The Dems Give Up On RepublicansFollow

You're in a league of your own.

Well look, it's really not about focus. It may be, about geographical bias. I live in Georgia. I can't honestly think of a single conservative I know who is not republican because of his religion.

California? Damned if I know.

The entire nation? I haven't a clue, but my bias sure as hell does. I can tell it to shut up by trying hard, but man, when something like that gets constantly reinforced, but by media, but by personal experience, it gets harder.

***



Jophiel is married, you dirty, adulterous fornicator.

Edited, Aug 20th 2009 5:33pm by Pensive

That might be too complicated for him CBD, you used some big words there.

You know thief it's ok to admit that you didn't read the article and so didn't know that it basically was saying exactly the opposite of what you thought it was saying. There are valid critisisms about the Canadian system you know, admitting you made a mistake doesn't undermine your whole position. Who am I kidding, you don't have a position.

Edited, Aug 20th 2009 4:38pm by Xsarus

Their blessing to pay for it. Are you honestly under the impression that the Canadian government was telling him that he wasn't allowed to enter the US and see a doctor here? Really?

As exciting as it sounds to listen to theoretical examples of Canadians traveling hundreds or thousands of miles for US health care, perhaps you could give us concrete examples, numbers, cites, etc?

And Americans regularly visit Canada to get the health care and pharmacuticals they need because it's unaffordable under the US system. Hell, governments within the US attempt to purchase pharmacuticals from Canada to save dramatically on costs.

So what's your point? You were trying to score points with an article that didn't say anything like what you obviously thought it said. Next time, try reading beyond the headline.

Orly? I'm in Athens. Home sweet red and black home.

Out of interest, how did you become interested in philosophy?

I didn't connect Obama or Democrats to the **** party Joph. I connected people willing to give up their freedom to their government on a promise of some greater social "good" (dare I say "change"?) to the German people of the 1930s who did the same thing and enabled the ***** to take power. That's not the same thing...


I don't need to show that the Democrats are ***** to make my point. It does not matter if they are or aren't. If the public hands the kind of control over to the government which the left wants them to, eventually someone like the ****'s will take that control and do something with it we wont like. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not for another 50 years. But eventually, it might happen.

I believe it's foolhardy to grant power to the government because you trust them to do what you want them to do today. That power doesn't disappear when the current folks in office leave. Our founding fathers worked really hard to construct a system designed to make it as hard as possible for authoritarian rule to occur. I think maybe we shouldn't toss that out without serious discussion...

Lahurah here on Alla goes to UGA Vet :D

Hey, so was not needing a supermajority to pass any legislation through the Senate! Just to bring this back around to the OP

Whatever makes you happy.

Actually, no. You'll notice how I didn't elaborate, which should have been a sign that I wasn't arguing or discussing everything. I was just quoting your stupidity and laughing at you. Let me do so now.

You regularly refer to anyone who votes for the Democratic party as on the far left, or liberal. So basically, your entire sentence read as, to anyone here who follows your posts, "I didn't say Billy was bad, I said Billy's father's son was bad! They're such different statements. Duh"



Because the vast majority of people get into car accidents, and the vast majority of people fall off their bikes at some point. It's not a matter of if those two things happen, it's a matter of when they do.

P.S. I don't know about CA, but around here bikes are considered vehicles and are supposed to be ridden in the street.

You're pointing to a leftist movement on the part of the German government before the rise of Nazism and saying "AHA! That's why!" That's stupid and illogical. There was a hell of a lot going on in Germany and Europe that lead to the rise of the **** party. They probably could have come to power without things like Bismark creating gov't healthcare back in 1880. This is basic high school global history knowledge.

You, once again, willfully ignore facts or the whole situation in a pitiful attempt to make a point.



Yep. "Allowing government healthcare options could lead to the rise of party similar to the *****!" isn't a good idea. See the difference between the two? No? That's because you're an idiot.



He could have been. I'm not going to blindly worship one of the founding fathers simply because of his status. That's stupid.

Just curious, what were you hoping my response to that statement would be? "OH MY GOD HOW COULD I SUGGEST SUCH A THING! No, no gbaji. You are absolutely right. Jefferson could do no wrong, and now that you've shared one of his viewpoints, I realize that I have been mistaken all along. Thank you for reminding me of our founding fathers. America the beautiful!!!!!"?

Edited, Aug 20th 2009 9:40pm by CBD

You were inferring that what I said was idiotic. But, as you say, you did not elaborate. If you just want to say I'm an idiot out of the blue, that's fine. A waste of internet bandwidth, but that's your choice. If you quote a section of a post of mine and say I'm an idiot, you're making a claim about that section of a post, but not supporting it with anything substantial. And I find that weak...



