Talking Points You're Sick of Hearing

[KC]

Not going to lie, this thread was inspired by the revival of the Benghazi issue by the right, but there are plenty of others I'm sick of at this point.

On the Left

-The Top X Percent: This is possibly among the most useless talking points in American politics. Whether it's the top one percent, ten percent or twenty percent, you haven't told me much other than the fact that inequality exists. This is usually part of an attempt to paint all high income earners in a negative light, but the fact is that the people at the top of an income distribution are always changing, and statistics about income inequality don't give me much information about who these people actually are. Some of them, no doubt, may have gotten their wealth through dishonest means, but others are wealthy because they were successful at providing something that people want.

-The Republican War on Women: This framing of the debate over reproductive policy in the United States is obviously useful for Democratic politicians, but it only serves to show Americans' lack of ability to empathize with one another. Regardless of your position on reproductive policies in the United States, it seems that it should be fairly obvious that social conservatives are not anti-women, but rather acting on their own moral belief systems. It looks really, really stupid when women in the Republican Party are accused of waging a war on women.

On the Right

-Benghazi: This one in particular mystifies me. Do Republicans seriously think they're fooling anyone that this isn't about politics and preemptively knocking Clinton out of the race? The fact that people died at Benghazi and that Republicans self-righteously claim to be acting only out of sincere concern over these families' lost loved ones is sad. Have the investigation, but don't couch it in self-righteous language.

-Democrats are Communists- Most Communists would find this one in particular insulting. While there is an interesting intellectual conversation about the historical roots of social democratic tendencies in Marxism, there's clearly nothing valid about claims that the Democratic Party is full of Communists. In America, the Democratic Party is actually to right of most European social democratic movements, looking for ways to incrementally reform capitalism, not to replace it.

[Matty]

Update in case you missed it.


benghazi is about the lie and the cover up. Obama and company pretty much thumbed their noses at the Republicans. What are Democrats afraid of? Don't they have the truth on their side? Pelosi is near panic levels.

[Chris]

Inequality.

[Kalkin]

Update in case you missed it.


benghazi is about the lie and the cover up. Obama and company pretty much thumbed their noses at the Republicans. What are Democrats afraid of? Don't they have the truth on their side? Pelosi is near panic levels.
Don't forget that the communist party USA has an agenda that is nearly identical to that of the democrats, too.

[Common Sense]

Don't forget that the communist party USA has an agenda that is nearly identical to that of the democrats, too.

That's right. They both want to put you in a FEMA camp and replace the Statue of Liberty with a giant statue of Marx.

[Kalkin]

That's right. They both want to put you in a FEMA camp and replace the Statue of Liberty with a giant statue of Marx.
Nope. You might want to inform yourself better before posting.


Platform of the Communist Party USA

Communist Party Immediate Program for the Crisis

It is shameful and unacceptable that any child should live in poverty, and that anyone should go hungry, homeless, without medicine, or without a living wage in our nation of such great wealth.

Meet the Needs of Working, Unemployed and Farm Families
- Raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour.
-Unemployment insurance for all workers.
- Moratorium on farm foreclosures
- Labor law reform to remove barriers to workers who want to join a union.
- No privatization of Social Security. Increase benefits.
- Universal prescription drug coverage administered by Medicare. Universal health care system.
- Restore social safety net. Welfare reform that includes job training, supports and living wages.
- Full funding for equal, quality, bi-lingual public education. No vouchers.

Make Corporate Giants Pay
- Repeal tax cuts to the rich and corporations.
- Close corporate tax loopholes.
- Restitution to workers' pensions.
- Strong regulation of financial industry.
- Regulation and public ownership of utilities
- Prosecute corporate polluters. Public works program to clean our air, water and land
- Aid to cities and states. Federally funded infrastructure repair and social service programs

Foreign Policy for Peace and Justice
- No to war with Iraq - End military interventions
- Repeal Fast Track and NAFTA, stop Free Trade Area of the Americas(FTAA). No secrecy.
- Save Salt II Agreements, reject Star Wars and Nuclear Posture Review
-Abolish nuclear weapons
- End military interventions.
- Cut military budget and fund human needs.

Defend Democracy and Civil Rights
- End racial profiling.
- Repeal the death penalty.
- Enforce civil rights laws and affirmative action.
- Repeal USA Patriot Act.
- Legalization and protection of immigrant>rights.
- Public financing of elections. Overall election law reform including Instant Runoff Voting.
- Youth and student bill of rights. Guarantee youth's right to earn,learn and live.

[Common Sense]

Nope. You might want to inform yourself better before posting.

Can you tell me how many of those things have been implemented by Obama?

[Kalkin]

Can you tell me how many of those things have been implemented by Obama?
Read them yourself and figure it out. If you lack that capacity, me explaining it won't help. Hint: you might have to think outside the box and listen to what he proposes/endorses rather than what he's actually gotten passed.

[Common Sense]

Read them yourself and figure it out. If you lack that capacity, me explaining it won't help. Hint: you might have to think outside the box and listen to what he proposes/endorses rather than what he's actually gotten passed.


So that's a no?

[Newpublius]

Don't forget that the communist party USA has an agenda that is nearly identical to that of the democrats, too.

i see it as a textbook example of 'creeping socialism' -- they'll deny the socialist label in a way the social democrats don't deny as vehemently because of the 'bad brand' socialism has. Still, as economist Warren Nutter said, "Nothing so rare as a shrinking government."

