PDA

View Full Version : David Brooks on the upcoming election


Chris
06-14-2011, 06:32 AM
To clarify - he's a staunch Republican.

Pundit Under Protest
By DAVID BROOKS

Iíll be writing a lot about the presidential election over the next 16 months, but at the outset I would just like to remark that Iím opining on this whole campaign under protest. Iím registering a protest because for someone of my Hamiltonian/National Greatness perspective, the two parties contesting this election are unusually pathetic. Their programs are unusually unimaginative. Their policies are unusually incommensurate to the problem at hand.

This election is about how to avert national decline. All other issues flow from that anxiety.

The election is happening during a downturn in the economic cycle, but the core issue is the accumulation of deeper structural problems that this recession has exposed ó unsustainable levels of debt, an inability to generate middle-class incomes, a dysfunctional political system, the steady growth of special-interest sinecures and the gradual loss of national vitality.

The number of business start-ups per capita has been falling steadily for the past three decades. Workersí share of national income has been declining since 1983. Male wages have been stagnant for about 40 years. The American working class ó those without a college degree ó is being decimated, economically and socially. In 1960, for example, 83 percent of those in the working class were married. Now only 48 percent are.

Voters are certainly aware of the scope of the challenges before them. Their pessimism and anxiety does not just reflect the ebb and flow of the business cycle, but is deeper and more pervasive. Trust in institutions is at historic lows. Large majorities think the country is on the wrong track, and have for years. Large pluralities believe their children will have fewer opportunities than they do.

Voters are in the market for new movements and new combinations, yet the two parties have grown more rigid.

The Republican growth agenda ó tax cuts and nothing else ó is stupefyingly boring, fiscally irresponsible and politically impossible. Gigantic tax cuts ó if they were affordable ó might boost overall growth, but they would do nothing to address the structural problems that are causing a working-class crisis.

Republican politicians donít design policies to meet specific needs, or even to help their own working-class voters. They use policies as signaling devices ó as ways to reassure the base that they are 100 percent orthodox and rigidly loyal. Republicans have taken a pragmatic policy proposal from 1980 and sanctified it as their core purity test for 2012.

As for the Democrats, they offer practically nothing. They acknowledge huge problems like wage stagnation and then offer... light rail! Solar panels! It was telling that the Democrats offered no budget this year, even though they are supposedly running the country. Thatís because they too are trapped in a bygone era.

Mentally, they are living in the era of affluence, but, actually, they are living in the era of austerity. They still have these grand spending ideas, but there is no longer any money to pay for them and there wonít be for decades. Democrats dream New Deal dreams, propose nothing and try to win elections by making sure nobody ever touches Medicare.

Covering this upcoming election is like covering a competition between two Soviet refrigerator companies, cold-war relics offering products that never change.

If there were a Hamiltonian Party, it would be offering a multifaceted reinvigoration agenda. It would grab growth ideas from all spots on the political spectrum and blend them together. Its program would be based on the essential political logic: If you want to get anything passed, you have to offer an intertwined package that smashes the Big Government vs. Small Government orthodoxies and gives everybody something they want.

This reinvigoration package would have four baskets. There would be an entitlement reform package designed to redistribute money from health care and the elderly toward innovation and the young. Unless we get health care inflation under control by replacing the perverse fee-for-service incentive structure, there will be no money for anything else.

There would be a targeted working-class basket: early childhood education, technical education, community colleges, an infrastructure bank, asset distribution to help people start businesses, a new wave industrial policy if need be ó anything that might give the working class a leg up.

There would be a political corruption basket. The Tea Parties are right about the unholy alliance between business and government that is polluting the country. Itís time to drain the swamp by simplifying the tax code and streamlining the regulations businesses use to squash their smaller competitors.

There would also be a pro-business basket: lower corporate rates, a sane visa policy for skilled immigrants, a sane patent and permitting system, more money for research.



Last bit on the NYT (sorry someone emailed me this).

Smiling Assassin27
06-14-2011, 08:29 AM
As Lewis Black likes to say:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eGlVhss6Gr4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Requiem
06-14-2011, 08:33 AM
Hamiltonian. Yay.

bowtown
06-14-2011, 08:34 AM
In b4 the repugs storm in to disown David Brooks yet again.

Smiling Assassin27
06-14-2011, 08:37 AM
In b4 the repugs storm in to disown David Brooks yet again.


Heck, you can go on Daily Kos and find a 'David Brooks Is An Idiot' blog.

Mr.Meanie
06-14-2011, 08:51 AM
I wish this guy was running.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 09:04 AM
David Brooks is kind of a notorious dreaming twat.

Smiling Assassin27
06-14-2011, 09:17 AM
David Brooks is kind of a notorious dreaming twat.


+100

Chris
06-14-2011, 09:21 AM
David Brooks is kind of a notorious dreaming twat.

What about his criticisms here seem unrealistic? Does any of this sound inaccurate? Both parties are complete loons for different reasons.

Requiem
06-14-2011, 09:26 AM
It isn't necessarily his criticms, but his bull****ted, half-assed proposal on what should be done and how it tied into politics two hundred years ago.

tsiguy96
06-14-2011, 09:27 AM
What about his criticisms here seem unrealistic? Does any of this sound inaccurate? Both parties are complete loons for different reasons.

incredible that people cant or wont ever accept that their chosen party is not the end all be all of politics. a guy who writes a seemingly neutral article saying how pathetic both parties have become is being bashed for being a twat, with literally no other explanation as to WHY.

i think some people just hate others that dont pick a side and stick defiantly to that side. he may be republican, but he understands how the system currently works, and because his article isnt "democrats are all total POS and republicans rock", he is a twat.

Kaylore
06-14-2011, 09:31 AM
Republican politicians donít design policies to meet specific needs, or even to help their own working-class voters. They use policies as signaling devices ó as ways to reassure the base that they are 100 percent orthodox and rigidly loyal. Republicans have taken a pragmatic policy proposal from 1980 and sanctified it as their core purity test for 2012.

As for the Democrats, they offer practically nothing. They acknowledge huge problems like wage stagnation and then offer... light rail! Solar panels! It was telling that the Democrats offered no budget this year, even though they are supposedly running the country. Thatís because they too are trapped in a bygone era.

These are really the same thing, imo.

Both parties stump for one thing and then legislate another. For Dem's its "Special interests are bad, keep abortion legal, minimum wage, gay rights, Rich people and bussinesses are inherently evil, universal healthcare" and for Republicans its "Special interests are bad, Sanctity of marriage, all taxes are bad, abortion should be illegal, government and unions are inherently evil, money for national defense." The problem is none of those things are what needs to be addressed, or at least not the way they are being argued over. They're basically straw man arguments. We see these adds saying "this candidate wants to make abortion illegal" and we never discuss the major problems of the nation. How much coverage is given to birth certificates, medals in Vietnam and whether the President did cocaine in college? None of that matters at all.