I refer to the Democrat party when I'm speaking about an elected member (or recognized leader) of the Democrat party. I refer to people as liberals or Left, if I'm speaking about individuals and their own ideological position(s). While I don't claim to be perfect, I'm pretty darn consistent with this.




No. I responded to someone saying that it will be interesting to see what happens if the Dems and/or Obama don't have to worry about the GOP blocking them. I said that this was similar to what the Germans must have thought in the 30s when they were able to get that ineffective and obstructionist Parliament out of the way (technically, when they were able to eliminate the primary opposition party and hand a solid majority over to the *****).

I was making a point about how foolish it is to pursue the removal of political obstacles for your leaders based on a belief that they'll do "good things". Does that mean that Obama or the Dems are going to start putting people in Death Camps? Almost certainly not. But that does not change the fact that it's a stupid thing to pursue. Our system works best when both parties are in relative balance politically. It forces them both to compromise and makes them work together on solutions which the broadest swath of citizens agree with.

When one party gets too much power it will start to think it doesn't have to compromise anymore, and that it can just do whatever it wants. I believe that this is happening right now with the Dems. They got cocky and assumed their majorities would carry them through. It backfired, big time.

Which is a good thing.



History is filled with examples of governments abusing the power they hold over their citizens. It's healthy and smart to assume that this can and will happen, and to avoid giving the government sufficient power to do so to the greatest degree possible.




You're right. That is. It's also not what I did. I pointed to specific policies and agendas of the **** party and said that they matched with socialist policies and agendas. Thus, they are a "socialist" party. Whether that's just how they sold themselves to the public, or what they really were is irrelevant. They rose to power on the back of a predominantly liberal platform (as we measure it today).

Um... It's also a stupid counter argument to say that the ****'s weren't really socialists, but just used the promises of socialism to get support. Can you figure out why? I'll give you a hint: Anyone can do that, can't they?



Sure. And we can play shoulda/coulda/woulda all day long. The reality is that the **** party came to power as a result of a very specific set of political positions and actions. And those positions were predominantly socialist in nature. That they also contained strong nationalist and racist aspects does not change this. To some degree they were walking a similar course to Russia, which was the idea of "socialism in one country". This allowed for nationalism, while appealing to the needs of the poor and working classes to gain support.


The point, which I have repeated over and over, is that in modern US terms, what distinguishes our political left from our political right is the issue of big government versus small government. That is the core ideological difference. Everything else is about individual applications of that difference. Any political agenda which seeks to increase the size and scope of the government is therefore more closely related to the US political left than to the US political right. Regardless of what the details of their programs and plans are, they share the intent to use government to fix their problems.


And that was the comparison I was making. A Liberal today ultimately wishes for the Dems not to be blocked in anyway by the GOP for exactly the same reasons a German back in the 1930s would have wanted the communist party out of the way in parliament. They saw them as an obstruction to the wonderful things their party would be able to do if only they had the unfettered power to do it. That's how those are identical. And both are equally dangerous. The Germans just happened to draw craps. The question is do we do this and just keep hoping we don't?

I think that's insane. Eventually, you'll lose.



I haven't ignored any facts. How about instead of insisting that I have, you actually present some facts and show how they disprove my statements? It's easy to simply insist that the facts don't fit the other guys position. It's quite another to actually show this to be true...

I wonder how many keyboards gbaji goes through in a year?

In terms of the argument we weren't even having?



Wrong, you refer to anyone as a liberal if they don't agree with you on one topic.



Do you know why no one is stopping them? Because, like a pack of infants, the party you triumph is flat out refusing to work with them. If they actually gave a ****, they'd be doing something about it. They aren't other than refusing the idea from the get-go.







No no no no no! Wrong! Incorrect! Error! BEEP BEEP FALSE STATEMENT DETECTED!



And then they said "Hey let's purify our race!" That's what makes the **** party despicable. That's why we hate them today. Not for their leftist policies, you daft twit.



This statement serves no purpose at all. Anyone can do anything they want, whether or not they pull it off in the end is was matters. It's cute to see you try to ignore reality in an attempt to make a point, though.



And those positions are not the reason the **** party is hated. It's a false argumetn.



My hypocrite alarm just went off. Regardless:



Sorry that I don't have high school textbooks to quote instead. I figured stuff like that was common knowledge, so I didn't exactly demand to hold on to the stuff.