets very little respect around here, but that's actually the norm: the smarter you are, the more likely you will be hated since there are more dumb posters than smart ones.

[RidonKs]

yea dresta really IS underrated gosh

[Patrick Chewing]

what age did bill gates start his company? young people in their 20s have the unique combination of ambition and modern knowledge, and they take it and build upon it. What is usually the prime of a basketball player? 24-30? thats because they have the combination of youth and mental maturity. after that what good is all mental maturity and no youth? jason kidd? steve nash? its the same concept. people in their 20s have that combination.


People in their 20's cannot run a country. Case closed.

Basketball players can't even speak English properly. Give me a break.

[RidonKs]

nathanjizzle suggests the world be run by people under 30, patrickchewing counters with the compelling rebuttal that basketball players don't even speak english properly.

[Myth]

Video seems so unnecessary.

[KingBeasley08]

Agreed. Dresta gets very little respect around here, but that's actually the norm: the smarter you are, the more likely you will be hated since there are more dumb posters than smart ones.
He's one of the best posters on ISH imo

[KevinNYC]

:lol its amazing that the GOP has so much power in this country.


http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5227a78e6bb3f70f68316148-800-/map%20of%20us%2050%20percent%20.png

http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9

[ThePhantomCreep]

Which is ridiculous.

Nothing makes me roll my eyes more than the "pay their fair share" argument. As if "fair share" could mean anything other than a flat tax.

What these "fair share" whiners never seem to mention is that top top 20% in America already pays just over 90% of the taxes in America. The top 1% pays almost 40% of the taxes in America. Apparently, this is unfairly low.

A) that figure is exaggerated.

B) 16,000 families own $6 trillion in assets, equal to the bottom 2/3 of Americans. Historically, they're being undertaxed, making it easier for them to hoard all the toys, a legacy of Reagan's bullshit trickle down policies.

[ThePhantomCreep]

People in their 20's cannot run a country. Case closed.

Basketball players can't even speak English properly. Give me a break.

Progressives should run this country. Conservatism is all about maintaining the status quo, whether it's slavery, segregation, flat Earth, etc. You name it. They impede progress.

FFS, we're still arguing about non-issues like same sex marriage in 2014. Why? Because social conservatives are still scared of "teh gay". Give me a break.

[NumberSix]

A) that figure is exaggerated.

B) 16,000 families own $6 trillion in assets, equal to the bottom 2/3 of Americans. Historically, they're being undertaxed, making it easier for them to hoard all the toys, a legacy of Reagan's bullshit trickle down policies.
This is an irrelevant point. You act like there is a fixed amount of wealth in the country. That $6 trillion in wealth isn't money that otherwise would have gone to everybody else. Much of it is wealth that would not exist at all.

Take a company like Apple. The money they make from international business is money that wouldn't exist inside the USA at all. It's not money money they are hoarding from other Americans. It's created wealth that other American's would have never gotten a piece of anyway.

You act like the American economy is a pizza with 10 slices and the richest Americans are taking 9 slices and leaving 1 slice left for everyone else. That's not the case. It's really like they're taking 3 slices, making other pizzas and doing business with other countries for their slices.... All while paying the entire bill and the delivery boy's tip.

[NumberSix]

Progressives should run this country. Conservatism is all about maintaining the status quo, whether it's slavery, segregation, flat Earth, etc. You name it. They impede progress.

FFS, we're still arguing about non-issues like same sex marriage in 2014. Why? Because social conservatives are still scared of "teh gay". Give me a break.
Yeah. Imagine a world where it was the Republicans that ended slavery and the democrats who fought against it? That would be weird, huh?

[ThePhantomCreep]

Yeah. Imagine a world where it was the Republicans that ended slavery and the democrats who fought against it? That would be weird, huh?

Political party =\= ideology.

Everyone knows Republicans were the more socially progressive party of that era. Abraham Lincoln expanded presidential powers enormously, he was a dreaded big government politician. He and TR are progressive icons.

[kNicKz]

Peasants are really still doing the whole Republican vs. Democrat thing?

:roll:

http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/streams/2014/September/140909/1D274906737364-today-bush-clinton-140909-01.blocks_desktop_large.jpg

[KevinNYC]

Peasants are really still doing the whole Republican vs. Democrat thing?

:roll:

http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/streams/2014/September/140909/1D274906737364-today-bush-clinton-140909-01.blocks_desktop_large.jpg

One of those guys raised the top tax rate 8.6 points.
One of those guys cut the top tax rate 4 points and also cut capital gains back significantly.

