Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 71
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climatePage 3 of 17    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
The direction of this thread demonstrates why it is impossible to talk left in America.

It got hijacked by an extremely right wing poster and now all the discussion is on his terms. The same thing has happened in the media and society in general. Even on left wing websites and outlets almost all of the discussion revolves around right wing talking points.

I'm not going to bother trying to educate this guy about how private property is a construct of a civil society and civil societies must have fairness to function. All human, and even primate, groupings depend on that. He read Ayn Rand at an impressionable age and has been lost to rational discourse ever since. Just like you don't try to talk theology with a Scientologist.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/21/2013 10:45:50 AM
^^^ Go ahead.


<div class="quote">I'm not going to bother trying to educate this guy about how private property is a construct of a civil society and civil societies must have fairness to function. All human, and even primate, groupings depend on that. He read Ayn Rand at an impressionable age and has been lost to rational discourse ever since. Just like you don't try to talk theology with a Scientologist.

Not that I would expect you to read that I already said that about property. I also said that the problem is the definition of 'fairness'. You then make up things you can't possible know and turn it into a false argument to hurt credibility. In case you didn't already know. I have about as much credibility as you.

Explain away. it's a free board. I won't even hijack like you just did by saying it is impossible so don't bother.

VVVplease go ahead. Really. I won't respond. Have a meaningful conversation.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 73
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/21/2013 11:02:58 AM
When one offers up vague, absurd generalizations, it is very difficult to let it go unchallenged-- especially when potentially more productive lines of discussion seem to lose momentum so quickly. I recall an old Simpsons episode where a scientist had trouble getting the attention of an auditorium of science nerds, so he loudly declared "Pi is exactly three!" It worked.

I used to participate in a forum that was almost all lefties-- extreme environmentalists, to be precise. I curiously found myself as the relative right winger in the crowd, but realistically, I was simply a moderate.

The very divisive national conversation can be frustrating. Instead of debating whether climate change exists or is manmade, we should be debating what to do about it. Instead of debating ID/evolution, we should be debating how to improve the US standing in science and math... etc.

Edit:
^^^ That's what I was saying-- this thread was a directionless fizzle. Your participation, while not fitting the original intent, has been the only thing keeping it going strong. Strong, but not necessarily useful. Controversy garners more attention than productive discussion, it seems.

More guidance regarding the actual topic is needed here.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 74
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/21/2013 11:16:11 AM
Even in your examples you demonstrate my point. Climate change and evolution are scientific facts. But because the terms of American public discourse are dictated by the right, even what is factually and verifiably true become terms of tribal divide.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 76
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/21/2013 2:14:23 PM
Awwww....gee fella's ...Lighten up on Aries will ya...heck, he's the only conservative left here...all the others have abandoned him...match won't be here to help him on the constitutionality of money as property...427 doesn't visit anymore...PGL left....neopoli hasn't been seen...where's hoops???asusual has changed his profile and does a cameo...thumbs hahahahaha...Paul K doesn't know how to get here...

Aries is all alone...so what if he's a little ADD and shifts topic like the weather changes in New England...keeps us on our toes and it's entertaining!

And anyone who offers to go out for a beer (even if it was offered to the hot chick) is ok in my book
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 77
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/21/2013 2:47:51 PM
Keystone tends to be viewed as an American issue here.

Nobody is thrilled about the tar sands, but it is far too important to Alberta to do anything about it. Extraction is the issue here. And a plan to build a pipeline west to Prince Rupert. Right now all the oil is going south for refining, and because there's a glut there Canadian oil sells at a 30% discount. Building the pipeline south would limit us to one customer - with all the problems that causes.

But, we definitely don't want bitumon spills in the BC wilderness. So no political party is saying yes or no on that one.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 78
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/21/2013 3:14:13 PM

@mungojoe
nothing but personal attacks and derogatory remarks with no regard to the arguments. IOW flaming.

What the he!! are you talking about...?!?

THIS is my FIRST post in this thread... and... if you look at the posting number you will see that it came several posts AFTER your "response"...

