Why is it?

[WillowTree]

I wonder why it is that with Democrats firmly in control of the Legislature and the White House and set to retake the Judiciary that so many liberals are busy reminding every one every day that the Republicans are , well what ever comes to mind insert here.

If as you claim the party is done for and won't recover and can never get elected again, why do you spend so much time bitching about the party YOU claim is done for?

To what end besides beating a dead horse do you aspire IF as you post, there is no hope and chance?

Just curious.

Perhaps it has something to do with the republicans who are left fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quo in power and the people in the peasantry of paperwork and debt.

The democrats need to be balanced by fiscal conservatism, not special-interest cronyism. I look forward to seeing the new republican party that is evolving... it may be worth something - if not, it will die.

-Joe

Funniest damn quote of the day!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Obama actually tried to reach out to Repubs. They told him to stick it.

Obama made a good SHOW of reaching out. There wasn't any sincerity in it.

Bush, idiotically WAS inclusive, so much so that he entered into a co-dependency relationship with Congress -- a wink-and nod venture whereby they would give him what he wanted, and he would look the other way on their mountains of pork. This wasn't just the Dems in Congress either, this was everyone. It's one reason why Congress' approval rating was abysmal, even far lower than Dubya's was.

It's also the reason Dems in Congress kept renewing the tax cuts, the patriot act, and never gave him much noise on war spending. They liked the gravy train. And they knew they could demagogue these items and the deficit later, what a great set of political footballs. "Blame Booooosh" is the mantra which will carry The Obama through his first term, and get him re-elected for a second.

Bush chose to fight outside enemies, forgetting that he had major enemies on the inside. But he didn't care about that, what people think of him, or what they would say. You gotta admire the thick skin he has.

But he wasn't much of a chess player.

 

[Caligirl]

I wonder why it is that with Democrats firmly in control of the Legislature and the White House and set to retake the Judiciary that so many liberals are busy reminding every one every day that the Republicans are , well what ever comes to mind insert here.

If as you claim the party is done for and won't recover and can never get elected again, why do you spend so much time bitching about the party YOU claim is done for?

To what end besides beating a dead horse do you aspire IF as you post, there is no hope and chance?

Just curious.

Hi Guy,

I think it comes from the same psychological place as when conservatives told the nation that you have to support Bush if you are an American. I think the psychology is that when your guy is in power, you kinda feel like everyone should fall in line.

It's a little silly, if anything the democrats should be explaining at every opportunity why their programs are not socialist, since that seems to be what the conservatives are building on.

 

[WillowTree]

Well that's a total strawman if I've ever seen one and you've certainly never heard that from me.

Try another route.

Pointing out an obvious double standard is hardly a strawman, even if you personally did not participate.

The problem with your theory about what is relevant is that it is used to ignore CURRENT policies, wars and governance. Taking military personnel from an unpopular war and reassigning them to one the left finds more popular is simply called a shell game. Nothing more. Where is there a policy difference there?

When fiscal responsibility is what is required to get this Nation economically sound again, how is spending enough money to make anything Bush spent look like chump change bailing out failed powerbrokers an change in policy?

What has changed about governance? Our government hasn't changed bit that I can see.

But then, if you listen to some, just the fact that Obama is more articulate than Bush is "a change." Big whoop.

Kind of hard to tout "change" that doesn't exist.

It's not an obvious double standard. I admit I wasn't all that involved when Bush first took office but to think that suddenly exonerates Clinton from every mistake he made is ridiculous. I mean seriously, who the hell takes that position? So why should I defend from that position? Better yet, who is the OP really taking to here?

I'd guess the policy change would be within Iraq. They'll still have floaties on but we'll be sending them off into the deep end. But you make a fair point moving troops to Afghanistan doesn't change the broader war policy. The change I think will be more of a focus on diplomacy from Obama.

To me, there's a difference between bailing out Wall Street and the spending bill. At least the spending bill will produce something tangible. I don't think anyone knows what the hell happened to the money we gave the banks.