On their face, both seem to be really extreme, especially based on what they say in their respective primaries. Then they get to Washington and are pretty much the same.

The Republicans aren't offering any new ideas and the Democrats aren't leading. It's easy to get jaded but I still have some faith in mankind. We'll see.

Binkythefrog
06-14-2011, 09:38 AM
incredible that people cant or wont ever accept that their chosen party is not the end all be all of politics. a guy who writes a seemingly neutral article saying how pathetic both parties have become is being bashed for being a twat, with literally no other explanation as to WHY.

i think some people just hate others that dont pick a side and stick defiantly to that side. he may be republican, but he understands how the system currently works, and because his article isnt "democrats are all total POS and republicans rock", he is a twat.

Totally agree. Many often miscast those on the other side as truly partisan, when in reality we all have nuanced views and aren't all jerk-offs (except for a few), although policitans never seem to push nuanced views.

One thing I liked in this article is that he advocates a holistic approach to problems. Too often the government pushes policies that are too narrow.

One big example is homelessness. Homelessness is not only about housing, but also about education and health care. However, the approach usually is to just provide the housing, not taking into account that many homeless people have mental health problems.

I'm seeing more holistic approaches to problems and more government agency colloboration recently, and hopefully that can continue.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 09:41 AM
What about his criticisms here seem unrealistic? Does any of this sound inaccurate? Both parties are complete loons for different reasons.

Nothing per se, he just, as a writer, is in love with the sound of his own voice. Sorry, ive read too many columns of his in the Times over the years. I can't be unbiased at this point.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 09:42 AM
incredible that people cant or wont ever accept that their chosen party is not the end all be all of politics. a guy who writes a seemingly neutral article saying how pathetic both parties have become is being bashed for being a twat, with literally no other explanation as to WHY.

i think some people just hate others that dont pick a side and stick defiantly to that side. he may be republican, but he understands how the system currently works, and because his article isnt "democrats are all total POS and republicans rock", he is a twat.

Ummm, well, way to jump to a conclusion. I dont think he's a twat for this article, i think he's a twat for the years and years of BS he's spewed in the Times.

You know who else is a Twat? Tom Friedman. And he's hardly republican.

Requiem
06-14-2011, 09:50 AM
Tom Friedman is a saint!!! ;)

lostknight
06-14-2011, 10:17 AM
Calling David Brooks a "staunch republican" is like calling Linda Lovelace a feminist. Only in the slightest sense of the word is there any relations. That being said, his points are fairly on track here. The Democrat's redistribution of wealth goals, and extreme propensity for spending can no longer be tollerated. neither can the Republican's just as extreme propensity for spending, and redistribution of wealth.

His point about regulations, always a favorite on capital hill, being used to squash businesses is 100% correct.

If every this country needed a second coming of Teddy Roosevelt, it's now.

BroncoInferno
06-14-2011, 10:39 AM
Calling David Brooks a "staunch republican" is like calling Linda Lovelace a feminist. Only in the slightest sense of the word is there any relations. That being said, his points are fairly on track here. The Democrat's redistribution of wealth goals, and extreme propensity for spending can no longer be tollerated. neither can the Republican's just as extreme propensity for spending, and redistribution of wealth.

His point about regulations, always a favorite on capital hill, being used to squash businesses is 100% correct.

If every this country needed a second coming of Teddy Roosevelt, it's now.

You do realize that TR was one of the most progressive President's in our history, and went on a crusade against big business (i.e. installing regulations...they didn't calling him the "Trust Buster" for nothing) during his two terms, don't you?

DarkHorse30
06-14-2011, 11:11 AM
David Brooks is kind of a notorious dreaming twat.

he's a media slut for the left, dressing like a republican. Get ready for a lot of this in the coming elections. Reminds me of when the blue dog democrats ran on republican platforms to get elected in 2006.

Bottom line to me is to get 57 defeated by ANY candidate and then shipped back to his thug buddies in chi-town. Community organize this, B HO.

TonyR
06-14-2011, 11:48 AM
he's a media slut for the left, dressing like a republican.

I disagree. I see him as a conservative leaning moderate, but today's GOP base has moved so far to the right that what used to be considered conservative is now considered liberal. Ronald Reagan would never make it in today's GOP.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 12:13 PM
I disagree. I see him as a conservative leaning moderate, but today's GOP base has moved so far to the right that what used to be considered conservative is now considered liberal. Ronald Reagan would never make it in today's GOP.

This is pretty accurate

Chris
06-14-2011, 12:20 PM
I haven't seen anyone disagree with the points he's making.

Kaylore
06-14-2011, 12:30 PM
I hear this all the time. "The GOP is so far right" now. How exactly is it more right than it was? What policies are the GOP no longer for that they supported twenty years ago?

In my opinion, the Democrats have a base that hates its own country and are basically socialists. Republicans have stayed the same and the left has gone left. And I can back it up, too.

Mogulseeker
06-14-2011, 12:31 PM
He's a staunch Republican, that, I believe, endorsed Obama last election.


I hear this all the time. "The GOP is so far right" now. How exactly is it more right than it was? What policies are the GOP no longer for that they supported twenty years ago?

In my opinion, the Democrats have a base that hates its own country and are basically socialists. Republicans have stayed the same and the left has gone left. And I can back it up, too.

I have to interject and play devils advocate here, but the GOP has absolutely moved more to the right. Eisenhower tried to cut defense spending and avoided conflict at all cost, and in the days of Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy, the Dems were the hawks and GOP were the doves. Nixon changed that, but he also started Planned Parenthood and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Reagans have done a lot for advancing stem cell research. Obama's tax structure is almost identical to Bob Dole's proposal in 1992, and Obamacare pretty much mirrors the plan Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts.

The second part of the post is completely wrong. The Democrats love our country as much as we do. Sorry, if you think the Democrats are socialists, you know absolutely nothing about economic theory. By most global standards, from an economic point, both parties in the US lean to the right... the GOP right-wing, the DNC center-right, with some ideologues scattered about.

TonyR
06-14-2011, 12:36 PM
I haven't seen anyone disagree with the points he's making.

There's no room for sane, rational, intellectual commentary in today's GOP. Brooks is the antithesis of Fox News and right wing radio. Not shrill, hyperbolic and divisive enough.

tsiguy96
06-14-2011, 12:37 PM
I hear this all the time. "The GOP is so far right" now. How exactly is it more right than it was? What policies are the GOP no longer for that they supported twenty years ago?