[Akrazotile]

It basically is.

The GOP wont do well given demographic changes in presidential election years. Gerrymandering alone allowed the GOP to win the house.
http://i.imgur.com/5uB7q7l.png

The DNC got in total 1.4 million votes more than the GOP. but because of how congressional district borders were drawn the GOP won 234 of 435 seats.

Only dedicated voters vote in midterms. in years with a president on the ticket, the GOP is going to get its ass kicked unless it can appeal to Hispanics.



All those years of teen pregnancy, illegal immigration, entitlement fraud, and increasing incidents of depression/despair finally paying dividends for the Democratic party's voter mobilization efforts.

Check and mate. Congrats Dems.

[kNicKz]

One of those guys raised the top tax rate 8.6 points.
One of those guys cut the top tax rate 4 points and also cut capital gains back significantly.



http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/C10382-15A.jpg

[Dresta]

Political party =\= ideology.

Everyone knows Republicans were the more socially progressive party of that era. Abraham Lincoln expanded presidential powers enormously, he was a dreaded big government politician. He and TR are progressive icons.
:facepalm - **** sake, it is impossible to discuss things with such ignorance. First, Lincoln was not a dreaded 'big government' politician: i believe he raised income tax rates to 10% as a wartime necessity, he extended martial law as a wartime necessity - none of thepowers he took at the time did he intend the US presidency to keep - he simply interpreted the rules as different during war time, when the Union itself is threatened.

It's like you think the only thing dividing parties is their 'social progressiveness'(whatever that means) - well, the reason Lincoln won the election in the first place was because Democratic party was split on the issue of slavery, so the problem is clearly more complex than you are pretending. In the Republican party itself there was a divide between its radical abolitionist element and its more conservative element (which included Lincoln) who thought Slavery would slowly fade out of existence. Lincoln was more of a Whig at heart; he certainly had nothing in common with modern 'progressivism'

FDR is the big progressive icon, and lets look at his resume:

- A racist who shunned Jesse Owens, refused to desegregate the army, making the US an international embarrassment.
- He formed the predecessor of CIA
- He turned the United States into a world Empire through the use of Lend-Lease to extort Churchill and the British in their time of need, leading to the various Cold War entanglements (and criminality) that followed, including Vietnam.
- Centralised supreme power into the Federal government, and particularly, unaccountable power into the Presidency, power that would be abused again and again after him. You couldn't have had Nixon without having FDR first.

None of that sounds very 'progressive' to me, and yet he is the king of progressives.


One of those guys raised the top tax rate 8.6 points.
One of those guys cut the top tax rate 4 points and also cut capital gains back significantly.
Every single year of its existence total Federal government expenditure has increased - it has never gone down, the government has always expanded, never contracted. And now we're apparently going to cut enough to reduce this debt (which has only gotten bigger), when it requires doing something never done in US history.

Clinton wasn't much different from Bush in reality, and no, he didn't run a surplus, not once: he paid off the public debt to give the illusion of a surplus, borrowing heaps of money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (e.g social security). Likewise when Obama claimed to have reduced the deficit by $400 billion, he hadn't really, that $400 billion was simply moved somewhere where it isn't counted by the statistical measurement.

Stealing money from the social security fund, does not equal reducing the debt or deficit because that money still needs to be replaced eventually. It is just more government manipulation of statistics, and it is why just about every economic statistic, especially those compiled by government bodies, are completely worthless.

[Dresta]

There's also a problem of people thinking everything falls into the right-left spectrum. As if on every issue, there are only 2 option and then the space in between.And this is more or less the kind of thing i've been criticising, but it is apparently incredible 'pedantry' to tell people the way they view political questions is superficial, and even self-contradictory when you get right down to it. There is no room on the traditional left-right spectrum for those who'd like the aristocratic system back, for example (or even remnants of it); what if they're an aristocrat that wants masses of social welfare, what are they then? Left or Right?


The left-right dichotomy is just a way to distort people's views - its use has become obsolete and a waste of time, and because social democracy has become the status quo in the Western world, it has allowed anything that differs from the status quo to be placed on the much-maligned 'right' whereas more and more of the same shit that already hasn't worked, that's being centre left, or even left - it's being a liberal too, apparently. This is how two people as ideologically different as a Classical Liberal and a Social Conservative can both be branded as 'right wing crazy persons' - even though they differ at least as much with each other as they do with a modern 'liberal.'