The social market economy incorporates market elements because socialism simply doesn't work.

[texan]

I hear ya, but the lying on Benghazi is what has kept it alive. When you lie you have to keep lying. The problem is they will never admit they are lying. But politics is about driving up negatives so you have that...................

You are just not being honest if you don't think after debates and the dem convention saying al qaeda is dead thatthe entire talking points were arranged to protect the re-election. BTW my biggest problem with Benghazi isn't that it happened, its they sat on their ass and never dispatched the calvary. I get shit happens, but to not immediately send help is unacceptable. They don't know how long this would have gone on................all their answers were shake and bake coverup.


These dead americans not getting the calvary dispatched means they deserve whatever shit they catch.

[Newpublius]

Can you tell me how many of those things have been implemented by Obama?

Who says Bush isn't part of this trend? Because he invaded Iraq. The changes are always on the margin.

[Kalkin]

So that's a no?
That's a wake-up call to you that I won't be playing your fetchit games. Your dodge is obvious to all.

[1751_Texan]

So that's a no?

Copy and paste is taxing enough.

[darroll]

Tax breaks for the rich.

[Kalkin]

Copy and paste is taxing enough.
If I'm illustrating the platform of CPUSA, I'm going to post a copy of it, not write it myself. Try smarter next time.

[KC]

Update in case you missed it.


benghazi is about the lie and the cover up. Obama and company pretty much thumbed their noses at the Republicans. What are Democrats afraid of? Don't they have the truth on their side? Pelosi is near panic levels.

I'm well aware of how Republicans have framed it. It's 100% partisan.

[KC]

Nope. You might want to inform yourself better before posting.

Yes, the CPUSA's "immediate program for the crisis" is a left leaning program most Democrats would likely support. Does that make Democrats Communists? Does the "immediate program for the crisis" represent the full views of the CPUSA, or a moderate step towards full socialism?

The way I understand it, most Democrats would stop there. Communists, of course, would never be satisfied until the Bourgeoisie is eliminated. Democrats on the other hand, would be considered the Bourgeoisie by many Communists. I think it's useful to think of the CPUSA as a movement with parallels to the Mensheviks, but not the Bolsheviks, in that they are will to accept the gradual approach.

[momsapplepie]

I'm well aware of how Republicans have framed it. It's 100% partisan.

Just like Obunglecare.....so What difference does it make?

[Newpublius]

I'm well aware of how Republicans have framed it. It's 100% partisan.

Uh...yeah.....sure, the issue is larger than that simply because the Republicans can only be trusted: 1. As far as you can throw them and 2. To potentially police the transgressions of the Democrats.

Benghazi is the penultimate issue, KC, the real issue is the government's basic credibility.

Major cause of divorce is infidelity of course, but infidelity is almost always a function of deceit. It's that deceit which really fractures relationships and people can deceive their partners in many ways. Problem is that it's difficult to reestablish trust.

Low congressional approval polls shows that Congress has a basic credibility issue.

If I make the basic association:

politician:liar

would that strike a chord? Why?

it shouldn't but it does.

Benghazi? Who knows? CBO budget forecasts, who knows? US military activities? Who knows......

[1751_Texan]

If I'm illustrating the platform of CPUSA, I'm going to post a copy of it, not write it myself. Try smarter next time.

Illustrating does not means copy and paste...a synopsis is an illustration.

[Newpublius]

Yes, the CPUSA's "immediate program for the crisis" is a left leaning program most Democrats would likely support. Does that make Democrats Communists? Does the "immediate program for the crisis" represent the full views of the CPUSA, or a moderate step towards full socialism?

The way I understand it, most Democrats would stop there. Communists, of course, would never be satisfied until the Bourgeoisie is eliminated. Democrats on the other hand, would be considered the Bourgeoisie by many Communists. I think it's useful to think of the CPUSA as a movement with parallels to the MEnsheviks, but not the Bolsheviks, in that they are will to accept the gradual approach.

inch....inch....inch....it's always a little bit more....

[KC]

inch....inch....inch....it's always a little bit more....

Right, the CPUSA would adopt a gradual approach to bringing about complete public ownership of the means of production.

[Matty]

I'm well aware of how Republicans have framed it. It's 100% partisan.


Yes, we know, it's always the Republicans fault, are you tired of that meme too? Ha? evidently not.

[Kalkin]

Yes, the CPUSA's "immediate program for the crisis" is a left leaning program most Democrats would likely support. Does that make Democrats Communists?
It certainly illustrates an affinity and similarity.

[1751_Texan]

Smaller government fixes problems.

[1751_Texan]

Miss Black America Pageant is racist.

[Kalkin]

Illustrating does not means copy and paste...a synopsis is an illustration.
Keep dancing, your debate skills blow.

[1751_Texan]

My gun is the most important object in the world...in the history of the world.

[KC]

Yes, we know, it's always the Republicans fault, are you tired of that meme too? Ha? evidently not.

Actually, I am. Where did I claim that "it's always the Republicans' fault?" The Republican Party has framed Benghazi as a cover up. Investigations have been conducted by the House already, however, so it appears that the current repeated investigations have more to do with politics than truth-seeking.

[1751_Texan]

Keep dancing, your debate skills blow.

get over it. Nothing I've said to you can even be considered a debate.

[KC]

It certainly illustrates an affinity and similarity.

I think you're right about that, but the statement "Democrats are Communists" is positing more than a similarity. It's positing equivalence.