In my opinion, the Democrats have a base that hates its own country and are basically socialists. Republicans have stayed the same and the left has gone left. And I can back it up, too.

a large percentage of the right has moved left in terms of spending. GWB spent a stupid amount of money but didnt tax to compensate for it, atleast the left will increase taxing to support their ridiculous spending.

TonyR
06-14-2011, 12:47 PM
I hear this all the time. "The GOP is so far right" now. How exactly is it more right than it was? What policies are the GOP no longer for that they supported twenty years ago?

Here's just one of many, many reads on the topic.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/10/even-reagan-wasn-t-a-reagan-republican.html

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 12:54 PM
I hear this all the time. "The GOP is so far right" now. How exactly is it more right than it was? What policies are the GOP no longer for that they supported twenty years ago?

In my opinion, the Democrats have a base that hates its own country and are basically socialists. Republicans have stayed the same and the left has gone left. And I can back it up, too.

Off the top of my head:

the Dole healthcare proposal in 94 looked something like the Affordable care act. Republicans once supported a cap and trade program. Theres actually quite a few things they are now way right of.

To the second part of your paragraph, I'm not sure where you are getting this from. Democratic politicians have continuously started the conversation in the center. if they would have started it from the left, healthcare would have started with single payer and bargained down from there. Obviously, im sure, some democrats have moved further left, but as a base? Certainly not.

TonyR
06-14-2011, 01:02 PM
Not only that but moderate GOP politicians have been steadily drummed out of office. GOP politicians have had to pretend to be more right wing so stay in office. Romney, for example, is being forced to do it now. McCain did it when he ran for president against Obama. If you really have to ask the question you're not paying attention.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 01:04 PM
Not to mention, the Ryan plan, fifteen years ago, would never have been taken seriously by the right.

BroncoInferno
06-14-2011, 01:05 PM
Not to mention, the Ryan plan, fifteen years ago, would never have been taken seriously by the right.

Yep. See Gingrich's comments (which he's trying to run from now).

Mogulseeker
06-14-2011, 01:06 PM
Yep. See Gingrich's comments (which he's trying to run from now).

Because the plan was impractical fifteen years ago.

TonyR
06-14-2011, 01:07 PM
Yep. See Gingrich's comments (which he's trying to run from now).

Yup, another great example. Gingrich was correct but he's had to backpedal because what he said doesn't toe the line with today's GOP mindset.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 01:20 PM
Because the plan was impractical fifteen years ago.

Its impractical today

Mogulseeker
06-14-2011, 01:21 PM
Its impractical today

It may have damaging effects on certain elements of society. BUT saving the economy and health care is worth that.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DJIC7kEq6kw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 01:24 PM
There's no room for sane, rational, intellectual commentary in today's Democratic Party. Brooks is the antithesis of Fox News and right wing radio. Not shrill, hyperbolic and divisive enough.

fixed it. Fact is, the far left is far more caustic in pushing their social agenda, they just do it through big media and Hollywood. The far left fundamentally hates America because they know most Americans are far more conservative than they are. The far left is elitist and forces their agenda down the public's throats whether the public likes it or not (California is the perfect example--the people voted against gay marriage and the liberal judicial branch overturned the people's vote).

At least the conservatives recognize mainstream America's opinions. They may not always do what's best for the middle class but they certainly don't disdain mainstream America the way the libby left progressives do.

bowtown
06-14-2011, 01:27 PM
fixed it. Fact is, the far left is far more caustic in pushing their social agenda, they just do it through big media and Hollywood. The far left fundamentally hates America because they know most Americans are far more conservative than they are. The far left is elitist and forces their agenda down the public's throats whether the public likes it or not (California is the perfect example--the people voted against gay marriage and the liberal judicial branch overturned the people's vote).

At least the conservatives recognize mainstream America's opinions. They may not always do what's best for the middle class but they certainly don't disdain mainstream America the way the libby left progressives do.

You live in such bizarre fantasy land.

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 01:28 PM
Not only that but moderate GOP politicians have been steadily drummed out of office. GOP politicians have had to pretend to be more right wing so stay in office. Romney, for example, is being forced to do it now. McCain did it when he ran for president against Obama. If you really have to ask the question you're not paying attention.

This is a simple reaction to the extreme liberal agenda of Pelosi and Obama and nothing more. I love the way the left claims they are all moderate and then behind close doors admit that YOU are socialists masquarading as democrats.

Again, the "far" right is at least honest about what they want. The far left are all sniveling liars parading as moderates.

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 01:29 PM
You live in such bizarre fantasy land.

You live in Boston, 'nuff said.

Seriously, your perspective is warped.

BroncoInferno
06-14-2011, 01:31 PM
This is a simple reaction to the extreme liberal agenda of Pelosi and Obama and nothing more. I love the way the left claims they are all moderate and then behind close doors admit that YOU are socialists masquarading as democrats.

Again, the "far" right is at least honest about what they want. The far left are all sniveling liars parading as moderates.

You are truly an idiot if you believe any of that.

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 01:33 PM
You are truly an idiot if you believe any of that.

Oh yes, the elitist reframe. Insult me because I'm not buying what you are selling.

BroncoInferno
06-14-2011, 01:35 PM
Oh yes, the elitist reframe. Insult me because I'm not buying what you are selling.

You called liberals "liars." You threw out the first insult. So, you're an idiot and a hyprocrite.

Kaylore
06-14-2011, 01:37 PM
On spending, Bush grew government bigger and faster than Clinton did.

On social issues, 20 years ago you had a hard time finding a politician that supported gay lifestyles, let alone marriage.

Censorship has become increasingly lax over the years as well.

And when it comes to unilateral military intervention, both parties have had their hands in that. Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan. That's hardly a hallmark of conservatism and certainly not one the rank-and-file base agrees with.

So no, the right wing is more left wing than it was. This "the right is too extreme" is complete garbage.

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 01:38 PM
You called liberals "liars." You threw out the first insult. So, you're an idiot and a hyprocrite.

They are. Just ask Son of Lelo lang who admits he's a socialist. If the far libby left would just come out and say "hey, I'm a socialist" then I wouldn't call them "liars" but they don't.

BroncoInferno
06-14-2011, 01:42 PM
They are. Just ask Son of Lelo lang who admits he's a socialist. If the far libby left would just come out and say "hey, I'm a socialist" then I wouldn't call them "liars" but they don't.

SonofLeloLang only speaks for himself. Nixon was more of socialist than todays Democrats. "Socialism" is just a buzz word that lemmings like yourself started parroting at the direction of Fox News.

Rohirrim
06-14-2011, 01:51 PM
Simple ****, really.

Supply side is a total, abject failure. Time to get over it.

Reinstitute the progressive tax code to its pre-Reagan dimensions.

Capital gains are income and should be taxed much higher than income actually earned by work.

The estate tax is a good thing, like most things, within reason.