Modern liberals are remarkably illiberal - funny that.

[MavsSuperFan]

Yeah. Imagine a world where it was the Republicans that ended slavery and the democrats who fought against it? That would be weird, huh?
the make up of the democratic and republican parties largely switched after the democrats passed the civil rights act in 1964.

the solid south went from democrat to republican largely off of that one bill

[MavsSuperFan]

And this is more or less the kind of thing i've been criticising, but it is apparently incredible 'pedantry' to tell people the way they view political questions is superficial, and even self-contradictory when you get right down to it. There is no room on the traditional left-right spectrum for those who'd like the aristocratic system back, for example (or even remnants of it); what if they're an aristocrat that wants masses of social welfare, what are they then? Left or Right?


The left-right dichotomy is just a way to distort people's views - its use has become obsolete and a waste of time, and because social democracy has become the status quo in the Western world, it has allowed anything that differs from the status quo to be placed on the much-maligned 'right' whereas more and more of the same shit that already hasn't worked, that's being centre left, or even left - it's being a liberal too, apparently. This is how two people as ideologically different as a Classical Liberal and a Social Conservative can both be branded as 'right wing crazy persons' - even though they differ at least as much with each other as they do with a modern 'liberal.'

Modern liberals are remarkably illiberal - funny that.
Because it largely is. people have lives and dont want to waste time discussing purely hypothetical bullshit or talk about what words meant in 1775. The meaning of words changes over time. There is no sense to quibble over the meaning of words. Words mean what they are generally accepted to mean in a society.


there is no room on the traditional left-right spectrum for those who'd like the aristocratic system back, for example (or even remnants of it); what if they're an aristocrat that wants masses of social welfare, what are they then? Left or Right?

:lol who is this applicable for? Honestly out 310+ million Americans who is that applicable towards? Argue why your ideas are better, dont make irrelevant comparisons alluding to non-existing entities.


This is how two people as ideologically different as a Classical Liberal and a Social Conservative can both be branded as 'right wing crazy persons' - even though they differ at least as much with each other as they do with a modern 'liberal.'
IIRC (been a long time since my politics elective in university)
Classical liberalism is based on the idea negative liberty, which is the freedom to do what you want without the hindrance/interference of other people/groups/the government.

"a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do"
-thomas hobbes
basically that liberty is being able to do what you want with minimal regulations.

classical liberalism is about securing the freedom of the individual and limiting the power of the government.

The reason that people in america group together classical liberalism and social conservatives, is because they are both better represented by the GOP than the DNC political platforms expressed in 2012. Dresta, if you voted, I am 100% sure you voted for the GOP. They represent your views far better than the DNC does. Just like social conservatives.

In contrast the concept of positive liberty is more related to the DNC platform. Positive liberty argues that society should provide the means so that a person can make a choice, that they aren't capable of making, without external/government intervention. Eg. that homeless guy isnt very free to make decisions, even if the government isnt hindering him.

No body subscribes to everything the DNC or GOP stands for. I for example, am in a lot of instances in favor of american foreign policy exercising control over other countries for the economic and other interests of america. I am pro death penalty. I want a simpler corporate tax structure for manufacturing companies. I am willing to accept environmental damage, if it means the economic benefits of resource extraction.

Off the top of my head I cant think of any other positions that correlate with the GOP in general.

I mostly agree more with the DNC platform than the GOP platform and thus in most circumstances (basically every election) I vote for the DNC candidate. This doesnt mean I always agree with the DNC, on many issues I am to the left of the DNC (eg. i dont think any type of drug should be criminalized) but still the DNC represents my views better 99% of the time.

[MavsSuperFan]

Modern liberals are remarkably illiberal - funny that.
Words change over time. What liberal meant in 1775 isnt what it means now.
Words also have different meanings depending on the society you are referring to.
Classical liberalism is much more closely aligned with modern american conservatism.

In 2014, in america government deregulation and non-interference isnt a liberal idea.

The word has changed.

Liberals believe in positive liberty, not negative liberty. Liberals believe to be free, a person should be free from the restrictions that might exist in the social structure that prevents them from making a choice. Eg. poverty, sexism, and racism can inhibit a person's freedom and positive liberty is primarily concerned with removing these barriers, even if government interference is required.

