Politians can really be Dumb

[freein05]

Zone bird I both articles were very good. I really liked the Rolling Stone one. This paragraph from it is so true.

"The truth is, nobody, be he rich or poor, wants his government services cut. Drive up and down route 128 outside Boston, you'll see a lot of affluent white people waving Romney signs, complaining about entitlement spending. But about four thousand percent of those same people working along the high-tech ring there are totally dependent on the Pentagon contracts that keep doors open at companies like Raytheon and General Dynamics."

[gimmethesimplelife]

Dude! Peggy is not Pol Pot.

+1

[Zoebird]

word, free.

I see the same thing all the time. Most of the people voting republican whom I know utilize several government entitlements on an on-going basis. I'm not against this. I just am not sure if they know what they are talking about when they are rambling on about cutting them.

[iris lily]

word, free.

I see the same thing all the time. Most of the people voting republican whom I know utilize several government entitlements on an on-going basis. I'm not against this. I just am not sure if they know what they are talking about when they are rambling on about cutting them.

Oh certainly, it's The Kansas Effect. The numbskulls in flyover country keep voting against their own good. Gosh if only they would listen to their betters. Just lie down and let he government them take over, they'd be so much better off. We all would.

[Zoebird]

Iris lily,

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I never said (or insinuated) such a thing. I spoke to my personal experience of talking to friends about this.

I don't want them to not be republican or even change their position on entitlements. Instead, I'd like to honestly talk about the ideas around this -- the ideas around why entitlements exist, whether or not they benefit the society as a whole on-going, and where we want the lowest bar of poverty in our society to be (I already wrote about this on another thread). Just honest discussion on the matter.

And, I want them to be clear on which entitlements they do value -- because they do obviously value those from which they personally benefit. And yet, most of them assert that they are an exception, not the rule, and as such they should get the benefits (they are deserving) while others should not. I find this confusing, and perhaps intellectually dishonest.

Likewise, I simply like to talk about ideas. To me, these ideas are interesting. In several other threads, many of the more conservative members of the boards have agreed with me on certain measures: it's not about whether or not we should have entitlements, but really where the bar of poverty is going to be in our society (where is poor enough?) and what that means for our society as a whole; lets stop talking about entitlements and start talking about how the policy and ideology of military interventionism is what is really blowing our budget (a neocon idea, part of the republican party now, and an idea that started to take root in the 1980s); and how if we let go of military interventionism and seek to spend on defense only that which is needed to maintain our standing military for security purposes and support our vets, then we will be able to more quickly balance the budget and do what we want for all of our citizens.

Several of the forum stalwart conservatives agreed with these ideas. They are not radical ideas. They are really starting points for discussion (because after you agree to an idea, you have to figure out the 'how' of achieving it -- and that's what's interesting to me).

The problem here is, as soon as I bring up an idea like this -- particularly to one of my republican friends (again, educated people who live all over the US), I am shut down immediately for being stupid, brainwashed by liberal professors, uneducated on the topic (even when I provide evidence and policy papers from republican and libertarian as well as democrat and other liberal sources), an "obvious lover of big government," accused of "using too many words isn't winning your argument" (that's a personal favorite. I posted three linked articles to conservative think tanks, go figure), and even accused of being pol pot (or similar), as well as -- as you have done -- accused of thinking that everyone else is dumb.

Reality is, I think everyone is smart, and I'd like to talk about ideas -- and be open and honest about what we are really talking about, thinking about, researching, feeling, etc.

[Zoebird]

I give The Cato Institute -- in case any of you have missed it.

[Bartleby]

Speaking of libertarianism, looking forward to seeing the results of ballot measures to end Marijuana prohibition in Washington, Colorado and Oregan (and DC).

[peggy]

"Traitors".... The penalty for treason, of course, is death.

It is to be expected that Peggy would go down that road. Because that's what leftists are particularly good at - killing those who disagree with them, after dehumanizing them, and naming them enemies of the State.



Never again, Peggy, never again.

What a load of BS! Leave it to bae to try to put that 'whip' in my hands! And that's a libertarian tactic, isn't it.
But, I think Ayn Rand would be right at home in Cambodia!

[peggy]

LOL Peggy, if you're happy with bland mediocrity and willing to "fight against these people" who believe in a more individualized opportunity, then by all means let a centralized government rule every aspect of your life. But wishing it upon everyone else seems a little mean spirited dontchathink? ;-)

Have you ever contemplated the irony of self-styled liberals usurping the concept of libertarianism, stealing it's name and then turning it's back on the ideology?


[/COLOR]I think religious liberty is an important aspect of a civilized society and that religious/political persecution is uncivilized and undemocratic. I know that a centralized government forcing a point of view or ideology is uncivilized and undemocratic. Perhaps you disagree?


[/COLOR]Everything outside the realm of interstate commerce, foreign treaties and national defense. Those are the only reasons a collection of sovereign states would gather together as a collective entity. Do you think England or France or Germany should give up their sovereignty in subservience to the European Union?


Wow, just wow.
[/COLOR]

You think the US is bland mediocrity? Really? So which country is your ideal? Which one?
I never said that I wanted a centralized government to rule my every move. Never said that, and that's actually a lie, isn't it Alan. That isn't the way the US is now. The government doesn't rule every aspect of my life, nor does it yours. You are fighting and railing against something that doesn't exist! This evil, all controlling government that the right keeps selling as needing 'drowning' DOES NOT EXIST! You're fighting ghosts.

You think it's undemocratic and uncivilized to have educational standards? You think Mississippi should be able to teach creationism in science class in the name of religious freedom? Or maybe Indiana can teach that a baby from rape is a gift from god, as the rep. from Indiana thinks. Hell, economic, science and history/geography classes could just turn on Fox news and learn from that!
so what you're saying is, religious dogma should dictate the school curriculum...in the name of civilized democracy of course.
Yeah, that's going to increase our standing in the world!

Oh Alan, you do realize that France and England and Germany are SEPERATE countries, don't you? They are not the various regions of one country. The United States is not 50 little countries, each with it's own regulations/laws/policies. This is one country. One, with 50 little regions/states. One country dude.
This is what I mean by libertarians not loving this country. They want to take this country and turn it into something we wouldn't recognize.
Do you know why we are the envy of the world? Because of what we have, right now, warts and all. Not because of some fantasy laid out in a work of fiction by a woman who thought every man for himself sounded good.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be better, and we are constantly working on that. But a regression back to the 1700's isn't it.
You should find yourself a nice little island of a few thousand folks, perhaps bae's island, and set up your Ayn Rand utopia, then get back with us on how that's working for ya.

[peggy]

Funny, that sounds exactly like what the fringe says about progressives

Do not edit MY words. Do not!