Reinstate regulations on banks, credit and investment companies. They are out of control pirates.

Restructure the tax code so that it punishes those who hide assets overseas and profit from overseas investment. Reward those who invest in America and build new businesses that create products in America. Protectionism within moderate limits is not an evil. The first job of government is to serve the general welfare of the people, as it says in the preamble. Selling our souls to the ideology of "free markets" while watching our country go down the toilet is not a good thing. Some globalism is okay. Don't make a religion out of it.

All elections should be publicly funded.

Write an amendment to the Constitution: Corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of persons.

Put everybody on Medicare. Health care costs began to spiral out of control when Kaiser talked Nixon into making the health insurance industry "for profit." Massive error. That is where all the out of control spending started. Get rid of it. If every working person in America who pays for insurance now paid half for Medicare, everybody would be covered. Of course there would have to be restrictions on physicians over-treating the elderly in order to rake in bucks, and fraud would have to be vigorously pursued, but nothing is perfect. Some things are just better than others. If there is any profit to made in health care, let the health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals) make it. Not insurance men.

Reduce the military budget by half and bring our troops home. Close the majority of bases around the world. We don't need them and we shouldn't be paying to defend other countries. Let them pay for themselves.

Start using all the money created by the programs above to invest in education, infrastructure and scientific research across a broad spectrum of disciplines.

Simple ****. Really.

tsiguy96
06-14-2011, 01:56 PM
Simple ****, really.

Supply side is a total, abject failure. Time to get over it.

Reinstitute the progressive tax code to its pre-Reagan dimensions.

Capital gains are income and should be taxed much higher than income actually earned by work.

The estate tax is a good thing, like most things, within reason.

Reinstate regulations on banks, credit and investment companies. They are out of control pirates.

Restructure the tax code so that it punishes those who hide assets overseas and profit from overseas investment. Reward those who invest in America and build new businesses that create products in America. Protectionism within moderate limits is not an evil. The first job of government is to serve the general welfare of the people, as it says in the preamble. Selling our souls to the ideology of "free markets" while watching our country go down the toilet is not a good thing. Some globalism is okay. Don't make a religion out of it.

All elections should be publicly funded.

Write an amendment to the Constitution: Corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of persons.

Put everybody on Medicare. Health care costs began to spiral out of control when Kaiser talked Nixon into making the health insurance industry "for profit." Massive error. That is where all the out of control spending started. Get rid of it. If every working person in America who pays for insurance now paid half for Medicare, everybody would be covered. Of course there would have to be restrictions on physicians over-treating the elderly in order to rake in bucks, and fraud would have to be vigorously pursued, but nothing is perfect. Some things are just better than others.

Reduce the military budget by half and bring our troops home. Close the majority of bases around the world. We don't need them and we shouldn't be paying to defend other countries. Let them pay for themselves.

Start using all the money created by the programs above to invest in education, infrastructure and scientific research across a broad spectrum of disciplines.

Simple ****. Really.

its simply crazy why people have a hard time with this. most of this you think would be common sense, but people overcomplicate **** and talk themselves into the party line ideas that they cant see common sense when its staring right at them.

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 01:57 PM
SonofLeloLang only speaks for himself. Nixon was more of socialist than todays Democrats.

:rofl:

again, you can pretend to be "moderate" but when your agenda is to make "the people" dependent on "the state" then I'm gonna call a spade a spade.

My thing is less governement, not more. My thing is people's rights. My thing is state's rights. My thing is less spending, not more.

Is there a place for government--hell yes. But government is there to serve the people, not vice versa. I truly think the far liberal left has totally lost all perspective on this.

what the far libby left has always wanted is utopia (see the foundation of communism) but what the far libby left has never understood (academia) is that utopia is impossible. The best that we can do is have a government much like what the original founding fathers set up. If more government is needed I say let each individual state make that choice. DC is a bloated beaurocratic nightmare that no longer serves the people, it only serves itself and big money.

bowtown
06-14-2011, 02:03 PM
Simple ****, really.

Supply side is a total, abject failure. Time to get over it.

Reinstitute the progressive tax code to its pre-Reagan dimensions.

Capital gains are income and should be taxed much higher than income actually earned by work.

The estate tax is a good thing, like most things, within reason.

Reinstate regulations on banks, credit and investment companies. They are out of control pirates.

Restructure the tax code so that it punishes those who hide assets overseas and profit from overseas investment. Reward those who invest in America and build new businesses that create products in America. Protectionism within moderate limits is not an evil. The first job of government is to serve the general welfare of the people, as it says in the preamble. Selling our souls to the ideology of "free markets" while watching our country go down the toilet is not a good thing. Some globalism is okay. Don't make a religion out of it.

All elections should be publicly funded.

Write an amendment to the Constitution: Corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of persons.

Put everybody on Medicare. Health care costs began to spiral out of control when Kaiser talked Nixon into making the health insurance industry "for profit." Massive error. That is where all the out of control spending started. Get rid of it. If every working person in America who pays for insurance now paid half for Medicare, everybody would be covered. Of course there would have to be restrictions on physicians over-treating the elderly in order to rake in bucks, and fraud would have to be vigorously pursued, but nothing is perfect. Some things are just better than others. If there is any profit to made in health care, let the health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals) make it. Not insurance men.

Reduce the military budget by half and bring our troops home. Close the majority of bases around the world. We don't need them and we shouldn't be paying to defend other countries. Let them pay for themselves.

Start using all the money created by the programs above to invest in education, infrastructure and scientific research across a broad spectrum of disciplines.

Simple ****. Really.

Somebody hates America.

Jetmeck
06-14-2011, 02:06 PM
Simple ****, really.

Supply side is a total, abject failure. Time to get over it.

Reinstitute the progressive tax code to its pre-Reagan dimensions.

Capital gains are income and should be taxed much higher than income actually earned by work.

The estate tax is a good thing, like most things, within reason.

Reinstate regulations on banks, credit and investment companies. They are out of control pirates.

Restructure the tax code so that it punishes those who hide assets overseas and profit from overseas investment. Reward those who invest in America and build new businesses that create products in America. Protectionism within moderate limits is not an evil. The first job of government is to serve the general welfare of the people, as it says in the preamble. Selling our souls to the ideology of "free markets" while watching our country go down the toilet is not a good thing. Some globalism is okay. Don't make a religion out of it.

All elections should be publicly funded.

Write an amendment to the Constitution: Corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of persons.

Put everybody on Medicare. Health care costs began to spiral out of control when Kaiser talked Nixon into making the health insurance industry "for profit." Massive error. That is where all the out of control spending started. Get rid of it. If every working person in America who pays for insurance now paid half for Medicare, everybody would be covered. Of course there would have to be restrictions on physicians over-treating the elderly in order to rake in bucks, and fraud would have to be vigorously pursued, but nothing is perfect. Some things are just better than others. If there is any profit to made in health care, let the health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals) make it. Not insurance men.

