Printable View
I hope that after all this big talk the democrats will actually do something good.
It'll be real funny for boost if the democrats end up being worse then the neocons he hates so much.
I wonder if they will actually promote middle of the road policies and "work together" like they complain the republicans dont, or if they will just jump into the deep end of liberal policies.
Dear Democrats, if you guys fuck this up, 2008 will turn out bad for you.
The "deep end of liberal politics" as you put it is looking pretty damn inviting right about now.
if you believe that hard line conservative ideals are going too far, then why should hard line liberal ideals be any better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Margin Of Error
Because in the end their pork barrel goes into the economy on a federal level and it least circulates around, instead of going as tax breaks to the private sector so the guy running Exxon can have a $25 billion bonus this year instead of $17 billion.Quote:
Originally Posted by vqc
I think it's pretty clear that the Democrats have finally figured out that they need to have a 'big tent'. Some of the candidates they ran were practically indistinguishable from moderate Republicans this time out, so I think you're going to see mostly middle-of-the-road initiatives.
Regardless, it's good to see the Republicans get seriously trounced, and Rumsfeld gone. I don't like seeing our Canadian boys dying in Afghanistan any more than Americans like seeing their soldiers die in Iraq, so I'm hoping some action to bring the hostilities to a close (without leaving either of those countries in the lurch to descend into civil war) can be brought about.
No easy answers, but at least there's some fresh winds blowing.
Wow, I'm impressed by the higher level of thought here rather than clueless hippy ranting.Quote:
Originally Posted by takesix
Basically the center of the country told the Republicans to shape up or ship out. Once they embraced their vision of big governement and did stupid shit like the online gambling act and mistreatment of PoWs, they lost the support of the socially liberal, fiscally conservitve, small government crowd. The Libertarian vote even swung a few seats and the spite/stay-home-because-you-disgust-me votes had to swing a hell of a lot more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vqc
Because liberals are much more honest about how they bend you over. The Neocons are masters of deception.
I think it might be premature to call it "post-election" time...I like to think of the upcoming several-week-long virginia senate recount as part of the election.
Of course, the dems have the house, and the virginia recount is undoubtedly going to uphold webb's victory, so the senate majority is going their way. But still...
I think this is B.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by Margin Of Error
I dislike the way the liberals bend me over less than I dislike the way the neocons do, but it's a fallacy to call either of them honest about it.
Whoah.
Let us be clear here. The Democrats are not anywhere near to the "deep end of liberal policies" They arn't even in the kiddy pool.
If only we were lucky enough to have a legitimate socialy-liberal party...
Communism was a dismal failure. Communism-light aka Socialism disgusts me.Quote:
Originally Posted by thenonsequitur
The Neocons need to learn that it's unacceptable to look the other way when people on your team are corrupt or violating the principals that put them in power.
McCain for Minority Leader!
Enjoy those health-care premiums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
Enjoy all of the medical innovations driven by your neighboring free market?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
Enjoy being able to cross the boarder and get premium service when you need it but your system fucked you?
When we're talking about people's lives, the market is harsh and unfair on a small scale. But it drives down cost and inspires the best and brightest to do great things.
That being said, the American market doesn't value the work done by homemakers well nor does it do a very good job of investing in children and I think this is where a lot of the health care discontent comes from.
Yes fnord I agree about free markets.. I'm curious though, you arn't implying the republicans would do all of that, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
Wow Fnord you, I like you. You described my political position better than I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
Americans don't have the franchise on medical innovation, and free markets aren't the only driver of it, not by a long shot. There's tons of advances being driven in Canada and other countries as well. My own little prairie city is a world leader in cardiac research, for example, as well as AIDs amelioration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
Now that we do enjoy. Long live the Mayo!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
Interestingly, despite entrenched opposition, Canada is slowly moving to a two-tier system: public, socialized care for everyone and private care for those that can afford it. It's finally being recognized that having private, for-profit care available takes a strain off the public system, which benefits everyone. Market forces work here, too.
I just think that a pure laissez-faire, free market approach, esp. in regard to healthcare, leaves a lot of people out in the cold.
With those liberal hippies in power our children will be forced to learn crazy rubbish like evolution in our schools!!!!