Modern, american liberals, believe that such government interference can enhance the ability of citizens to participate in their government and have their voice, interests and concerns recognized as valid and acted upon.

That is what liberals are in 2014. The word has changed. Classical liberalism is still a major tenant of modern american conservativsm

[KevinNYC]

Yes, if you are determined to ignore the differences, Bush and Clinton look the same.


Clinton did have budget surpluses and this is true even if you exclude the funds from the Social Security surplus. However, it would only be two years of surplus instead of four. (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/) I don't know if you are using other intergoverment funds to say he didn't.

However, the Social Security surplus can only be held in US debt. By law, they must purchase Treasury Bills. However, when this occurs, the government debt increases, but it also affects the other side of the balance sheet, where the government now has an interest earning asset.

[NumberSix]

the make up of the democratic and republican parties largely switched after the democrats passed the civil rights act in 1964.

the solid south went from democrat to republican largely off of that one bill
If you oppose the civil rights act for reasons such as principles of freedom for businesses to run themselves as they see fit, just because all the "I don't want black people around me" people oppose it too for other reasons, doesn't mean your pro-freedom principles have changed.

Yes, the "we hate blacks" contingent used to vote with the democrats. When the Dems decided to employ the "let's pretend we don't hate black and get their votes" strategy, that didn't now mean the Republican party is now the "we hate blacks" party. It just means the party that actually was the "we hate blacks" party just pretended to top being it.

Now, do I believe the dems still are that? No, of course not. Times have changed. But they definitely are the "black people BETTER vote for us or they are Uncle Toms" party.

[MavsSuperFan]

FDR is the big progressive icon, and lets look at his resume:

- A racist who shunned Jesse Owens, refused to desegregate the army, making the US an international embarrassment.
- He formed the predecessor of CIA
- He turned the United States into a world Empire through the use of Lend-Lease to extort Churchill and the British in their time of need, leading to the various Cold War entanglements (and criminality) that followed, including Vietnam.
- Centralised supreme power into the Federal government, and particularly, unaccountable power into the Presidency, power that would be abused again and again after him. You couldn't have had Nixon without having FDR first.

None of that sounds very 'progressive' to me, and yet he is the king of progressives.


Everything is relative. Judging things in absolute terms is often ridiculous. Lincoln, has expressed some thoughts about black people, that you would expect to have come from a klan leader in 2014.

FDR was incredibly progressive for his time. He vastly increased government interference in the economy. IIRC He made creating jobs an important part of the presidency of the United States. (arguably today, its the single most important factor that presidents are judged on. if presidents do everything else right, but the economy is in trouble, they are in trouble.). before FDR POTUS weren't expected to help alleviate unemployment or take an active role in the economy.

FDR's New Deal radically changed the US economy, and basically nationalized or at least greatly interfered in private enterprise in a way the government never did before.

They sent out welfare/relief to americans

FDR created the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is a federally owned corporation that provides navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, etc

The Public Works Administration (PWA) built buildings, airports, hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, dams, etc. the government basically provided funds to employ Americans. This was done to prime the pump and to alleviate unemployment.

FDR's government passed the emergency banking act. the act would make available funds to banks that were reopening under treasury supervision after they had went bankrupt during the great depression. People had made runs on the banks when they thought they needed to get their savings out before the banks became insolvent

FDR created the US securities and exchange commission and passed the securities act. FDR regulated wall street at the federal level

FDR built the hoover dam


Also you missed the Japanese interment camps

[MavsSuperFan]

If you oppose the civil rights act for reasons such as principles of freedom for businesses to run themselves as they see fit, just because all the "I don't want black people around me" people oppose it too for other reasons, doesn't mean your pro-freedom principles have changed.

Yes, the "we hate blacks" contingent used to vote with the democrats. When the Dems decided to employ the "let's pretend we don't hate black and get their votes" strategy, that didn't now mean the Republican party is now the "we hate blacks" party. It just means the party that actually was the "we hate blacks" party just pretended to top being it.

Now, do I believe the dems still are that? No, of course not. Times have changed. But they definitely are the "black people BETTER vote for us or they are Uncle Toms" party.

If passing civil rights act is pretending not to hate blacks, than that is a damn good job pretending.

Second, politically the DNC committed suicide passing the voting rights act. They gave away the south. What kind of idiot alienates the majority (white people) in favor of the minority (black people) if their goal was to win votes, than that was the dumbest move possible. Passing the Civil rights act was the right thing to do. It was done at great political cost.