Reduce the military budget by half and bring our troops home. Close the majority of bases around the world. We don't need them and we shouldn't be paying to defend other countries. Let them pay for themselves.

Start using all the money created by the programs above to invest in education, infrastructure and scientific research across a broad spectrum of disciplines.

Simple ****. Really.


This is the truth. Get over republican or democrat and left or freakin right and vote your wallet and nothing else.
Good post. Common sense.................

Jay3
06-14-2011, 02:12 PM
To clarify - he's a staunch Republican.

He's not "staunch." He's a very moderate to left Republican, with a long-running ambivalence about the Republican party.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 02:55 PM
They are. Just ask Son of Lelo lang who admits he's a socialist. If the far libby left would just come out and say "hey, I'm a socialist" then I wouldn't call them "liars" but they don't.

Most far left people aren't socialists. And im a democratic socialist.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 03:01 PM
On spending, Bush grew government bigger and faster than Clinton did.

On social issues, 20 years ago you had a hard time finding a politician that supported gay lifestyles, let alone marriage.

Censorship has become increasingly lax over the years as well.

And when it comes to unilateral military intervention, both parties have had their hands in that. Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan. That's hardly a hallmark of conservatism and certainly not one the rank-and-file base agrees with.

So no, the right wing is more left wing than it was. This "the right is too extreme" is complete garbage.

On social issues, I agree....but society, in general, libralizes as we get more tolerant of one another...this is societal evolution. But economically speaking? The right has moved right.

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 03:57 PM
On social issues, I agree....but society, in general, libralizes as we get more tolerant of one another...this is societal evolution. But economically speaking? The right has moved right

Again, I'm gonna have to butt heads with you here Son. You claim that society becomes more tolerant yet this is proving to be false right here, right now in America.

Do you know why the founding fathers refused to tax the church? They did this NOT so that the church has no voice, quite the opposite is true. The founding fathers did this so that government can not have any hold or power over the church. In other words, once the government taxes you, it now has power over you.

The liberal left will wax poetic about the gay right's social agenda, but will be deadly silent about the church's rights in the public sphere. It's one big hypocritical movement.

Chris
06-14-2011, 04:04 PM
No one is barred from worship. The church is free to do its thang and get its jiggy on. If the church wants to impose itself on the larger society then that's where the issues arise.

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 04:12 PM
No one is barred from worship. The church is free to do its thang and get its jiggy on. If the church wants to impose itself on the larger society then that's where the issues arise.

I'm just citing an example of how "tolerance" in todays modern liberal movement only works for certain groups of society and not for other groups. Fact is, liberals are afraid of the church because it goes against the pluralism of the progressive movement where things like "right" and "wrong" are open for interpretation.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 04:23 PM
Again, I'm gonna have to butt heads with you here Son. You claim that society becomes more tolerant yet this is proving to be false right here, right now in America.

Do you know why the founding fathers refused to tax the church? They did this NOT so that the church has no voice, quite the opposite is true. The founding fathers did this so that government can not have any hold or power over the church. In other words, once the government taxes you, it now has power over you.

The liberal left will wax poetic about the gay right's social agenda, but will be deadly silent about the church's rights in the public sphere. It's one big hypocritical movement.

Im not sure what this has to do with my statement about society loosening its social positions over time in regardles to tolerance. What are these church's rights being stifled exactly? The right to be intolerant towards gay people?

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 04:28 PM
Im not sure what this has to do with my statement about society loosening its social positions over time in regardles to tolerance. What are these church's rights being stifled exactly? The right to be intolerant towards gay people?

I rest my case.

bowtown
06-14-2011, 04:34 PM
Again, I'm gonna have to butt heads with you here Son. You claim that society becomes more tolerant yet this is proving to be false right here, right now in America.

Do you know why the founding fathers refused to tax the church? They did this NOT so that the church has no voice, quite the opposite is true. The founding fathers did this so that government can not have any hold or power over the church. In other words, once the government taxes you, it now has power over you.

The liberal left will wax poetic about the gay right's social agenda, but will be deadly silent about the church's rights in the public sphere. It's one big hypocritical movement.

The very fact that the church enters into a tax free status by its very nature is an agreement with the government. Along with that agreement must come some regulation. The irs must be able to audit to be sure a church is not taking advantage of its status or members. Surely you don't think anyone who establishes a religion or opens a church should have carte blanche to do whatever they want in the name of religious freedom. It is not required by the constitution anywhere for churches to be untaxed. It is a contract between the church and state to give the state less power, but it doesnt give the church the power to act however they please.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 04:35 PM
I rest my case.

No, please elaborate. I assume you are suggesting because the bible says homosexuality is a sin, gay people don't deserve equal rights?

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 04:39 PM
I'm just citing an example of how "tolerance" in todays modern liberal movement only works for certain groups of society and not for other groups. Fact is, liberals are afraid of the church because it goes against the pluralism of the progressive movement where things like "right" and "wrong" are open for interpretation.

This is insane. Liberals are only intolerant to the church when they preach intolerance. Otherwise, trust me, we could give a ****.

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 04:43 PM
The very fact that the church enters into a tax free status by its very nature is an agreement with the government. Along with that agreement must come some regulation. The irs must be able to audit to be sure a church is not taking advantage of its status or members. Surely you don't think anyone who establishes a religion or opens a church should have carte blanche to do whatever they want in the name of religious freedom. It is not required by the constitution anywhere for churches to be untaxed. It is a contract between the church and state to give the state less power, but it doesnt give the church the power to act however they please.

I agree. The church needs to act responsibly and 99.99999% of the time it does and has never, ever been a problem for the state. In fact, I'd say the church represents the best part of our "free" society.

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2011, 04:48 PM
This is insane. Liberals are only intolerant to the church when they preach intolerance. Otherwise, trust me, we could give a ****.

You mean like marriage is between one man and one woman, that kind of "intolerance"? Or that life begins at conception, that kind of "intolerance"? There's many things the church adheres to that are not popular with the liberal left. Why is this deemed intolerant?

Anyhow, we will probably just have to agree to disagree.

TonyR
06-14-2011, 04:48 PM
Simple ****, really...

Great post. Sad that little, if any, of it will happen in any of our lifetimes.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-14-2011, 04:58 PM
You mean like marriage is between one man and one woman, that kind of "intolerance"? Or that life begins at conception, that kind of "intolerance"? There's many things the church adheres to that are not popular with the liberal left. Why is this deemed intolerant?