Don't you know anything? Crazy hippies don't believe in evolution. Rather than evolving, they believe they were created as hallucinations in one of God's acid trips.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
As a lifelong republican, I can honestly say that I am pleased with a democratic control of congress and how things shaped up yesterday. That basically sums up my thoughts about how I feel our government has been run in the recent past.
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
http://www.reason.com/
i pretty much agree with this and prob with everything that fnord has said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
someone quick, name the last deep end liberal policy any congress has ever put into place? LOL. As said above, they are trying to be as republican as they can be.
Being farther away from the bloody revolution is probably -EV, but at least maybe the world can start hating us less for starting WWIII... unless they remember that the dems loved the war too until it started polling bad.
I guess I should say that I have always supported the republican party because democrats are generally clueless. I've always been more of a liberterian at heart, but at least republicans generally understand the importance of a free market, something that I am very high on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
The LP is too radical on economics for most of America. Basing policy on a strict ideaology isn't practical, and some market regulations are productive. Government should have a decreased roll, and the LP should learn to compromise on the economy.
Edit: A free market is pointless if social freedoms are limited. Not to mention the Republicans have not advocated a free market in recent times.
yeah, I basically hate the way our government is being run. It's terrible. Hence why I will try to just see what happens from here on out.
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
If this were true of Republicans I would be in support of Republicans. As it stands, I find them to be just as clueless as Democrats and just as much in support (or even more in support) of a big-government fascist market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
And as it stands, Democrats tend to infringe upon my personal freedoms less, so I support them.
At heart, I am as much libertarian as the next person that founds their belief structure on reason, but as a practical matter the libertarian party has no chance in the near future of having an impact on the federal government.
Define "near".Quote:
Originally Posted by thenonsequitur
So what? If we can increase that party's share of the vote from 1-2% to 5-10% that will make a HUGE difference, as both parties will realize that libertarians form a significant portion of the population. They will make an effort to appeal directly to the voters that would otherwise vote to the Libertarian party. Personally, I've always been amused by the argument that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away." Unless an election is decided by one vote, your vote doesn't make an immediate difference anyway. But in the long run, additional votes for a third party do make a difference because they shift the mainstream political spectrum in their direction. That's what the goal of a third party is, they're not really trying to get their candidates elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by thenonsequitur
Regarding yesterday's elections, I agree with Lukie. I've never voted for a Democrat before and I voted a straight Democratic ticket yesterday because I'm so disgusted with what's become of the Republican Party.
With elections as close as they are, in some states it would be foolish to throw away your vote on a third party. In areas where one of the two big parties has pretty much a lock, then I agree with your stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
Eh, perhaps I'm jaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
To the contrary, I think the threat of voting for a third party is much more effective if you live in a state where the election is going to be close. A few % for the Libertarian party or the Green party won't change much, if anything, if you live in a state where the same party always wins. If one party knows it's going to win, they stop being scared of losing the support of the center.
I was talking with my ex yesterday (dont ask..) and all this stuff came up. I said that when I went in I planned to just vote democrat, except I did plan to vote green for gov. because the other candidates in illinois make me sick. The truth is I didnt do my research and I did not recognize any of the names. I got kinda frustrated and honestly felt that protest voting green was less of a throw away than auto voting dem. She just couldnt see this. I got really frustrated, she kept saying "well theyll never get elected so wahts the point." and "no one ever pays attention to them." Well no shit, thats because they dont get votes. However the green candidate for gov. was projected in the polls to get 10-15%!! Thats huge, and while the everyday person might not notice too much, the other candidates and thier parties certainly take notice. This is a huge problem with our political system. The two party system is broaken, but its inherent flaws drive on its existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
btw I prob woulda thrown some votes at the libertarians however I saw none on the ballot, and didnt know if simply writing in "libertarian" would get the vote to them (and its a complete waste if they arent even running for that office.)
precisely. This is what I meant by its inherent flaws furthering its existence. People who take the path of logic opposite of this are only maintaining this archaic system.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
Research is funny in that pretty much any institution can claim to be a "world leader in such and such" and technically they can all be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
I agree that it is a system whose inherent flaws further its existence, and I certainly understand the argument being made about how third parties are best promoted. However, you can't fix an archaic system overnight. In this case (and it is not an isolated case), I strongly believe that the urgency of getting to a better state within the system trumps concerns of long-term systematic reform.
They do aids research when they're not busy running from polar bears.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye
...and make fart jokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Fucking Canadians. ;-)
We're a world leader in flatulence research. Trust me, you fart inside your parka, you want to find a cure.
taken from another forum:
From: FullHouseFan
Date: 11/08/06 08:50 PM
Member Since: 09/24/2006
341 Total Posts Ignore User
Notice how the Republicans take losing an election? Take note on this you Dems, I haven't heard about voter fraud, voter intimidation, or police roadblocks this election. Thus far the poor black communities were able to cast their ballots without being intimidated or rejected at the polls this year. There were allegations of voter fraud before the election, but that soon subsided when the results came out and the Democrats were ahead. Sure Republicans are upset with the results, as they should be, be this just proves how the Democrats are such sore losers when they lose an election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
From a scientific standpoint evolution is rubbish, it should not be taught in schools. The mathematical probability of evolution resulting in the natural world we see today is significantly lower than the probability of there being a supreme being. All current creation theories are rubbish for that matter.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, pretty much all scientific evidence points suggests that evolution actually did occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Margin Of Error
3rd level?Quote:
Originally Posted by Margin Of Error
What are the republicans gonna say? "The democrats have the police under thier control in all the christian right districts! Theyre not allowing them to vote!" I mean seriously? Maybe the reason the republicans arent saying anything is simply because theres nothing to be said. And maybe the democrats put up a fight because something fishy was going on in florida. Seriously the author of that post is a complete retard. I have to say Im disapointed that you would quote that as if it was a good post, I thought more of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by vqc
Sure, some social policy may change, and fiscal policy changes may land more money in the pockets of the non-top-1% income bracket, but what will not change is the fact that our federal and state officials are in the pockets of multinational corporations who do not answer to anyone except investors.
Did you not watch south park this week?Quote:
Originally Posted by Margin Of Error
hmmQuote:
Originally Posted by boostNslide
as far as im concerned
1) i agree with that post
2) your kidding urself if you dont think democrats cant/dont commit voter fraud and cant/dont intimidate voters.
3a) Condensed version of 3b. I laugh at you for thinking that fishy things only happen to democrats.
3b) please look into the issue of dead people votin and felons voting and then you can go ahead and tell me about how republicans have nothing to bitch and moan about (In florida in 2004 and the elections yesterday).Yes these things have, can, and do affect both parties. To have you sit there and say that the Republicans have nothing to complain about just becuase you saw on TV that conservatives prevent black people from voting by invoking the grandfather clause doesnt mean that its the only that ever happens. Yeesh. Seriously boost, there are some things that you cant learn sitting at home watching the history channel all day. I thought more of you.
Actually in Virginia I believe, or one of the states the Demmys needed to get the Senate, the GreenP canidate for Senator had 25,000 votes when only 5,000 seperated the Demmy and the Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
Woah, Margin of Error's a loon! The mathematical probability of evolution producing the world we see today is a de facto 100%, duh.
How come no-one on here has yet questioned the moral validity of the libertarian stance? Is it fashionable or something?
That's retarded.... try comparing the amount of objective reports about fraud and fishiness from the 2000 elections to the 2006 mid-terms. I'm sure if the fraud was as obvious as it was then, and not just the normal dead people voting stuff, Republicans would be making a stink, as they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by vqc
Free markets aren't nearly as important in driving medical innovations as are lucrative government grants. It's not even close. And I would actually expect that a more free market would do a lot to dissuade the large drug companies from doing as much R&D because they would not have enough protections to allow them to recoup the money to pay for the expenditures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
If your medical system operated in a market climate (not necessarily a free market) that allowed for actual competition, then meybe costs would be lowered (this includes allowing genereic drugs), but it does not.
If your best and brightest scientific minds are being driven mainly by market forces, then you and your entire country are in serious trouble. A scientific researcher should be driven by a desire for knowledge, and not by a desire for a benz. This isn't to say that monetary gains are to be completely ignored, but it should not be the principal driver.
Let's all face facts here. With market forces driving medical practices (and research) we see a greater push for overmedicating patients, as we should expect. medications are expensive. medications that don't actually cure, but merely treat are in ever higher demand due to market forces. And a lack of adequate controls allows large drug companies to send reps to hospitals and clinics and bribe doctors into prescribing their drugs, whether they are needed or not.