[Matty]

Actually, I am. Where did I claim that "it's always the Republicans' fault?" The Republican Party has framed Benghazi as a cover up. Investigations have been conducted by the House already, however, so it appears that the current repeated investigations have more to do with politics than truth-seeking.


so prove it wasn't a cover up> can you do it?

[KC]

so prove it wasn't a cover up> can you do it?

No, I can't. But you can't prove a negative, can you?

Prove that unicorns don't exist. I'll wait.

[Kalkin]

Smaller government fixes problems.
No, but larger government creates them.

[Peter1469]

Actually, I am. Where did I claim that "it's always the Republicans' fault?" The Republican Party has framed Benghazi as a cover up. Investigations have been conducted by the House already, however, so it appears that the current repeated investigations have more to do with politics than truth-seeking.

All of the documents have not been turned over. Many witnesses have not been interviewed.

But Benghazi is two stories:
1. Government incompetence (to include illegal gun running to another al Qaeda linked organization(s).
2. The cover up to protect the administration just before an election.

# 1 is typical but we still should investigate to give the families closure and perhaps help fix the system (ha)
#2 rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. This directly affected the political environment and corrupted an election.

[Kalkin]

Miss Black America Pageant is racist.
No more racist than a Miss White America Pageant would be.

[Matty]

No, I can't. But you can't prove a negative, can you?

Prove that unicorns don't exist. I'll wait.


so then perhaps you're just spewing democrat talking points in saying that's the way the Republicans framed it. Aka it's always the Republicans fault.

[Kalkin]

My gun is the most important object in the world...in the history of the world.
Try to remember that the end with the hole in it goes away from your face.

[KC]

All of the documents have not been turned over. Many witnesses have not been interviewed.

But Benghazi is two stories:
1. Government incompetence (to include illegal gun running to another al Qaeda linked organization(s).
2. The cover up to protect the administration just before an election.

# 1 is typical but we still should investigate to give the families closure and perhaps help fix the system (ha)
#2 rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. This directly affected the political environment and corrupted an election.

"Fixing the system" is good for idealistic pursuits, but I know you're smarter than to think that Republicans genuinely just want to fix the system. Their goals are political. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no merit to further investigation, as you point out, for the sake of the amilies, but I don't think the motivations are that pure.

[Kalkin]

get over it. Nothing I've said to you can even be considered a debate.
Obviously. Or even intellectual, for that matter.

[Kalkin]

I think you're right about that, but the statement "Democrats are Communists" is positing more than a similarity. It's positing equivalence.
Fair enough. Still, it's often a distinction without a difference when their ideology is implemented.

[KC]

so then perhaps you're just spewing democrat talking points in saying that's the way the Republicans framed it. Aka it's always the Republicans fault.

No, by "framing" I mena that that is the Republicans' story about further investigation of Benghazi. The Republicans certainly have framed it in the matter you described earlier, that much is certain. The only place where debate is possible is whether or not they are correct.

[Peter1469]

We are talking about politicians. Why bring up pure motives? :wink:


"Fixing the system" is good for idealistic pursuits, but I know you're smarter than to think that Republicans genuinely just want to fix the system. Their goals are political. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no merit to further investigation, as you point out, for the sake of the amilies, but I don't think the motivations are that pure.

[Matty]

KC has decided it's for political before the committee has even convened. aka it's the Republicans fault.

[nic34]

No, I can't. But you can't prove a negative, can you?

Prove that unicorns don't exist. I'll wait.

Your thread and your comments have been spot on KC... its not easy looking thru non-partisan eyes sometimes. :wink:

[KC]

Fair enough. Still, it's often a distinction without a difference when their ideology is implemented.

Where has a program like the CPUSA's that you posted earlier in this thread actually led to Communism? I do think the distinction between social democracy in Scandinavia and Communism in Eastern Europe in the 20th Century is significant. I believe that The Democratic party idealizes an America similar to Scandinavia and the rest of continental Europe today. Communism is even further to the left of that and, as a rule, has usually been significantly more authoritarian in practice.

[KC]

KC has decided it's for political before the committee has even convened. aka it's the Republicans fault.

OK, Matalese. Go ahead, believe everything they tell you. Just know that policymakers have political motives and, as a rule, aren't truth seekers but election seekers.

[Peter1469]

OK, Matalese. Go ahead, believe everything they tell you. Just no that policymakers have political motives and, as a rule, aren't truth seekers but election seekers.

But that is what is good about a select committee. If done correctly the lawyers will get involved with the questioning and you will get real questions (instead of speeches) and real follow up questions (rather than a missed opportunity). If I had the chance to cross examine Susan Rice she would either commit perjury or spill the beans. It would be the most uncomfortable time of her life.

[Kalkin]

Where has a program like the CPUSA's that you posted earlier in this thread actually led to Communism? I do think the distinction between social democracy in Scandinavia and Communism in Eastern Europe in the 20th Century is significant. I believe that The Democratic party idealizes an America similar to Scandinavia and the rest of continental Europe today. Communism is even further to the left of that and, as a rule, has usually been significantly more authoritarian in practice.
I'm not a minutia kind of guy. If your agenda endorses a "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs"-style wealth redistribution, you are my enemy. You can call yourself a communist, a socialist, a democrat, a progressive, or a liberal. It's all the same to me.

[Matty]

OK, Matalese. Go ahead, believe everything they tell you. Just no that policymakers have political motives and, as a rule, aren't truth seekers but election seekers.
IRS is that a Republican made up scandal? what do ya think?