Time will tell how Obama ends up governing because right now I think he's kind of flailing about trying to find himself.[/QUOTE]



Oh but that wasn't one of his campaign promises was it???? IIRC he said he was ready to lead.. not I need a year to flail around trying to find myself."

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It's a little silly, if anything the democrats should be explaining at every opportunity why their programs are not socialist

Can you explain why they're not?

 

[Caligirl]

I wonder why it is that with Democrats firmly in control of the Legislature and the White House and set to retake the Judiciary that so many liberals are busy reminding every one every day that the Republicans are , well what ever comes to mind insert here.

If as you claim the party is done for and won't recover and can never get elected again, why do you spend so much time bitching about the party YOU claim is done for?

To what end besides beating a dead horse do you aspire IF as you post, there is no hope and chance?

Just curious.

Because their prior policies, wars, and governance are still relevant to today's debates even if they never see power again.

How can that be? We have listened for 8 long years to you and your buddies insist that anything Clinton did became irrelevant the minute he was no longer President.

But I seem to recall that people on the right have said the same thing once Bush left office. If I see an example aruond I'll link you to it.

People are all the same, and it's sad and ironic that that's underlying our disagreements.

 

[Caligirl]

Time will tell how Obama ends up governing because right now I think he's kind of flailing about trying to find himself.

I think they need to implement stuff FAST on the hopes that it will make a change they can run on in two and four years. That's why it looks like he is throwing everything at the issue of the day.

 

[Article 15]

Oh but that wasn't one of his campaign promises was it???? IIRC he said he was ready to lead.. not I need a year to flail around trying to find myself."

They all say they are ready to lead and they all experience growing pains.

And you might want check your calender ... I understand that it must feel like a year has gone by over there in Partisanville but it's only been 6 weeks.

 

[Article 15]

Time will tell how Obama ends up governing because right now I think he's kind of flailing about trying to find himself.

I think they need to implement stuff FAST on the hopes that it will make a change they can run on in two and four years. That's why it looks like he is throwing everything at the issue of the day.

With the way the stimulus is scheduled to pay out it looks like they certainly have that in mind.

 

[Caligirl]

It's a little silly, if anything the democrats should be explaining at every opportunity why their programs are not socialist

Can you explain why they're not?

I see the issue as a spectrum, we have socialized medicine already and no one wants to get rid of that (medicare/medicaid). The changes Obama wants (ex: some nationalization of banks etc) are temporary to get things back on track. This is not the USSR, that's simply a ridiculous position.

If some programs are more socialist and others are more capitalist, that does not mean the country is a purely socialist state or a capitalist state. That sort of description is a caricature. Pure socialism fails (we've seen that) and pure capitalism fails (we've seen that too.)

You wouldn't raise your kids with no freedoms, and you wouldn't raise your kids with no rules. This is not rocket science.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's a little silly, if anything the democrats should be explaining at every opportunity why their programs are not socialist

Can you explain why they're not?

pure capitalism fails (we've seen that too.)

Where have we seen this?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It's a little silly, if anything the democrats should be explaining at every opportunity why their programs are not socialist

Can you explain why they're not?

I see the issue as a spectrum, we have socialized medicine already and no one wants to get rid of that (medicare/medicaid). The changes Obama wants (ex: some nationalization of banks etc) are temporary to get things back on track. This is not the USSR, that's simply a ridiculous position.

If some programs are more socialist and others are more capitalist, that does not mean the country is a purely socialist state or a capitalist state. That sort of description is a caricature. Pure socialism fails (we've seen that) and pure capitalism fails (we've seen that too.)

You wouldn't raise your kids with no freedoms, and you wouldn't raise your kids with no rules. This is not rocket science.

A Communist is someone who reads Marx. A anti-communist is someone who understands Marx.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in full practice now, with this stimulus and this new budget. "All your profit are belong to us" (Pelosi) is next.

 

[Caligirl]

Time will tell how Obama ends up governing because right now I think he's kind of flailing about trying to find himself.

I think they need to implement stuff FAST on the hopes that it will make a change they can run on in two and four years. That's why it looks like he is throwing everything at the issue of the day.