Anyhow, we will probably just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, Restricting gay rights not only is intolerant, it flies in the face of your anti-government rhetoric. if your position is that the government should stay out of the lives of ordinary people, then why the hell do they have a right to have say over gay rights? Even if you want to, in your own church, restrict gay rights, go right ahead. If a gay person wants to attend church in a private setting, thats the risk they take. What pisses us off is when the church gets political and influences public policy. There is a seperation of church and state after all.

We will definitely have to agree to disagree on this.

DivineBronco
06-14-2011, 10:56 PM
Y then why the hell do they have a right to have say over gay rights? .

I assume the answer is because jesus said so..........am i right am i right

enjolras
06-14-2011, 11:43 PM
You mean like marriage is between one man and one woman, that kind of "intolerance"?

Let me ask you this: if two men get married how does that affect the church? What "right" of the church is being infringed upon?

enjolras
06-14-2011, 11:46 PM
I'm just citing an example of how "tolerance" in todays modern liberal movement only works for certain groups of society and not for other groups. Fact is, liberals are afraid of the church because it goes against the pluralism of the progressive movement where things like "right" and "wrong" are open for interpretation.

This is the single most asinine thing ever posted... I'm impressed. The left is hardly as morally ambiguous as you'd like to think (nor is the church as morally rigid as you claim). For the left, that moral line is much more defined by wether actions result in a loss of freedom rather than the arbitrary teachings of a 2000 year old, poorly translated book.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-15-2011, 12:04 AM
You do realize that TR was one of the most progressive President's in our history, and went on a crusade against big business (i.e. installing regulations...they didn't calling him the "Trust Buster" for nothing) during his two terms, don't you?

Heh heh heh!

Ooops! Ha!

That said, the author is correct: Both major parties suck the fat one - albeit for different reasons.

Still can't find a good reason not to just sit the next election out.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-15-2011, 12:06 AM
For Dem's its "Special interests are bad, keep abortion legal, minimum wage, gay rights, Rich people and bussinesses are inherently evil, universal healthcare"...

That sort of straw man argument is part of the problem, IMO.

pricejj
06-15-2011, 01:09 AM
That sort of straw man argument is part of the problem, IMO.

Here's a good reason. Check the avy. :~ohyah!:

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 11:24 AM
I love how the media paints these as "controversial" and "shocking" comments. I find the comments to be truthful and honest, yet the media (and their utlra-lefty-liberal agenda) want these comments to be somehow "shocking" why? Oh yah, the gay agenda...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Two-former-Giants-see-same-sex-marriage-very-dif?urn=nfl-wp2653

What's shocking is the media's propensity to demonize anyone who does not agree with same sex marriage.

bowtown
06-17-2011, 11:27 AM
I love how the media paints these as "controversial" and "shocking" comments. I find the comments to be truthful and honest, yet the media (and their utlra-lefty-liberal agenda) want these comments to be somehow "shocking" why? Oh yah, the gay agenda...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Two-former-Giants-see-same-sex-marriage-very-dif?urn=nfl-wp2653

What's shocking is the media's propensity to demonize anyone who does not agree with same sex marriage.

"How can marriage be marriage for thousands of years and now all the sudden because a minority, an influential minority, has a push or agenda ... and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country,"

Replace "marriage" with "slavery." If that's too extreme for you, replace it with "segregaton" or "voting" or any other inequality that has existed and then been corrected throughout this country's history, and then grow up.

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 11:32 AM
Replace "marriage" with "slavery."

no thanks, it's two completely different things. However, many people do consider marriage slavery so you might have a point...

What is so funny is that many gays have no desire to be married. They don't wanna get married, they don't care about marriage, they don't wanna have anything to do with the institution of marriage.

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 11:34 AM
Replace "marriage" with "slavery." If that's too extreme for you, replace it with "segregaton" or "voting" or any other inequality that has existed and then been corrected throughout this country's history, and then grow up.

again, no.

Libbys love to take apples and compare them to oranges and say "it's the same thing!"

It's not, sorry.

bowtown
06-17-2011, 11:37 AM
again, no.

Libbys love to take apples and compare them to oranges and say "it's the same thing!"

It's not, sorry.

What's sad is that you don't think they are the same thing.

Kaylore
06-17-2011, 11:37 AM
Replace "marriage" with "slavery." If that's too extreme for you, replace it with "segregaton" or "voting" or any other inequality that has existed and then been corrected throughout this country's history, and then grow up.

What a stupid comment. Marriage = slavery? Then we're doing a service keeping the homosexual community from being brought down by this terrible institution.

Analogy fail.

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 11:41 AM
What's sad is that you don't think they are the same thing.

what is sad is you can't think for yourself.

bowtown
06-17-2011, 11:43 AM
what is sad is you can't think for yourself.

Great point?

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 12:01 PM
Simple ****, really.

Supply side is a total, abject failure. Time to get over it.

Reinstitute the progressive tax code to its pre-Reagan dimensions.

Capital gains are income and should be taxed much higher than income actually earned by work.

The estate tax is a good thing, like most things, within reason.

Reinstate regulations on banks, credit and investment companies. They are out of control pirates.

Restructure the tax code so that it punishes those who hide assets overseas and profit from overseas investment. Reward those who invest in America and build new businesses that create products in America. Protectionism within moderate limits is not an evil. The first job of government is to serve the general welfare of the people, as it says in the preamble. Selling our souls to the ideology of "free markets" while watching our country go down the toilet is not a good thing. Some globalism is okay. Don't make a religion out of it.

All elections should be publicly funded.

Write an amendment to the Constitution: Corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of persons.

Put everybody on Medicare. Health care costs began to spiral out of control when Kaiser talked Nixon into making the health insurance industry "for profit." Massive error. That is where all the out of control spending started. Get rid of it. If every working person in America who pays for insurance now paid half for Medicare, everybody would be covered. Of course there would have to be restrictions on physicians over-treating the elderly in order to rake in bucks, and fraud would have to be vigorously pursued, but nothing is perfect. Some things are just better than others. If there is any profit to made in health care, let the health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals) make it. Not insurance men.

Reduce the military budget by half and bring our troops home. Close the majority of bases around the world. We don't need them and we shouldn't be paying to defend other countries. Let them pay for themselves.

Start using all the money created by the programs above to invest in education, infrastructure and scientific research across a broad spectrum of disciplines.

Simple ****. Really.

That's probably what should be done, I agree. Seeing as our government is run by the Corporate world it'll never happen though.

Not unless that long overdue revolution Jefferson called for happens...

SonOfLe-loLang
06-17-2011, 12:04 PM
What a stupid comment. Marriage = slavery? Then we're doing a service keeping the homosexual community from being brought down by this terrible institution.

Analogy fail.

I dont think he was implying that marriage is like slavery, as much as the rhetoric about slavery in the 1800's sounds similar to how people defend their anti-gay stance.