[KC]

But that is what is good about a select committee. If done correctly the lawyers will get involved with the questioning and you will get real questions (instead of speeches) and real follow up questions (rather than a missed opportunity). If I had the chance to cross examine Susan Rice she would either commit perjury or spill the beans. It would be the most uncomfortable time of her life.

Too bad you will not be on the hearing. I would recommend you.

[Matty]

OK, Matalese. Go ahead, believe everything they tell you. Just know that policymakers have political motives and, as a rule, aren't truth seekers but election seekers.


Here's the deal fella, they have had numerous hearings on this matter. A. the democrats stonewalled and blocked, and bloviated, they did not bring forth the necessary documents, they even discussed classifying them. They have pounded their fists in faux outrage. Hey? did they do okay with you by the Fast and Furious investigations? or was that all A okay with you? including obama classifying the documents? Tell us.

[KC]

I'm not a minutia kind of guy. If your agenda endorses a "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs"-style wealth redistribution, you are my enemy. You can call yourself a communist, a socialist, a democrat, a progressive, or a liberal. It's all the same to me.

Your enemy? I think it's important in any important policy conversation to be intellectually honest about who the "enemy" is. Calling members of the opposite side of the political spectrum Communists doesn't win people over; it polarizes opinion further. That's why the distinction is important. This country is polarized enough as is.

[Kalkin]

Your enemy? I think it's important in any important policy conversation to be intellectually honest about who the "enemy" is. Calling members of the opposite side of the political spectrum Communists doesn't win people over; it polarizes opinion further. That's why the distinction is important. This country is polarized enough as is.
When I type "enemy', I mean "enemy".

[Peter1469]

Too bad you will not be on the hearing. I would recommend you.

I am too busy these days for that! My office is losing people. I get to pick up the slack.

[Matty]

Your enemy? I think it's important in any important policy conversation to be intellectually honest about who the "enemy" is. Calling members of the opposite side of the political spectrum Communists doesn't win people over; it polarizes opinion further. That's why the distinction is important. This country is polarized enough as is.


IRS? Fast and Furious? Hello?

[KC]

IRS? Fast and Furious? Hello?

I don't think that they're "made up scandals." Fast and Furious was clearly on the Obama Administration. I'm agnostic about the IRS Scandal.

[Matty]

I don't think that they're "made up scandals." Fast and Furious was clearly on the Obama Administration. I'm agnostic about the IRS Scandal.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/house-republicans-find-10-of-tea-party-donors-audi/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS




coincidence?

[Peter1469]

It is a good time to abolish the income tax and the IRS. Its corruption can't be contained.

[Matty]

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

[Matty]

It is a good time to abolish the income tax and the IRS. Its corruption can't be contained.


Yes, time for a flat fair tax, no exceptions, no exemptions, no excuses, eliminate the IRS, and the Dept of Education, we'll be well on our way to recovery.

[Newpublius]

Right, the CPUSA would adopt a gradual approach to bringing about complete public ownership of the means of production.

The political reality demands they must adopt a gradual approach -- "Repeal tax cuts to the rich and corporations. "

If they went ahead and nationalized the means of productions, the tax issue would be irrelevant.

[Newpublius]

I'm agnostic about the IRS Scandal.

Why exactly? Nixon did it. The government has done it before.....again this is an issue of credibility. The point about credibility and the two partied hydra we have is that the two heads of the hydra have an obvious bias to them. And intuitively we know they're biased, so why should a jury member in the marketplace of ideas, yourself, find the evidence truly compelling one way or the other? Its in the Republican's interest to say the Democrats 'did it' and its in the Democrat's interest to say, "Wasn't me!"

God only knows what the truth is, but the bottom line is that when the government possesses a taxing authority equivalent to the IRS, our notion of government imbued with checks and balanced EXPECTS abuse of power.

[Matty]

You know what astounds me? The numbers of democrats who aren't even curious enough to research the facts. They merely believe what is spoon fed them through the mainstream media."what scandal? Benghazi? What the hell is Benghazi?"

[KC]

Why exactly? Nixon did it. The government has done it before.....again this is an issue of credibility. The point about credibility and the two partied hydra we have is that the two heads of the hydra have an obvious bias to them. And intuitively we know they're biased, so why should a jury member in the marketplace of ideas, yourself, find the evidence truly compelling one way or the other? Its in the Republican's interest to say the Democrats 'did it' and its in the Democrat's interest to say, "Wasn't me!"

That's the problem. It's also the answer to why I'm agnostic. What source is truly unbiased enough to provide credible information? I consider investigating the matter myself a a waste of my time.



God only knows what the truth is, but the bottom line is that when the government possesses a taxing authority equivalent to the IRS, our notion of government imbued with checks and balanced EXPECTS abuse of power.

Exactly.

[hanger4]

Bush lied people died.

[Kalkin]

Bush lied people died.
People died, obama lied.

[1751_Texan]

Darrell Issa's old Benghazi horse was wandering aimlessly in the desert...from mirage to mirage.

Trey Gowdy's Benghazi horse is fresh, watered, and well groomed...Ready to take the GOP over the finish line.

[darroll]

I'm sure glad that I'm not in harms way anymore.

[Refugee]

From an outsider looking in, the U.S. does seem to become obsessed with minute detail and a subject such as Benghazi is enough to divide you into prescribed political spectrums. Politicians seem to provide positions for you to take, instead of your thoughts providing positions which politicians should accept and endorse. In that respect, you seem to be led by the nose in whichever direction those in power want you to go; you seem to lose self-identity and become a Democrat or a Republican out of a sense of belonging, rather than what you personally think.