So... again I ask... What the he!! are you talking about...?!? Would you care to explain THIS bit of BS...? Or would you prefer to pretend that you never made an obvious error, as is the usual case...

I'm suspecting you will choose option 2 if your responses to those who have been pointing out all your errors in logic and false claims is anything to go by... I see that you are still sidestepping, if not outright ignoring, them in the typical pattern established do far...

Do you know what it is you support and how old it is?
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

ROFLMAO

You can't be serious...

Leaving aside the lunacy of the site itself, are you seriously linking to an excerpt from Cleon Skousen's "The Naked Communist"...?!? You do know that even the majority of conservatives of his day considered him to be a lunatic...? That he was referred to as "a joke that no self-respecting scholar would think is worth a warm pitcher of spit."...? That he even managed to alienate the Mormons (of which he was one) to the point that it was necessary for the church to issue this directive: "The only purpose is to make certain that neither Church facilities nor Church meetings are used to advertise such events and to avoid any implication that the Church endorses what is said during such lectures."... That this is the conclusion of Skousen that was published in the LDS's Dialogue: "inventing fantastic ideas and making inferences that go far beyond the bounds of honest commentary,"

So now you've gone from citing sources which merely contradict and disagree with your claims for them to posting the ramblings of a lunatic (who was recognized as a lunatic even by his own 'political side')...

Apparently it is not the "leftists" who have no idea what they believe or where it comes from... It is also apparent that there is no need for anyone to actualy rebut your points, you do a fine job of that all on your own in simply posting them...
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 79
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/21/2013 3:43:09 PM
Thinkinginca:

Speaking of climate change, how do our resident Canadians feel about the Keystone XL pipeline? Is it a national preference to be able to move the tar sands to a port?

Most Canadians (including me) would rather that we refined our oil here and then sell it. I've got a realistic view on this though.... if the companies who employ millions over here won't produce if tied to the caveat that they also must refine what they produce then we shouldn't try and force it on them at the risk of losing all those jobs.

Shipping it would also be more difficult... never heard of oil tankers hauling pure gasoline. Never heard of a pipeline either for that matter. Up here I've only seen gasoline moved by rail or truck.

Has the production of oil been a benefit to the average Canadian?

Of course it has. Stopping oil production here would only mean we have to import it from somewhere else. People would still drive to work... products would still be shipped on our highways. Unemployment would be up in every province and our national and provincial governments would be recieving a lot less tax revenue. Greenhouse emissions on a global scale would probably go up.

Halting oil production would not magically hasten the invention of a useable electric automobile.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 80
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/21/2013 4:23:30 PM
Speaking of climate change, how do our resident Canadians feel about the Keystone XL pipeline?

I'd have to agree with halftime... The Keystone XL portion of the pipeline itself is more of an American issue than a Canadian issue, only a small portion of it will actualy run through Canada (unlike its already operating "parent" line)... The Canadian objections largely arise from the environmental impact of increased extraction (using current methods) in the oilsands itself rather than the mode by which it is transported...

Has the production of oil been a benefit to the average Canadian?

Generally speaking, yeah... at least since the price of oil climbed above $60/bbl ($40-$60/bbl is the break-even to reasonably profitable level for new oilsands production, including all the associated costs... that shit is expensive to get out of there)...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 82
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/21/2013 5:21:17 PM

I'm curious, what price are you paying generally at the gas pump?

Depends on where you live... Anywhere from around $4.60 to $5.60/US gallon...

The benefit doesn't realy accrue at the pump... It accrues nationally in terms of employment, balance of trade and such but that is entirely dependent on the price/bbl (back in the 80's they had to stop new development/cut back due to the low price of oil, it wasn't nearly as beneficial then)...
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 83
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/22/2013 4:03:51 PM
^^^^^^
" I doubt that there will ever be any interesting conversation on the shallow left/right debates, if you can even call it that."

Well OP, you set the tone, didn't you?
Is this a discussion or a pity-party?
Oh, gosh, some doo-doo head hijacked our thread, (sobs and tears).
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 84
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/22/2013 4:25:52 PM
I don't think anyone was crying about it (I certainly wasnt). I used it as an example of why there is no discussion of left wing issues in America. All political discussions are defined by the right there. You see disputes on the talking head shows between a conservative and a raving right wing lunatic and that's what constitutes "balance" in the media.