The voting patterns between the DNC and GOP largely switched after 1964, because of this reason. The GOP has more or less always won the south since then.
http://i.imgur.com/CbqqGix.png
Politically speaking the voting rights act was extremely detrimental to the DNC. That is why they deserve even more credit for passing it. pre 1964 the dems owned the south. After giving black people the voting rights act the lost the south


If you oppose the civil rights act for reasons such as principles of freedom for businesses to run themselves as they see fit, just because all the "I don't want black people around me" people oppose it too for other reasons, doesn't mean your pro-freedom principles have changed.

Yeah thats the reason, not because of racism:rolleyes:

[NumberSix]

Everything is relative. Judging things in absolute terms is often ridiculous. Lincoln, has expressed some thoughts about black people, that you would expect to have come from a klan leader in 2014.

FDR was incredibly progressive for his time. He vastly increased government interference in the economy. IIRC He made creating jobs an important part of the presidency of the United States. (arguably today, its the single most important factor that presidents are judged on. if presidents do everything else right, but the economy is in trouble, they are in trouble.). before FDR POTUS weren't expected to help alleviate unemployment or take an active role in the economy.

FDR's New Deal radically changed the US economy, and basically nationalized or at least greatly interfered in private enterprise in a way the government never did before.

They sent out welfare/relief to americans

FDR created the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is a federally owned corporation that provides navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, etc

The Public Works Administration (PWA) built buildings, airports, hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, dams, etc. the government basically provided funds to employ Americans. This was done to prime the pump and to alleviate unemployment.

FDR's government passed the emergency banking act. the act would make available funds to banks that were reopening under treasury supervision after they had went bankrupt during the great depression. People had made runs on the banks when they thought they needed to get their savings out before the banks became insolvent

FDR created the US securities and exchange commission and passed the securities act. FDR regulated wall street at the federal level

FDR built the hoover dam


Also you missed the Japanese interment camps
Don't forget...

It was a Democrat who fcuked up the economy in the first place by granted a private bank the power to issue American money. Instead of the treasury issuing money (as it use to) the federal reserve does and loans it the the American government, which the government has to pay back + interest (which any idiot understands is something that can never be done. The hole just gets deeper and deeper forever).

[Dresta]

Because it largely is. people have lives and dont want to waste time discussing purely hypothetical bullshit or talk about what words meant in 1775. The meaning of words changes over time. There is no sense to quibble over the meaning of words. Words mean what they are generally accepted to mean in a society.

:lol who is this applicable for? Honestly out 310+ million Americans who is that applicable towards? Argue why your ideas are better, dont make irrelevant comparisons alluding to non-existing entities.

IIRC (been a long time since my politics elective in university)
Classical liberalism is based on the idea negative liberty, which is the freedom to do what you want without the hindrance/interference of other people/groups/the government.

-thomas hobbes
basically that liberty is being able to do what you want with minimal regulations.

classical liberalism is about securing the freedom of the individual and limiting the power of the government.

The reason that people in america group together classical liberalism and social conservatives, is because they are both better represented by the GOP than the DNC political platforms expressed in 2012. Dresta, if you voted, I am 100% sure you voted for the GOP. They represent your views far better than the DNC does. Just like social conservatives.

In contrast the concept of positive liberty is more related to the DNC platform. Positive liberty argues that society should provide the means so that a person can make a choice, that they aren't capable of making, without external/government intervention. Eg. that homeless guy isnt very free to make decisions, even if the government isnt hindering him.

No body subscribes to everything the DNC or GOP stands for. I for example, am in a lot of instances in favor of american foreign policy exercising control over other countries for the economic and other interests of america. I am pro death penalty. I want a simpler corporate tax structure for manufacturing companies. I am willing to accept environmental damage, if it means the economic benefits of resource extraction.

Off the top of my head I cant think of any other positions that correlate with the GOP in general.