You argue the points your ideological leaders have told you to follow because you define yourselves by them, rather than criticize a policy out of fear of losing your collective political identity. There’s no middle ground.

You elect progressives and socialists like Obama, Pelosi and Reid by a majority and then wonder why you’re getting socialism? It’s then explained to you that it’s not socialism, it’s trying to create a fair society and who doesn’t want a fair society? You must be a RWNJ not to want that.

The Republicans will tell you that low taxation produces wealth and who doesn’t want a wealthy society? You must be a LWNJ not to want that.

You are being led into socialism; large government, the amount of government interference, high taxation and a huge welfare system should make that obvious, as should the emphasis on those who have more should pay more. That’s classic socialism. The economic recovery, when it does come, will not come from the welfare queues.

Anyone advocating massive wealth distribution, either by taxation (socialism) or nationalization (communism) will eventually destroy both the economy and with it socialism. If you kill the goose that lays the golden egg, there’s nothing else to replace it once it’s gone. Borrowing money from others without producing led to the recession you have now; taking the wealth of others and giving it to those that don’t produce is exactly the same.

A question for you, if you now had wealth, would you come to America to start a new business under Obama’s socialism?

[nathanbforrest45]

Democrats are not communist. They are statist or collectivist. Nothing pleases them more than another law that limits what the average person has the freedom to do.

[KC]

Democrats are not communist. They are statist or collectivist. Nothing pleases them more than another law that limits what the average person has the freedom to do.

It's not that simple. In economics, Democrats generally tend to limit freedom. In personal matters they have mixed policy proposals. While gun control limits freedom, legalizing marijuana certainly doesn't.

[Kalkin]

It's not that simple. In economics, Democrats generally tend to limit freedom. In personal matters they have mixed policy proposals. While gun control limits freedom, legalizing marijuana certainly doesn't.
Obamacare is the biggest hit to freedom that has ever passed in this country, brought on exclusively by democrats.

[KC]

Obamacare is the biggest hit to freedom that has ever passed in this country, brought on exclusively by democrats.

Right, it limits economic freedom. That's consistent with what I said above.

[Kalkin]

Right, it limits economic freedom. That's consistent with what I said above.
It limits freedom of choice as well, something that dems seem totally for when it comes to killing the unborn.

[KC]

It limits freedom of choice as well, something that dems seem totally for when it comes to killing the unborn.

What you are able to purchase is an economic choice. Dems inhibit economic freedom, increase personal/reproductive freedom as in your example.

[webrockk]

Right, it limits economic freedom. That's consistent with what I said above.

In addition to what Kalkin said about Obamacare infringing on freedom of choice, what of educational vouchers? The left almost universally opposes parents having a choice where they spend their education bound tax dollars.

[Refugee]

Democrats are not communist. They are statist or collectivist. Nothing pleases them more than another law that limits what the average person has the freedom to do.

"Statist" and “collective” are simply different terms used for wealth distribution and who controls it. You can either distribute the wealth created by taxation, or take the means of producing it, but whichever way you choose, extremely high taxation or confiscation produces the same end result.

The term ‘Communism’ has been changed to progressivism. They’re simply changes in terminology, but they mean the same thing. If you had taxation at 100%, that would be the same as communism and as taxation rises, the closer you get to communism.

[Codename Section]

In addition to what Kalkin said about Obamacare infringing on freedom of choice, what of educational vouchers? The left almost universally opposes parents having a choice where they spend their education bound tax dollars.

That is because of unions and a general distaste of religion. If the world was devoid of religion they wouldn't care if kids had school choice.

[KC]

In addition to what Kalkin said about Obamacare infringing on freedom of choice, what of educational vouchers? The left almost universally opposes parents having a choice where they spend their education bound tax dollars.

I would still consider that a limitation of economic choices. In a free market, one would choose what school to send their children to. I'm not saying that Dems don't seek to inhibit freedoms; I'm saying that they generally inhibit economic freedom while allowing supporting social freedom, as in same-sex marriage.

[Codename Section]

I would still consider that a limitation of economic choices. In a free market, one would choose what school to send their children to. I'm not saying that Dems don't seek to inhibit freedoms; I'm saying that they generally inhibit economic freedom while allowing supporting social freedom, as in same-sex marriage.

How do you explain then the loss of civil liberties, specifically the right to privacy which has increased under Democrats? Also, Obama and Holder have been far more aggressive in the drug war than Bush.

[Refugee]

As I was saying, collectivization for an imagined common good, that’s not democrat, that’s communism and the State ownership of freedom of choice.

[KC]

How do you explain then the loss of civil liberties, specifically the right to privacy which has increased under Democrats? Also, Obama and Holder have been far more aggressive in the drug war than Bush.

I would argue that the Democratic voting public is different from policymakers. The Democratic and Republican parties in the White House both seek to limit all freedoms.

[Kalkin]

What you are able to purchase is an economic choice.
Choosing whether or not you want insurance at all is a personal choice.

Dems inhibit economic freedom, increase personal/reproductive freedom as in your example.
Dems are the champions of PC, which inhibits free speech. Nothing economic about that.

[webrockk]

To talking points I'm sick of. "Fairness", "equality" and "social justice" top the list....."witch hunt" and "politically motivated" follow close behind.