The whole "Tea Party" thing was a demonstration of that. You had it ginned up for months ahead of time, and every group of half a dozen senior citizens who stood on a corner somewhere before Matlock came on was given air time. But a real grass roots movement like Occupy Wall Street could mobilize many times more people, yet there was no way to discuss their concerns. There is no room in the dialogue for the left. It's a foreign language to the so-called liberal media.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/23/2013 2:51:59 PM
Halftime:

I used it as an example of why there is no discussion of left wing issues in America. All political discussions are defined by the right there. You see disputes on the talking head shows between a conservative and a raving right wing lunatic and that's what constitutes "balance" in the media.

What left-wing issues are not being discussed in America?... Aries asked a version of this question... I might have missed it... did anyone ever answer? In the last election the Dems got a lot of press coverage talking about mandated coverage for birth control.... nobody's talking about that up here in Canada. A constant theme touched upon in most of President Obama's speeches is that the rich are not paying their fair share. If one is to disagree with Obama on this point are they to be labelled as a "raving right wing lunatic"? Is that what Bill Maher has become now?

I get the sense that the left want to be able to say whatever they want without being questioned on it (this has been strongly reaffirmed right from the opening post in this thread... conservatives were explicitly not invited to participate).

When I questioned the Op on her labelling of Fred Phelps as a conservative, was I stifling her freedom of speech?.... seemed like a reasonable question to me.

....as far as how you characterize the slant in media, I'll just have to completely disagree.


ThinkinginCA:

The segment was a very Republican town in New Jersey interviewer went around asking the citizens who was just hit by Sandy about the budget. Of course, being conservatives, they all wanted to cut the deficit. So the interviewer asked, would you cut Medicare? "No". How about Social Security? "No". Military Spending? "No". FEMA aid for Sandy? "Of course not!!!"

To myself, this is a demonstration how the Republicans have become very liberal compared to where they would've been 50 yrs ago. They're willing to talk about being fiscally responsible.... and that's about it. The US (and the world in general) have moved so far to the left that centrist positions now seem like extremist lunacy.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 88
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/24/2013 5:49:54 AM

To myself, this is a demonstration how the Republicans have become very liberal compared to where they would've been 50 yrs ago. They're willing to talk about being fiscally responsible.... and that's about it.


And yet the republicans around the country have introduced 900 abortion restriction laws prior to the 2010 midterm elections...proposed and passed the Defense of Marriage act...have championed anti-LGBT legislation...have proposed repeal of PPACA 36 times...and the list goes on and on...for 4 years republicans in congress have avoided the budget until debt ceilings were reached or fiscal cliffs had to be overcome....
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 89
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/24/2013 9:36:28 AM
Left? Right? Have a happy Sunday morning!

http://www.politicususa.com/tea-party-boycotting-fox-news-liberal.html
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 90
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/24/2013 10:35:30 AM

I do believe in fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget...just not off the backs of children, the poor, and the elderly.

And if our national debt stalls the economy, or God forbid throws us into another recession, which three groups do you think will be hurt the worst?

Which of the above groups do you think we're hurting now by our irresponsible fiscal spending? Hint: it's the group that will be left with the burden of the debt after we're gone.

I'd love to keep giving away free money forever to the 49.1% of Americans that receive government assistance. I'd love to figure out how to run a government when 60% of Americans receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. (Source: Washington Post) I couldn't do it, which is why I joined the Tea Party.

The last time, Saint Bernake saved us from the abyss by lowering interest rates to zero. But guess what? They're still at zero. The Fed has no more tricks. The next time we ride the fiscal merry-go-round, there are no brakes left.


the House will end up with a democrat majority in 2014....and the senate will maintain their democrat majority.

And the American voter is just greedy enough to do it too. Never mind that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in four years.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 93
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/24/2013 11:17:34 AM

And the American voter is just greedy enough to do it too. Never mind that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in four years.