With the way the stimulus is scheduled to pay out it looks like they certainly have that in mind.

It seems like a good approach - if it fails, then two years isn't that long to wait to get new ideas into congress. Doing nothing (which was essentially the Bush policy) while the economy fails obviously was not a winning strategy. Obama strikes me as ready to take on anything at the moment. I'm sure he'll fizzle but it's nice to have that energy in the white house right now, after years of nothing but orwellian secrecy and nothing substanitive on the issues that americans care about. .

 

[Caligirl]

Can you explain why they're not?

I see the issue as a spectrum, we have socialized medicine already and no one wants to get rid of that (medicare/medicaid). The changes Obama wants (ex: some nationalization of banks etc) are temporary to get things back on track. This is not the USSR, that's simply a ridiculous position.

If some programs are more socialist and others are more capitalist, that does not mean the country is a purely socialist state or a capitalist state. That sort of description is a caricature. Pure socialism fails (we've seen that) and pure capitalism fails (we've seen that too.)

You wouldn't raise your kids with no freedoms, and you wouldn't raise your kids with no rules. This is not rocket science.

A Communist is someone who reads Marx. A anti-communist is someone who understands Marx.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in full practice now, with this stimulus and this new budget. "All your profit are belong to us" (Pelosi) is next.

So you don't see it as a spectrum.

 

[Caligirl]

Can you explain why they're not?

pure capitalism fails (we've seen that too.)

Where have we seen this?

Deregulation has played a major part in lending practices over the past ~15 years which has contributed significantly to the collapse of the economy.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I see the issue as a spectrum, we have socialized medicine already and no one wants to get rid of that (medicare/medicaid). The changes Obama wants (ex: some nationalization of banks etc) are temporary to get things back on track. This is not the USSR, that's simply a ridiculous position.

If some programs are more socialist and others are more capitalist, that does not mean the country is a purely socialist state or a capitalist state. That sort of description is a caricature. Pure socialism fails (we've seen that) and pure capitalism fails (we've seen that too.)

You wouldn't raise your kids with no freedoms, and you wouldn't raise your kids with no rules. This is not rocket science.

A Communist is someone who reads Marx. A anti-communist is someone who understands Marx.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in full practice now, with this stimulus and this new budget. "All your profit are belong to us" (Pelosi) is next.

So you don't see it as a spectrum.

I see it for what it is. Like everything else, everything has gray areas. For some, everything is all gray. For others, everything is only black and white.

It's the size of the gray area which people have in mind, which separates us all.

 

[Caligirl]

A Communist is someone who reads Marx. A anti-communist is someone who understands Marx.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in full practice now, with this stimulus and this new budget. "All your profit are belong to us" (Pelosi) is next.

So you don't see it as a spectrum.

I see it for what it is. Like everything else, everything has gray areas. For some, everything is all gray. For others, everything is only black and white.

It's the size of the gray area which people have in mind, which separates us all.

I have *tons* of grey matter. Tons.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

pure capitalism fails (we've seen that too.)

Where have we seen this?

Deregulation has played a major part in lending practices over the past ~15 years which has contributed significantly to the collapse of the economy.

Even if this were true, you think "deregulation" over the past 15 years is pure capitalism?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So you don't see it as a spectrum.

I see it for what it is. Like everything else, everything has gray areas. For some, everything is all gray. For others, everything is only black and white.

It's the size of the gray area which people have in mind, which separates us all.

I have *tons* of grey matter. Tons.

Me too.

Gray matter and gray areas however, are two different things.

As you well know.

 

[Caligirl]

Where have we seen this?

Deregulation has played a major part in lending practices over the past ~15 years which has contributed significantly to the collapse of the economy.

Even if this were true,

It seems to be generally agreed on by economists etc!

you think "deregulation" over the past 15 years is pure capitalism?

I don't know enough about economics to give a tutorial on it, but deregulation certainly falls into the 'capitalist' column.

More to the point, my initial point was that some ideas tend capitalistic, others tend socialistic, and you need both for a healthy economy/social struccture.

For republicans to characterize Obama as a socialist is ridiculous.