[Spectre]

How do you explain then the loss of civil liberties, specifically the right to privacy which has increased under Democrats? Also, Obama and Holder have been far more aggressive in the drug war than Bush.

No, no! Now, what you're saying CAN'T be true, because I've been assured by the anarcho-libertarian cohorts ever since I landed here that there is NO difference whatsoever between Republicrats and Demopublicans..

[Codename Section]

No, no! Now, what you're saying CAN'T be true, because I've been assured by the anarcho-libertarian cohorts ever since I landed here that there is NO difference whatsoever between Republicrats and Demopublicans..

It depends at which level we're talking. They're all big government and they're all progressive in their growth of government. That's the level that I care about. The rest is semantics.

[KC]

Choosing whether or not you want insurance at all is a personal choice.


It's also an economic choice. The distinction I'm trying to make is between personal/social freedoms like marriage vs. economic choice like whether or not to purchase a good or service and the scope of available choices. See the Nolan Chart.

http://wmbriggs.com/pics/nolan_chart.png

[Chris]

No, no! Now, what you're saying CAN'T be true, because I've been assured by the anarcho-libertarian cohorts ever since I landed here that there is NO difference whatsoever between Republicrats and Demopublicans..

Not at all what I've ever said, not that you ever listen. There are differences between conservatives and liberals, certainly, in what and how they value things, but, as code said, in terms of progressive big government promotion and provision of those values, there's not a lick of difference.

Also, btw, you're conflating parties and principles, not all Dems are libs and not all Reps are cons.

[Codename Section]

But not every social freedom is something that Democrats support. Telling you how and what to eat, for example. They are supportive of sexual choices. Beyond that I just don't see it.

[KC]

But not every social freedom is something that Democrats support. Telling you how and what to eat, for example. They are supportive of sexual choices. Beyond that I just don't see it.

Again, are you talking about the Democratic voting public or are you talking about politicians. Also, what you are able to purchase (ex: at a McDonald's) is an economic freedom.

[Codename Section]

Again, are you talking about the Democratic voting public or are you talking about politicians. Also, what you are able to purchase (ex: at a McDonald's) is an economic freedom.

Then by that token so is abortion because you pay for it.

Things like raw milk, vaccination choice, pot use are just not things Dems support--and I don't just mean the politicians. You may speak to male Democrats but the soccer mom demographic is not pro-pot and not choice other than sexual freedoms.

[KC]

Then by that token so is abortion because you pay for it.

Things like raw milk, vaccination choice, pot use are just not things Dems support--and I don't just mean the politicians. You may speak to male Democrats but the soccer mom demographic is not pro-pot and not choice other than sexual freedoms.

Abortion is typically considered a social issue, bu you're right, it's an economic decision.

There is bound to be a lot of variation in who votes Democratic. Just because the political class is relatively homogenous doesn't mean the voters are. Wouldn't you agree that the soccer-mom demographic is more conservative than the college demographic?

[Chris]

But not every social freedom is something that Democrats support. Telling you how and what to eat, for example. They are supportive of sexual choices. Beyond that I just don't see it.

That's what I mean by conservatives and liberals have different values. Liberals value sexual choices, conservatives value family. So on so forth. But that's the horizontal axis of the Nolan chart, on the vertical axis they both more or less support government enforcement of their values.

Libertarians may share some values with either, but do not see governments place as one of enforcer of any values. That should be left to society, to the people.

[Codename Section]

Abortion is typically considered a social issue, bu you're right, it's an economic decision.

There is bound to be a lot of variation in who votes Democratic. Just because the political class is relatively homogenous doesn't mean the voters are. Wouldn't you agree that the soccer-mom demographic is more conservative than the college demographic?

Yes, which is why I don't really think in terms of those labels anymore. For me it really is as simple as statist and antistatist. I have more in common with kilgram than I do Mister D, although if you asked a standard Democrat they would think its the opposite.

I may not agree with kilgram on the problem but I agree with him on the solution.

[Chris]

I agree with kilgram on being antistatist, but he wants to go further and level society, free trade, religion, even family.

[Spectre]

It's also an economic choice. The distinction I'm trying to make is between personal/social freedoms like marriage vs. economic choice like whether or not to purchase a good or service and the scope of available choices. See the Nolan Chart.

http://wmbriggs.com/pics/nolan_chart.png

I just took the Nolan test and it had me as a centrist bordering on libertarian!!!!!

This is a little upsetting! I think I might have whipsawed through some questions! This can't possibly be the case!

[kilgram]

I agree with kilgram on being antistatist, but he wants to go further and level society, free trade, religion, even family.
Because I am not antistatist alone. I am antiauthority.

level society? What does it mean?

[Chris]

I just took the Nolan test and it had me as a centrist bordering on libertarian!!!!!

This is a little upsetting! I think I might have whipsawed through some questions! This can't possibly be the case!



You're learning. Can't be helped.

[Chris]

Because I am not antistatist alone. I am antiauthority.

level society? What does it mean?

Level everything about society. Examples are free market, religion, even family.

Codename Section would stop at the state, as I understand him.

[kilgram]

Level everything about society. Examples are free market, religion, even family.

@Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) would stop at the state, as I understand him.
I don't understand you. Sorry. I asked you what does mean?

As I said, I am anarchist, aka antiauthority,

[Kalkin]

It's also an economic choice. The distinction I'm trying to make is between personal/social freedoms like marriage vs. economic choice like whether or not to purchase a good or service and the scope of available choices. See the Nolan Chart.

http://wmbriggs.com/pics/nolan_chart.png
And political correctness? That's not economic. It's an attack on free speech by democrats.