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 12:06 PM
Great point?

you're the one who brought up slavery brosef. I'm saying you are being conditioned by the media, academia and the gay agenda.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-17-2011, 12:08 PM
you're the one who brought up slavery brosef. I'm saying you are being conditioned by the media, academia and the gay agenda.

Oh, i cant wait to hear what the "gay agenda" is

Chris
06-17-2011, 12:08 PM
"The gay agenda" is to have the same rights as everyone else. It's an American concept.

TonyR
06-17-2011, 12:09 PM
...many gays have no desire to be married. They don't wanna get married, they don't care about marriage, they don't wanna have anything to do with the institution of marriage.

But many others do. And who are you, or we, to deny them that right?

bowtown
06-17-2011, 12:10 PM
you're the one who brought up slavery brosef. I'm saying you are being conditioned by the media, academia and the gay agenda.

And you are really thinking outside of that organized religion box, huh?

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 12:15 PM
Oh, i cant wait to hear what the "gay agenda" is

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/05/gay_columnist_a.php

There's definitely a gay agenda. Gays won't admit it but it's a fact.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-17-2011, 12:18 PM
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/05/gay_columnist_a.php

There's definitely a gay agenda. Gays won't admit it but it's a fact.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH. Dude, you are ****ing ridiculous. You're a hateful bigot, thats really all you are. Whats wrong with telling children its ok to be gay and to accept it like they would anyone else?

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 12:20 PM
And you are really thinking outside of that organized religion box, huh?

actually I'm thinking for myself. I tend to rebel against indoctinization.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 12:21 PM
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/05/gay_columnist_a.php

There's definitely a gay agenda. Gays won't admit it but it's a fact.

Oh my god!!! They're indoctrinating the children to be gay!!! Hilarious!

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 12:22 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH. Dude, you are ****ing ridiculous. You're a hateful bigot, thats really all you are. Whats wrong with telling children its ok to be gay and to accept it like they would anyone else?

I'm pointing out an agenda my friend, sorry if this scares you...

bowtown
06-17-2011, 12:23 PM
actually I'm thinking for myself. I tend to rebel against indoctinization.

Well I'm glad you believe that.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 12:24 PM
actually I'm thinking for myself. I tend to rebel against indoctinization.

Indoctrinate

Ėverb (used with object), -nat∑ed, -nat∑ing.
1.
to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2.
to teach or inculcate.
3.
to imbue with learning.

You seem pretty well indoctrinated to me.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-17-2011, 12:25 PM
I'm pointing out an agenda my friend, sorry if this scares you...

You are the poison that will eventually ruin this country.

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 12:30 PM
You are the poison that will eventually ruin this country.

If truth is your poisen then you got bigger problems than me.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 12:33 PM
If truth is your poisen then you got bigger problems than me.

People claiming they know the "truth" always makes me a little nauseous...

SonOfLe-loLang
06-17-2011, 12:37 PM
If truth is your poisen then you got bigger problems than me.

Whats even the "truth" in this case? Do you honestly believe its the quest of gay people to turn the world gay? HAHAHAHAHA Gay people just want to be accept as human ****ing beings. This is why people compare it to slavery. Youre just being a bigot.

TonyR
06-17-2011, 01:06 PM
You seem pretty well indoctrinated to me.

I was thinking the same thing. He claims not to be something that he clearly is. He's almost the textbook example of someone who's indoctrinated. Closed minded, fearful, backward looking and not accepting of differences.

alkemical
06-17-2011, 01:17 PM
We all are....

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 01:19 PM
I get a big laugh out of the ultra-liberal left and their supposed enlightenment. They claim someone is a bigot because he/she thinks marriage should be between one man and one woman. These ultra-liberal goose stepping nazi's then claim someone like me is the indoctrinated one because I believe something that has been a foundational building block for humanity over the past thousands of years.

Funny, yet sad. Ironic, yet standard operating proceedure and the MO for the ultra-liberals who won't be happy until they pound all of society into submission with their own agenda.

alkemical
06-17-2011, 01:22 PM
I get a big laugh out of the ultra-liberal left and their supposed enlightenment. They claim someone is a bigot because he/she thinks marriage should be between one man and one woman. These ultra-liberal goose stepping nazi's then claim someone like me is the indoctrinated one because I believe something that has been a foundational building block for humanity over the past thousands of years.

Funny, yet sad. Ironic, yet standard operating proceedure and the MO for the ultra-liberals who won't be happy until they pound all of society into submission with their own agenda.

I personally don't care, and think gay people should be able to "marry". I don't care what word is used, i just think it should be "ok".

Chris
06-17-2011, 01:25 PM
As a left leaning moderate I'd say there is no one in this thread that seems like they'd be swayed by either argument so why not just leave it.

With any political discussion I think that if you're going to judge do it without placing labels because when you do that it removes any possibility for nuance in your discussion.

BroncoInferno
06-17-2011, 01:28 PM
I believe something that has been a foundational building block for humanity over the past thousands of years.

Actually, it's the notion that the definition of marriage has been fixed for "thousands of years" as between one man and one woman that is ignorant. At one time, and even still today in some parts of the world, marriage was defined as between one man and as many women as he could support.

Equally ignorant is the notion that gays getting married is somehow going to harm heterosexual marriage. As if heterosexuals will stop getting married, or people will become gay overnight for the opportunity to have a gay marriage. It's stupid. There's not one logical, or just, reason to disallow gays from getting married.

alkemical
06-17-2011, 01:29 PM
As a left leaning moderate I'd say there is no one in this thread that seems like they'd be swayed by either argument so why not just leave it.

With any political discussion I think that if you're going to judge do it without placing labels because when you do that it removes any possibility for nuance in your discussion.

as an anarchist, i say we have a drink!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQPGNuJUyLn3D7KLaHazM17bjTIoiHc 8bcl0sRKIOo6i3Dms0khA

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 01:36 PM
I get a big laugh out of the ultra-liberal left and their supposed enlightenment. They claim someone is a bigot because he/she thinks marriage should be between one man and one woman. These ultra-liberal goose stepping nazi's then claim someone like me is the indoctrinated one because I believe something that has been a foundational building block for humanity over the past thousands of years.

Funny, yet sad. Ironic, yet standard operating proceedure and the MO for the ultra-liberals who won't be happy until they pound all of society into submission with their own agenda.

So you're one of those "marriage is a sacred union between man and woman" people. That viewpoint never ceases to amuse me.