Ummm... Where were you Saturday morning...?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/24/2013 12:12:48 PM
Money is personal property.

The court seems to have relied on two grounds in the McClung v. Sumner that was mentioned. First, it presumed that because the ordinance applied to all new development, the city was acting even-handedly rather than singling out the McClungs. Therefore the city could make them pay a storm sewer fee without first having to prove their building would place an unusual load on its system.

Second, because the ordinance only imposed a fee--in money--and didn't directly restrict development of the McClungs' land, the court was unwilling to say it was an unconstitutional taking. Part of the Fifth Amendment prohibits government from taking private property for public use without just compensation.

It's hard to pick out more than a few solid, consistent principles from the Supreme Court's many decisions on the Taking Clause. They've usually involved something government did, without compensating the owner fairly, to physically seize his land, or to make it almost worthless, or to unreasonably extort some right to the land in exchange for letting the owner develop it. The cases have always involved, in some way, the owner's right to the land itself. They've viewed his right to money as incidental to this right--as compensation for the loss of it.

On a related note, the most important vehicle for federal redistribution of wealth is the income tax. And the more of a person's earnings government takes from him, the less say he has about how to spend it. There is also this question: What keeps politicians from buying the votes of a majority with the promise to use the law to give them money that other people earned? Americans who call themselves liberals want an even larger and more controlling federal government, and I'm sure most of them think that would improve our lives.

But a powerful central government is exactly what various features of the Constitution carefully designed the United States NOT to be, because the men who founded it--rightly--viewed the concentration of power as a threat to individual liberties. And as true liberals, in the Enlightenment sense, they prized those liberties above almost anything else. So do I, and like them, I see strongly centralized power as a dangerous and authoritarian thing, and anything but liberal. This has always been a federal government, and not a national one. And it hasn't been very long ago that most Americans shunned the idea of a massive, intrusive national government as foreign to our way of life.

Conservatives believe much of what the federal government already does is not authorized by anything in the Constitution. Unlike the states, the federal government has no inherent powers--none. It has only the limited powers the Constitution grants it. That means that whenever it acts outside that constitution, it is acting without authority--that is, arbitrarily. And to the extent a government acts arbitrarily, ignoring the rule of law, it is acting as a tyranny.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 95
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/24/2013 12:48:49 PM

There is also this question: What keeps politicians from buying the votes of a majority with the promise to use the law to give them money that other people earned?


I’m trying to see what taxes are used to buy votes…could it be social security taxes or medicare taxes you speak of…or unemployment taxes???for these are the taxes that effect most people’s lives…


Americans who call themselves liberals want an even larger and more controlling federal government, and I'm sure most of them think that would improve our lives.


And yet the size of government is virtually unchanged since the Bush years.


Conservatives believe much of what the federal government already does is not authorized by anything in the Constitution. Unlike the states, the federal government has no inherent powers--none. It has only the limited powers the Constitution grants it. That means that whenever it acts outside that constitution, it is acting without authority


237 years of acting outside of the constitution…and no one’s caught it yet…but, the conservative’s...who own 5 out of the 9 SC justice’s…and yet, cannot do anything about it…seems odd those conservative’s have been so powerless for so long.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 97
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/24/2013 1:15:41 PM
As James Madison argued in a letter to George Washington in April of 1787:

I would propose next that in addition to the present federal powers, the national Government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports & imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, &c &c.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s6.html

But more to the point…if there was no need for a strong central government then why did the founder’s not keep the Articles of Confederation? Why create a central government under the constitution which under the very first article of the constitution states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"


I too would like to know what new laws liberals have put in place has changed our policies


That dreaded PPACA!!!! that the foolish SC upheld....36 times those valient conservative repuglicants have tried to repeal it...only to be undone by those dastardly lubreals...one would think the repuglicants would have better uses for their timne then trying 36 times...like stopping gays from marrying...or killing abortion laws...or maybe...just seeking a working compromise on the budget????

Nawwww...never gonna happen.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 99
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/24/2013 1:40:12 PM

Oh, I forgot about that one because it was a Republican idea to start with, and not a very good solution to the problems we have. Better than before, but not good enough. I rather see what the Canadians have implemented.