[texan]

I'm well aware of how Republicans have framed it. It's 100% partisan.


You are nonthing but a drone sheep. You don't send in help immediately you deserve what you get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KC]

You are nonthing but a drone sheep. You don't send in help immediately you deserve what you get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh am I?

[KC]

And political correctness? That's not economic. It's an attack on free speech by democrats.

Political correctness is usually socially enforced, not enforced by the state.

[Spectre]

You are nonthing but a drone sheep. You don't send in help immediately you deserve what you get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSk5cbaZso

[Spectre]

Political correctness is usually socially enforced, not enforced by the state.

That's changing, and that scares me.

[KC]

That's changing, and that scares me.

I have no problem with socially enforced political correctness. When it's done by the political class, however, is when we should get nervous.

[Refugee]

Political correctness is usually socially enforced, not enforced by the state.

Oh, it does become so KC. Don’t know about the U.S. so much, but you’ll get your ‘hate laws’ soon if you haven’t already got them.

[KC]

Oh, it does become so KC. Don’t know about the U.S. so much, but you’ll get your ‘hate laws’ soon if you haven’t already got them.


Oh I have no doubt that the state will eventually play a much, much stronger role in the regulation of speech. We're already trending in that direction. The question is who supports legislation promoting political correctness and my gut reaction would be to say that most Americans don't.

[Kalkin]

Political correctness is usually socially enforced, not enforced by the state.
What's a hate crime?

[Kalkin]

Oh I have no doubt that the state will eventually play a much, much stronger role in the regulation of speech. We're already trending in that direction. The question is who supports legislation promoting political correctness and my gut reaction would be to say that most Americans don't.
Most of us oppose obamacare, too, if you believe the aggregate polling data. If they can pull that shit, they can pull other shit.

[Bob]

Oh, it does become so KC. Don’t know about the U.S. so much, but you’ll get your ‘hate laws’ soon if you haven’t already got them.


The USA has hate laws. For instance, one beats up a white man and it is no hate crime.

This is where prejudice and bigotry come into play.

one beats up a homosexual male and with few exceptions, the prosecutor goes for a longer sentence based only on the victim is homosexual.

One beats up a negro and that is good enough to be a hate crime.

Seldom do negros get called on hate crimes since they are the presumed victims.

[Bob]

What's a hate crime?

A Democrat party invention.

[KC]

What's a hate crime?

Are you talking about politically correct speech or are you talking about hate crimes? The two certainly are not interchangeable. Don't move the goalposts. Remember, when you first brought up political correctnes, you were talking about speech:


And political correctness? That's not economic. It's an attack on free speech by democrats.

[Spectre]

Thank your lucky stars you don't live in Canada, where they have a quintessentially Fascist body in every province called--laughably--a 'Human Rights Tribunal'.

Mark Steyn had to mount an expensive defense of himself and his colleague Ezra Levant in one of them for 'hate speech' against Islam .

Steyn won. He had the resources to fight it. Many ordinary people who are hauled before it do not and inevitably lose. The Tribunals win well over 90-something percent of its cases, which are at North Korean/Cuban levels.

Here's how the senior counsel of the Canadian Human Rights Commission regards his mandate:

Philosophically, it was a cure worse than the disease: Ian Fine, the senior counsel of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, declared that his organization was committed to the abolition of hatred—not “hate crimes,” not even “hate speech,” but hate—a human emotion; you know, like the human emotions the control-freak enforcers attempt to abolish in [I]Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Stepford Wives. Any society of free peoples will include its share of hate: it could not be human without it. And, as bad as racists and homophobes and Islamophobes and whateverphobes may be, empowering Mr. Fine’s ever more coercive enforcement regime to micro-regulate us into glassy-eyed compliance is a thousand times worse.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/i-hate-to-say-i-told-you-so-actually-i-dont-i-love-it/

[Spectre]

I guarantee you, unless they are vigorously opposed, something like these Kanuckistanian Human Rights Tribunals will soon be coming to the good ole US of A.

[KC]

Most of us oppose obamacare, too, if you believe the aggregate polling data. If they can pull that shit, they can pull other shit.

I don't disagree.

[1751_Texan]

Benghazi is the penultimate issue, KC, the real issue is the government's basic credibility.

If I make the basic association:

politician:liar

would that strike a chord? Why?

it shouldn't but it does.

Benghazi? Who knows? CBO budget forecasts, who knows? US military activities? Who knows......

How does numerous Congressional committees make that issue any clearer? Which committee will ever be seen as "credible" if the conclusions don't support the claims?

We have had how many Congressional comttiees on Benghazi to date? How many were seen as definitive? We are in the process of displacing a year's worth of work by Issa'a committee.

Cummings, D-Md.,“there is no authority you can give a Select Committee that Chairman Issa doesn’t already have,”


Boehner stood at the podium and made conclusions on benghazi even before the new committee had called one witness. Is the new committee's responsibility to seek the truth or prove the claims?

What is the credibility the GOP seeks? For whom?

[Alyosha]

How does numerous Congressional committees make that issue any clearer? Which committee will ever be seen as "credible" if the conclusions don't support the claims?

We have had how many Congressional comttiees on Benghazi to date? How many were seen as definitive? We are in the process of displacing a year's worth of work by Issa'a committee.