Righties saying anything "disgusts" them is meaningless since by their very nature they don't have any comprehension of morals. IMHO.
how exactly do you calculate the statistical probability of there being a supreme being??? what exactly are your assumptions when you do these calculations?? and third, how much acid did you take to make you think this was a good idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Margin Of Error
BTW, I have yet to meet an american who was not a 'rightie'. nader is about as close as you can get to the actual centre of the political spectrum in the states, and he is considered far far left. chomsky could be considered leftist, but he is viewed as stalin without all the butchering.
Is it a free market problem or simply a lack of an appropriate inscurance/security market to deal with the uncertainty (and other) risks. Government grants are efficiencylacking second best (if that) solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
As for the evolution probability thing, I was waiting for MoE to say "Just kidding guys, I'm so funny lololol" but he didn't. What's the probability of 27o sucking out on AA on a 222JK board?
Very true. They're also much shorter than other humans, and they have big noses and extremely large front teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by biondino
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/h...eanderthal.jpg
lefties kill babies, righties kill criminalsQuote:
Originally Posted by biondino
i would like to argue the point at which they become babies!
Government grants don't reward success the way the market does. Hence governement is very good at throwing money at problems yet getting little/no value on that additional money spent (see also: education.)Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
I also think you're vastly under-estimating the impact the military has on medicine. They tend to be more result-oriented despite being governement.
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by pgil
If you're going to make a generalization like this you have to define your terms. Politics is multidimensional, so when you speak of left to right, you are talking about just a single axis. The 'standard' one, if there is such a thing, is probably the one going from ideological communism on the left to ideological fascism on the right, with an interpolation in between, and with all other ideologies collapsed to a single point somewhere on this axis.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
Given this definition, it's true that the majority of Americans are right of center, but I've definitely met a number of people in the U.S. would be considered leftest on the full spectrum. Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they aren't there.
Maybe you're talking about a different axis than me, but if not, I think you are also incorrect in your placement of Nader. I'd put Nader to the left of center on this politcal axis.
what a wonderful attitude.. sounds like you've already made up your mind... party before country i see...Quote:
Originally Posted by vqc
VQC, obviously no one is playing completely fair in politics. This is beyond obvious.
I stole a candy bar from 7-11. You walked in there with a loaded 45, demanded the money from the clerk, then pistol whipped him after he gave it all to you in a timely fashion. Yet you seem to be under the impression that we are both theifs through and through with no discernable differences.
(it might be on the extreme side of things, but its to paint a picture, deal with it.)
at least I had to gonads to make it obvious i was a jack ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by boostNslide
i hate my country so much that I hope the party that took over Congress does well and brings the country to a better place. Yes. Party over country.Quote:
Originally Posted by NewJack33
ive read about half the above replies.
just thought id add the european view on the events...
this move has been seen as a great step forward in americas independant realisation towards its countries condition and image.
regarding image, this move has hugely improved it. face it, anyone outside of america despise ( and i mean hate him) goerge bush and any restriction through demo politics of his power is something for all to enjoy in europe.
regarding independent realisation, personally in my brief experiance living in america i was absolutly amazed at what you watch on the evening news!!! theres was barely any reports on events on iraq at the time i was there, was like it wasnt going on (summer of 2003). your news is pumped with voilence, greed, guns and not only thats its thrown at you at lightning speed. anyway americans seem to have seen around the media circus and want to improve their country.
im not to in tune with all events now in america but we do get much better and honest reporting on events there.
also this new defense secretary Gates, dont like him seems similiar to Rumsfeld.
i heard his opening statement and it contained the whole;
continued fight against terror,
americas sons and daughters are at risk
do americans ,i ask you as an outsider, actually beleive these statements to be true?? actually ill narrow it down a bit, do you feel threaten from forces OUTSIDE of your country. every country has many internal conflicts, we have had sectarian violence in ireland for decades.
note i make no arguement regards economy as i know nothing of it except tax cuts for the well off. as poker players we love money but i have to say that would to not be better for all americas ppl to be doing well instead of just those who have been born into more well-off society.
I'd put Nader as a corrupt delusional git.Quote:
Originally Posted by thenonsequitur
I'd like to sign up for Fnord's newsletter. I like the links you post up. Please post more links with Libertarian leaning views.