I mostly agree more with the DNC platform than the GOP platform and thus in most circumstances (basically every election) I vote for the DNC candidate. This doesnt mean I always agree with the DNC, on many issues I am to the left of the DNC (eg. i dont think any type of drug should be criminalized) but still the DNC represents my views better 99% of the time.**** me do you provide a perfect example of how an education nowadays just encourages people to recite garbage they've been told, making them unaware of their own ignorance and naivety. Firstly, Thomas Hobbes had nothing to do with Liberalism, which better find its expression in various English 19th century writers like Mill and Acton (and many others aside from Hobbes, who actually far better represents your brand of liberalism than actual liberalism). Second, why are you talking about 1775? The word has done a complete u-turn in meaning over the past 3 quarters of a century, and this has not been a natural evolution, but a concerted attempt by certain academics to alter language to favour their ideological beliefs. Positive liberty is a similar construct: the term has no relation to any meaning of the word 'liberty' - it is again taking a favourable term and moulding it to an agenda. This is how easily your opinions are manipulated. We already had a perfectly serviceable term for social democracy (the now political consensus in all Western nations), so why the need to steal the name of a political ideal that already had a long and prosperous history?


As for who are those political beliefs applicable to? Well, i'm sure they are held by some people, but many Americans aren't represented at all by the main two parties, who both represent the same social democratic consensus with a few minor and largely unimportant differences between them. That IS the ****ing problem in the first place: that neither of the political parties come even close to representing whole masses of people who are alienated by both. And there will never be major change in that regard as long as people keep looking at politics in the same way you do (with the simplistic belief of two diametrically opposed parties). You are a status quo preserver who thinks he's progressive - how ironic!

[ThePhantomCreep]

Words change over time. What liberal meant in 1775 isnt what it means now.
Words also have different meanings depending on the society you are referring to.
Classical liberalism is much more closely aligned with modern american conservatism.

In 2014, in america government deregulation and non-interference isnt a liberal idea.

The word has changed.

Liberals believe in positive liberty, not negative liberty. Liberals believe to be free, a person should be free from the restrictions that might exist in the social structure that prevents them from making a choice. Eg. poverty, sexism, and racism can inhibit a person's freedom and positive liberty is primarily concerned with removing these barriers, even if government interference is required.

Modern, american liberals, believe that such government interference can enhance the ability of citizens to participate in their government and have their voice, interests and concerns recognized as valid and acted upon.

That is what liberals are in 2014. The word has changed. Classical liberalism is still a major tenant of modern american conservativsm

Exactly. I find it amusing when posters hold politicians of a bygone era to the standards of 2014 American ideals. For their respective eras, Abe, TR, and FDR were progressive. That doesn't mean some of their views aren't archaic. In today's America, even the worst of the teabaggers would scoff at the use of internment camps during times of war. Different era. Only the most extreme racists share the same views on race Lincoln did, but he's a politician from the 19th century. Different era.

100 years from now, your typical conservative will be far more left-leaning than his 2014 counterpart.

[Patrick Chewing]

Progressives should run this country. Conservatism is all about maintaining the status quo, whether it's slavery, segregation, flat Earth, etc. You name it. They impede progress.

FFS, we're still arguing about non-issues like same sex marriage in 2014. Why? Because social conservatives are still scared of "teh gay". Give me a break.


Name me one Conservative in recent memory that has run on on any of these platforms.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Name me one Conservative in recent memory that has run on on any of these platforms.

I was speaking historically.

Conservatives are all about maintaining tradition. Why? Because it's tradition! This is why they are consistently on the wrong side of every major social issue.

[Balla_Status]

Yes, if you are determined to ignore the differences, Bush and Clinton look the same.


Clinton did have budget surpluses and this is true even if you exclude the funds from the Social Security surplus. However, it would only be two years of surplus instead of four. (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/) I don't know if you are using other intergoverment funds to say he didn't.

However, the Social Security surplus can only be held in US debt. By law, they must purchase Treasury Bills. However, when this occurs, the government debt increases, but it also affects the other side of the balance sheet, where the government now has an interest earning asset.

You do realize that factcheck contradicts itself in that article.


The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus.

The national debt increased every year under Clinton so there's no way there was ever a surplus.

And you should use ALL intragovernment funds. Why the hell wouldn't you? Makes no sense not too...unless it doesn't fit your agenda which we all know what yours is.

[RidonKs]

:facepalm - **** sake, it is impossible to discuss things with such ignorance.
you are SUCH an asshole

[ThePhantomCreep]

You do realize that factcheck contradicts itself in that article.



The national debt increased every year under Clinton so there's no way there was ever a surplus.

And you should use ALL intragovernment funds. Why the hell wouldn't you? Makes no sense not too...unless it doesn't fit your agenda which we all know what yours is.

The budget and national debt are two different things. Please tell me you're aware of this.

[Patrick Chewing]

I was speaking historically.