Boehner stood at the podium and made conclusions on benghazi even before the new committee had called one witness. Is the new committee's responsibility to seek the truth or prove the claims?

What is the credibility the GOP seeks? For whom?

Neither party has credibility. Breads and circuses is all that it is. The illusion is set. Most of you, in spite of all their actions, believe that your party is less corrupt. You accept corruption but believe that yours is less so and cares more about the right things.

Benghazi and the IRS scandal are almost 95% BS and for show so that serious issues go unchecked and disregarded.

Tell me how the government will truly self-check. We believe that these investigations will mean something or turn up everything and this is absurd. Just absurd.

Do we allow criminals to turn over voluntarily, on their word, evidence and expect they've given all of it? No. People self-protect. So FOIA requests give you bits and pieces, but nothing ever significant unless by accident, and these investigations turn up absolute garbage. They just delay things.

[1751_Texan]

Neither party has credibility. Breads and circuses is all that it is. The illusion is set. Most of you, in spite of all their actions, believe that your party is less corrupt. You accept corruption but believe that yours is less so and cares more about the right things.

Benghazi and the IRS scandal are almost 95% BS and for show so that serious issues go unchecked and disregarded.

Tell me how the government will truly self-check. We believe that these investigations will mean something or turn up everything and this is absurd. Just absurd.

Do we allow criminals to turn over voluntarily, on their word, evidence and expect they've given all of it? No. People self-protect. So FOIA requests give you bits and pieces, but nothing ever significant unless by accident, and these investigations turn up absolute garbage. They just delay things.

Investigate 'till the cows come home...but like a real criminal investigation, go where the facts lead, don't make the investigation stick to a pre-concieved pre-ordained conclusion.

If we are unable to hold true and honest investigations...what does it matter the outcome? That is not true checks and balances.

I have no problem with this newest comittee...Do you have a problem that Issa's work have been pushed aside? How does that make anything more credible? How are our checks and balances stronger?

[Alyosha]

Investigate 'till the cows come home...but like a real criminal investagtion, go where the facts lead, don't make the investigation stick to a pre-concieved pre-ordained conclusion.

The facts will lead nowhere. Anyone, truly, with a brain in their head can see that this is a black op gone wrong. Ambassadors don't go to remote locales with mercenaries--those SEALS were not active duty military. They were hired contractors. When you ask yourself, who hires former SEAL mercenaries then you have your answer.

This is not rocket science.

We are making a show because that is the game. Republicans want a show, Democrats want it, too. It is a perfect conflict and absorbs time and deflects from the terrible economy and global instability.




If we are unable to hold true and honest investigations...what does it matter the outcome. That is not true checks and balances.


Agreed 100%.



I have no problem with this newest comittee...Do you have a problem that Issa's work have been pushed aside? How does that make anything more credible? How are our checks and balances stronger?

I am fine with work being pushed aside permanently. I prefer the days when people rode horses into Congress for a few sessions then went home. We had at the turn of the century less than 150 federal laws. We now have thousands.

Our government is merely the puppets of industry and both parties have contributed their souls to that game.

I wasn't always an voluntarist. I've been beaten down by watching a truly beautiful system with checks and balances like the US Constitution become a 1984 style government.

It's shameful.

[nathanbforrest45]

It's not that simple. In economics, Democrats generally tend to limit freedom. In personal matters they have mixed policy proposals. While gun control limits freedom, legalizing marijuana certainly doesn't.

The "freedoms" they support, legalized drugs, gay marriage, abortion, vulgarization of our language and our mores all tend to destabilize an orderly society. The things they are against, economic freedom to choose, tend to make people dependent on government handouts.

[Alyosha]

The "freedoms" they support, legalized drugs, gay marriage, abortion, vulgarization of our language and our mores all tend to destabilize an orderly society. The things they are against, economic freedom to choose, tend to make people dependent on government handouts.

They support those ideas because they have been told sob stories. Most liberals care about people. I believe this. They have been frightened of a return to the days of Salem witch trials so they vote towards those ideas and ideology unquestionably.

However, I don't feel that moral values are the provenance of the state anyway. Why would you wish to give up morals to a corrupt entity like the state anyway? Why should government define marriage for you? Why should government be the one to tell you that you love the child in your belly?

Government should pave some roads, deliver mail, and defend the shores. The rest we can do if we weren't so lazy.

[nathanbforrest45]

That is because of unions and a general distaste of religion. If the world was devoid of religion they wouldn't care if kids had school choice.

Disagree, the issue is not being taught religion per se, its not having complete and utter control over what is taught, They would gladly teach religion it the tenets of that religion were that " God created you for the sole purpose of doing what ever the government told you to do". It all about total control of the people by the "elite".

[nathanbforrest45]

Not at all what I've ever said, not that you ever listen. There are differences between conservatives and liberals, certainly, in what and how they value things, but, as code said, in terms of progressive big government promotion and provision of those values, there's not a lick of difference.

Also, btw, you're conflating parties and principles, not all Dems are libs and not all Reps are cons.

And like Diogenes we will find its almost impossible to determine who is what.

[nathanbforrest45]

Level everything about society. Examples are free market, religion, even family.

@Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) would stop at the state, as I understand him.

Become the Borg, all for the hive, the hive for all

[nathanbforrest45]

What's a hate crime?

A construct created by progressives to show how much they"care" about the protected class. White person shots a black person, that's a hate crime. Black gang wipes out a white family, that's a home invasion robbery. It places a higher value on some lives than others for no reason other than race, gender or sexual orientation