Good thought process in most. I especially like the non-conservative viewpoint of the Fox News article. That is a keeper to prove the "Fair & Balanced" theory.
The free market depends on the free exchange of ideas. Something that is impossible when the main means for that exchange are owned by corporations with an agenda.
Hence, what should have been one of the major media stories of the last decade - the allowance of media consolodation by the FCC - was barely a blip on the radar. When it was discussed at all by major media outlets, a rosier picture couldn't have been painted.
So, any discussion of the benefits of the free market must take this fact into consideration. The free market in this country is fundamentally broken because it's missing its main tool of self-correction - a well-informed populace. When citizen A isn't aware of the entire picture when voting with their dollars, they inevitably vote the way those corporate forces wish they would. Which often is not in the best interest of citizen A and citizens B-Y as well.
Citizen Z couldn't be happier, though. He just got another house in the Greek Isles.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeee, the anti-capitalists have joined the thread!
Down with the man!
Lets all move into a big commune and smoke some weed man...
I'm not at all anti-capitalist.
I'm very pro-capitalist. I just wouldn't call what we have a "free market." A free market can't work without a well-informed populace. Would you argue differently? I would argue that the majority of our populace are completely misinformed on most issues - to the point that they've been manipulated to believe in and buy products and services that are fundamentally bad for them in many ways. And I'm not talking about beer or cigarettes, I'm talking about the immediate gain of low prices over the long-term gain of a sustainable wage.
I would have thought a RAW fan like yourself would be well-versed in the downside of self-delusional belief.
(fnord)
People are generally stupid and no amount of information will fix this. Case & Point: Poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by deuce_tres
That being said, the market works quite well enough even with stupid, irrational people. If you don't give people what they want, someone else eventually will and force you to adjust or go broke. It just takes time sometimes.
Well, it works well enough for those who aren't stupid and irrational. Not so well for those who are.
And maybe it is irrational to care about the stupid and irrational, but what can I do? Not trying to be the Jesus here, just can't help but give a shit.
(and thank the gods for people's stupidity Re: poker).
Define well informed. This is the age of information and people know exponentially more now then decades ago and this trend will continue. Perfect information (which is what I think yoy mean by wellinformed) as a requirement for a free market to work is based on pure economic theory and not a practical/useful assumption to real economic applications.
With perfect information, government subsidies for research would not exist, do you see why?
Oh, and as for the stupid people, Darwin has some sort of theory you might not agree with.
Darwinian evolution obviously doesn't apply to humanity. Blind, retarded, deaf people live to breeding age all the time, last time I checked.
This is true, but the purveyors of information have also become exponentially more savvy in their manipulations of information and people. Our understanding of the human psyche is at an all-time high, and don't think that the advertising department of every major corporation is using that understanding to their full advantage.Quote:
Define well informed. This is the age of information and people know exponentially more now then decades ago and this trend will continue.
The "it's better than it's ever been" argument is kind of silly, though, isn't it? I'm obviously talking about an ideal here. I can agree that it's better than it's ever been if you can agree that there is room for improvement. I'm not harkening back to some golden age where the unwashed masses were hip to all the inner workings of the power elite. Such an age obviously never existed. I'm assuming that we are all on the same page with hoping we will continue to strive toward that ideal.
First step, IMO, is minimizing the ability of those with control of the information to manipulate toward their ends. I'm all about the free flow provided by the internets, but most people still get their info from the nightly news or their local paper. Both of which are most likely owned by a company that also makes bombs. What are the chances that the truth about war are going to make it through an outlet who makes money off war?
hey fnord, you do realize that you sound like a complete retard when you say things like this, right? Not so much because its not true, but because no one here has a clue what youre talking about. Nader seems pretty cool to me, but Im not blind to the fact that politicians are politicians, so if you gave me some insight thats cool, but just saying some silly shit like this makes you look dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
This thread is starting to remind me why I decided awhile back never to participate in politics threads on message boards. Talking about politics has a tendency to turn perfectly decent people into huge assholes.
*slaps himself with a wet noodle for ever posting in this thread*
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
were u by any chance eating a bowl of noodles as you were posting this?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
haha, so true...Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
No, but while you were posting your reply I was busy spending $40 at a sushi bar because that's how I roll. I do have some leftover noodles in the fridge from yesterday though.Quote:
Originally Posted by vqc