Marriage as an institution began for no other reason than to turn women into property and to assure breeding access for men. That's it. Nothing sacred about it. Do some research. Today at least women get some legal benefit out of it. Not sure why gay people shouldn't have the same legal benefits if they so choose.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 01:42 PM
as an anarchist, i say we have a drink!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQPGNuJUyLn3D7KLaHazM17bjTIoiHc 8bcl0sRKIOo6i3Dms0khA

Sorry, but anarchism and violence have nothing to do with each other. I have anarchist leanings and I really get tired of the notion that anarchists are violent, molotov-throwing nutjobs. The greatest acts of violence have always been perpetrated by governments and the governed, not the other way around.

alkemical
06-17-2011, 01:46 PM
Sorry, but anarchism and violence have nothing to do with each other. I have anarchist leanings and I really get tired of the notion that anarchists are violent, molotov-throwing nutjobs. The greatest acts of violence have always been perpetrated by governments and the governed, not the other way around.

Was in jest - if anything - i always argue for enlightened anarchy - (even though it's nothing more than an ideal).

I am a little nuts now and then though... :-*

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 01:46 PM
Actually, it's the notion that the definition of marriage has been fixed for "thousands of years" as between one man and one woman that is ignorant. At one time, and even still today in some parts of the world, marriage was defined as between one man and as many women as he could support.

Yet more irony. These cultures that allow one man to marry multiple woman are considered oppressive to woman, no? In the US and other modern countries polygamy is outlawed. Are we not better than this? Have we not advanced enough to see that this is wrong and that marriage is best when it's between one man and one woman?

Equally ignorant is the notion that gays getting married is somehow going to harm heterosexual marriage. As if heterosexuals will stop getting married, or people will become gay overnight for the opportunity to have a gay marriage. It's stupid. There's not one logical, or just, reason to disallow gays from getting married.

I respectfully disagree. I think by allowing gays to marry it will open the door to things like polygamy. It's already happening in Canada where same sex marriage is legal:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51081832-78/polygamy-law-utah-court.html.csp

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 01:57 PM
Yet more irony. These cultures that allow one man to marry multiple woman are considered oppressive to woman, no? In the US and other modern countries polygamy is outlawed. Are we not better than this? Have we not advanced enough to see that this is wrong and that marriage is best when it's between one man and one woman?



I respectfully disagree. I think by allowing gays to marry it will open the door to things like polygamy. It's already happening in Canada where same sex marriage is legal:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51081832-78/polygamy-law-utah-court.html.csp

Wow you totally missed the point he was making.

Gay marriage doesn't negate your Christian conservative notion of marriage any more than Buddhist or Muslim marriage does. People throughout the world get married for different reasons and with different notions of what the nature of marriage is.

Bottom line: it isn't any of your business if two people of the same gender want to get married any more than it is if two people want to get married in a druid ceremony rather than in a church. It also isn't the government's job to protect your antiquated beliefs on the matter.

BroncoInferno
06-17-2011, 02:00 PM
Yet more irony. These cultures that allow one man to marry multiple woman are considered oppressive to woman, no? In the US and other modern countries polygamy is outlawed. Are we not better than this? Have we not advanced enough to see that this is wrong and that marriage is best when it's between one man and one woman?

Right. The definition was ALTERED over the course of time to disallow polygamy (in Western society, at any rate). That undercuts your statement that marriage as exists now has been the foundational building block of scoiety for thousands of years. The point being, the definiton of marriage clearly is NOT fixed and can be altered.

I respectfully disagree. I think by allowing gays to marry it will open the door to things like polygamy. It's already happening in Canada where same sex marriage is legal:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51081832-78/polygamy-law-utah-court.html.csp

Great. The slippery slope argument. "OMG if gay marriage is allowed a man will be able to marry his dog!!!!111!!!!1!!"

Tombstone RJ
06-17-2011, 02:05 PM
Wow you totally missed the point he was making.

Gay marriage doesn't negate your Christian conservative notion of marriage any more than Buddhist or Muslim marriage does. People throughout the world get married for different reasons and with different notions of what the nature of marriage is.

Bottom line: it isn't any of your business if two people of the same gender want to get married any more than it is if two people want to get married in a druid ceremony rather than in a church. It also isn't the government's job to protect your antiquated beliefs on the matter.

My point is that if you allow gay marriage to become legal across all the country (I propose letting it be a state issue, where people can vote on it) then you open the door for other forms of marriage which IMHO yes, does serious damage to the institution of marriage and the building block of the family.

epicSocialism4tw
06-17-2011, 02:09 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YbYExMGkCao/SceXY57Jf3I/AAAAAAAAF9U/NUNJ7ex0zOc/Obama_moron.jpg

El Minion
06-17-2011, 02:19 PM
Simple ****, really.

Supply side is a total, abject failure. Time to get over it.

Reinstitute the progressive tax code to its pre-Reagan dimensions.

Capital gains are income and should be taxed much higher than income actually earned by work.

The estate tax is a good thing, like most things, within reason.

Reinstate regulations on banks, credit and investment companies. They are out of control pirates.

Restructure the tax code so that it punishes those who hide assets overseas and profit from overseas investment. Reward those who invest in America and build new businesses that create products in America. Protectionism within moderate limits is not an evil. The first job of government is to serve the general welfare of the people, as it says in the preamble. Selling our souls to the ideology of "free markets" while watching our country go down the toilet is not a good thing. Some globalism is okay. Don't make a religion out of it.

All elections should be publicly funded.

Write an amendment to the Constitution: Corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of persons.

Put everybody on Medicare. Health care costs began to spiral out of control when Kaiser talked Nixon into making the health insurance industry "for profit." Massive error. That is where all the out of control spending started. Get rid of it. If every working person in America who pays for insurance now paid half for Medicare, everybody would be covered. Of course there would have to be restrictions on physicians over-treating the elderly in order to rake in bucks, and fraud would have to be vigorously pursued, but nothing is perfect. Some things are just better than others. If there is any profit to made in health care, let the health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals) make it. Not insurance men.

Reduce the military budget by half and bring our troops home. Close the majority of bases around the world. We don't need them and we shouldn't be paying to defend other countries. Let them pay for themselves.

Start using all the money created by the programs above to invest in education, infrastructure and scientific research across a broad spectrum of disciplines.

Simple ****. Really.

All of this, but the bold part must happen first if we are to get to the rest.

Agamemnon
06-17-2011, 02:35 PM
My point is that if you allow gay marriage to become legal across all the country (I propose letting it be a state issue, where people can vote on it) then you open the door for other forms of marriage which IMHO yes, does serious damage to the institution of marriage and the building block of the family.

Let's get this straight, the institution of marriage is one sick puppy as is. Astronomical divorce rates and rampant spousal abuse have seen to that. Gay people getting married isn't going to affect that one way or the other. Neither is any other "form of marriage" you may think will come after it.

TonyR
06-17-2011, 07:10 PM
I find it interesting that christianist conservatives espouse "family values" and yet when gays want to do the "conservative" thing and become a family they're opposed to it...