Conservatives are all about maintaining tradition. Why? Because it's tradition! This is why they are consistently on the wrong side of every major social issue.


I think you need to brush up on your Conservatism.

You also act as is Progressivism is the way of the world. Conservatives don't hold people back. Conservatives remind us where we came from and how drastic changes to government will only lead to chaos. The less government intrusion in our lives, the better. That's not the Progressive way. Progressives find a way to intrude into your life and find any which way, legally, to make you change or adapt.

Look at this ridiculous Active Consent Bill that was just passed in California. Wow.

[Balla_Status]

The budget and national debt are two different things. Please tell me you're aware of this.

Yep. But if you have a true budget surplus one year, your national debt would go down that year. And it never did for every year that clinton was in office. He ran a deficit.

The contradicting factcheck article says this as well.

[MadeFromDust]

People in their 20's cannot run a country. Case closed.

Basketball players can't even speak English properly. Give me a break.
:roll:

[MadeFromDust]

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5227a78e6bb3f70f68316148-800-/map%20of%20us%2050%20percent%20.png

http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9
Bexar County FTW :rockon:

[MadeFromDust]

All those years of teen pregnancy, illegal immigration, entitlement fraud, and increasing incidents of depression/despair finally paying dividends for the Democratic party's voter mobilization efforts.

Check and mate. Congrats Dems.
Werd

[Dresta]

I was speaking historically.

Conservatives are all about maintaining tradition. Why? Because it's tradition! This is why they are consistently on the wrong side of every major social issue.
Right, and we've had a long accepted tradition of social democracy in the US, so recognising this has been a failure and looking for a better system is going against the established consensus and tradition, and thus not conservative. Defending social democracy and the debt-ridden welfare state is currently a form of conservatism, according to your definition.

If you want any idea where that kind of rational progressivism that says 'all tradition is worthless' leads, then i suggest you take a look at the Soviet Union 1930-80. Freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, our entire political setup and mode of government, the rest of the Bill of Rights etc. - all traditions which we cling to without understanding their full value. Why not get rid of these too if tradition is a waste of time?

Why not establish a religious autocracy here? I mean, the majority of US citizens are Christian, so the only thing stopping this is established traditions.


Everything is relative. Judging things in absolute terms is often ridiculous. Lincoln, has expressed some thoughts about black people, that you would expect to have come from a klan leader in 2014.

FDR was incredibly progressive for his time. He vastly increased government interference in the economy. IIRC He made creating jobs an important part of the presidency of the United States. (arguably today, its the single most important factor that presidents are judged on. if presidents do everything else right, but the economy is in trouble, they are in trouble.). before FDR POTUS weren't expected to help alleviate unemployment or take an active role in the economy.

FDR's New Deal radically changed the US economy, and basically nationalized or at least greatly interfered in private enterprise in a way the government never did before.

They sent out welfare/relief to americans

FDR created the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is a federally owned corporation that provides navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, etc

The Public Works Administration (PWA) built buildings, airports, hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, dams, etc. the government basically provided funds to employ Americans. This was done to prime the pump and to alleviate unemployment.

FDR's government passed the emergency banking act. the act would make available funds to banks that were reopening under treasury supervision after they had went bankrupt during the great depression. People had made runs on the banks when they thought they needed to get their savings out before the banks became insolvent

FDR created the US securities and exchange commission and passed the securities act. FDR regulated wall street at the federal level

FDR built the hoover dam

Also you missed the Japanese interment camps
FDR's New Deal extended the depression throughout the 30s. He continued and extended the policies started by Hoover, and as a consequence, unemployment barely decreased over an entire decade until (guess what) FDR achieved full employment (yay!) through conscription.

The Second World War and the ruin of Europe saved the United States from itself, not FDR, who only got the US involved in petty squabbles all around the world. FDR's New Deal saving the day is one of the biggest myths proliferated in US classrooms - this is part of the problem with public education: the need to lie to create great historical icons, Kennedy was much the same.

And no, everything is not 'relative' - what the word liberal actually is is highly ambiguous (and therefore pretty much a now useless term), this ambiguity being caused by misuse of the word over a long period of time so as to alter its meaning (surreptitiously done, in my view). Language is intended to convey meaning, and for this words need concrete definitions, not relative ones that reverse their meaning every 50 years - if language were so relative it would be pointless! The English language is ambiguous enough as it is, there's no need to make it more so because eventually people won't be capable of understanding each other.