Yep...leaving out the government option stiffled true competition...after all not one insurance carrier can compete with a medicare type plan and the low administration costs of such a government plan.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 100
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/24/2013 11:59:29 PM
^^^All conservative talk is hypothetical. That's why there is never real examples that are given in the conversation. I too would like to know what new laws liberals have put in place has changed our policies, but that would be too specific an answer, which could actually debated. We'll have none of that.


Yes. Thank you. They hypothectical is very much involved. It is a simple question. "And then what?"

You want universal healthcare.
And then what?
You write a law mandating universal healthcare.
and then what?
You pass a law mandating universal healthcare.
and then what?
You implement a law mandating universal healthcare.
and then what?
You get universal healthcare.
and then what?
You go to a dr.
And then what?
Your doctor treats you?
and then what?
Your doctor files paper work to pay for the care received.
and then what?

If you do this long enough with any real detail you find end results that may not have the outcomes that "You want universal healthcare" intended. You already know the problems. You deal with them every day. Polices and procedures are not human characteristics that you can just justify your way around. They are rules and requirements and restrictions that are administered by people and influenced by an amazing amount of factors that may or may not have any relation to the real needs of anyone at any given time.

I've had fun over the last several topics going ADD, as it was called, because I just really would love to see if those who adhere to the 'liberal ideal' have ever actually really truly asked, "and then what." It may be hypothetical and I may not be grammatically correct but it is a valid question and for the rest of society it will and should always be.

I have no option but to see government as nothing more and nothing less then polices and procedures. If you associate anything more to it then you are applying magical thinking and anthropomorphising a policy or procedure. If you have any understanding of religion then you should know what this means.

Yes, it is very much hypothetical, theories, hypothesis, and reflection. It's what we base our entire society and life on and it deserves as much attention to it's operation as we pay to any other sets of measurable data. The difficult part is that human nature isn't easily quantifiable so it is incredibly difficult to measure and predict as a simple financial equation that results in the most benefit per dollar. Trying to do this ends up with the rich winning.

ADD or not. I have yet to see a 'left' position that follows all the way through with, "and then what." At least not to a degree that is socially or politically acceptable to even discuss. It's too emotional.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 101
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/25/2013 11:22:28 AM

If you can honestly look at today's politicians on the right, like Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and say to yourself "Now those are the real conservatives", I think your exposure to fiscal conservatives (since you don't care about social issues) is very much lacking...

We have gone from HW Bush, Bob Dole, and Jack Kemp representing the conservative leadership to the above. Also witness McCain 2000 vs. McCain 2008 to the present. I can't put my finger on it, but something went wrong somewhere, and it's to the GOP's own detriment election-wise.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 102
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/25/2013 10:45:55 PM
I can't put my finger on it, but something went wrong somewhere, and it's to the GOP's own detriment election-wise.


It's really not that difficult to pinpoint. It's losing control of the discussion. The left hijacked everything that it means to be 'a good person' and claimed ownership of all things liberty while reducing standards and continually lowering the quality of life for as many people as possible and claiming it is for their own good.

A republican / conservative message hasn't been figured out that fits within the 10-15 second sound bite that can stand against the comedy punch lines that are effective at skipping the importance and complexity of almost every issue.

Cuz it's funny. yay left. Your hilarious comedians that must mean your awesome legislators.

Welcome to the result of liberal education.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

It may be expecting too much to expect most intellectuals to have common sense, when their whole life is based on their being uncommon -- that is, saying things that are different from what everyone else is saying. There is only so much genuine originality in anyone. After that, being uncommon means indulging in pointless eccentricities or clever attempts to mock or shock.

Virtually no idea is too ridiculous to be accepted, even by very intelligent and highly educated people, if it provides a way for them to feel special and important. Some confuse that feeling with idealism

Republicans won big, running as Republicans, in 2004. But once they took control of Congress, they started acting like Democrats and lost big. There is a lesson in that somewhere but whether Republicans will learn it is another story entirely.


 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 103
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 3/26/2013 6:48:18 AM
Yes, that must be it...
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >