The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2014, 03:31 PM   #101
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,581

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
My point was that SS is such a huge expense that simply creating a new tax won't solve the problem. And while I'm willing to listen to a new tax, I refuse to initiate any new tax until the Fed. Gov CUTS BACK. Period.

Cutting back federal spending absolutely will help fund SS. If you don't have tax $ going here, you can use that tax money elsewhere.

But if you refuse to cull the federal government than I will refuse to talk about any new taxes. The money is already there, it's the waste that is the problem.
There is no refusal on the cutbacks on my behalf. It would have to be something gradual (cuts) over a length of time. Cutting large amounts out of certain areas off the rip is not smart in a stability or economic sense. But overtime, absolutely. First place to start? DoD and associated operations -- and it isn't even close.

FWIW, what nor is it really a new tax. It is applying an existing tax rightfully to all income earned. Cutbacks and entire new tax code would certainly help. For instance, nobody should get more money back than they paid in come tax time.

Eliminate things like EIC, etc. -- and boom. $ saved. No woman who works 25 hours a week, has 5 kids without a spouse, but gets $10k back from the government when she maybe paid a couple hundred in taxes is lunacy. . . and it happens. A LOT.

Last edited by Requiem; 06-17-2014 at 03:43 PM..
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 05:17 PM   #102
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
. Up until about twenty years ago there were a bunch of "liberal" Republicans, like Nelson Rockefeller. They all got driven out :
Kind of like how all the Clintonian Democrats got pushed out by the Socialist Progressives?

Having a government to provide a framework where free-market economies can exist, while also providing a safety net is what all, US elected officials have stood for since 1776.

While SS and Medicare were never sustainable, every single American believes in charity or a safety net. The problem is with the implementation and sustainability of those programs. That's what makes them BAD ideas.

Having a European-style government with complete ownership and control over the private sector is another thing entirely, and is akin to Socialism. This is the motus operandi of the Socialist Progressives since around 2006.

Last edited by pricejj; 06-17-2014 at 05:24 PM..
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2014, 04:03 PM   #103
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,037
Default

Quote:
It's hard to come up with ways in which Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican who previously served as House Republican Whip, differs from Cantor. They both want to cut taxes. They both voted for the Ryan budget. They both want to repeal Obamacare. And, for all the talk of Cantor's defeat being about immigration reform, McCarthy has basically the same position on immigration reform: he's abstractly for immigration reform, but he's not going to bring any solution to the problem up for a vote.

Which is probably as it should be. When the conservative columnist Ramesh Ponnuru dove deep into polls of tea party supporters, he was comforted by what he found. "Tea party advocates already believed the same things that regular Republicans did. They basically were regular Republicans, just, if you will, more so. The differences between the tea party and 'establishment Republicans' have largely concerned style and attitude rather than program and ideology."
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/11/5801434...ke-eric-cantor
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2014, 04:09 PM   #104
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,028

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Kind of like how all the Clintonian Democrats got pushed out by the Socialist Progressives?

Having a government to provide a framework where free-market economies can exist, while also providing a safety net is what all, US elected officials have stood for since 1776.

While SS and Medicare were never sustainable, every single American believes in charity or a safety net. The problem is with the implementation and sustainability of those programs. That's what makes them BAD ideas.

Having a European-style government with complete ownership and control over the private sector is another thing entirely, and is akin to Socialism. This is the motus operandi of the Socialist Progressives since around 2006.
I gotta give it to ya. As idiotic as most,if not all,of post are they are entertaining at times.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2014, 09:18 PM   #105
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Kind of like how all the Clintonian Democrats got pushed out by the Socialist Progressives?

Having a government to provide a framework where free-market economies can exist, while also providing a safety net is what all, US elected officials have stood for since 1776.

While SS and Medicare were never sustainable, every single American believes in charity or a safety net. The problem is with the implementation and sustainability of those programs. That's what makes them BAD ideas.

Having a European-style government with complete ownership and control over the private sector is another thing entirely, and is akin to Socialism. This is the motus operandi of the Socialist Progressives since around 2006.
I don't think these words mean what you think they mean. There are only one or two out and out socialists in Congress and not many more progressives than that. Clinton was a complete sellout to Wall Street. The "Clintonian" Dems have been in charge of the party ever since. By any realistic political measurement, Clinton was to the Right of Nixon. Socialist and progressive are two different terms with different meanings. Of course, in this day and age we have radical extremists calling themselves "conservatives" so I guess anything goes.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 06-22-2014 at 09:23 PM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 12:40 AM   #106
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I don't think these words mean what you think they mean. There are only one or two out and out socialists in Congress and not many more progressives than that. Clinton was a complete sellout to Wall Street. The "Clintonian" Dems have been in charge of the party ever since. By any realistic political measurement, Clinton was to the Right of Nixon. Socialist and progressive are two different terms with different meanings. Of course, in this day and age we have radical extremists calling themselves "conservatives" so I guess anything goes.
Today's Democrat's are Socialist Progressives who envision the U.S. as a Socialist Democracy like most European countries. That's pretty clear.

Bill Clinton, with a Republican Congress ran a budget surplus for a couple years and reformed welfare. That would never happen with Obama.

To feign as if Obama hasn't done everything possible to achieve his "fundamental transformation" of the US, with every single Democrat in Congress voting in line with the President's (and the party's) agenda, is in a word, ludicrous.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 07:19 AM   #107
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,460

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Today's Democrat's are Socialist Progressives who envision the U.S. as a Socialist Democracy like most European countries. That's pretty clear.

Bill Clinton, with a Republican Congress ran a budget surplus for a couple years and reformed welfare. That would never happen with Obama.

To feign as if Obama hasn't done everything possible to achieve his "fundamental transformation" of the US, with every single Democrat in Congress voting in line with the President's (and the party's) agenda, is in a word, ludicrous.
A 'socialist democracy'? Which countries?
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 07:27 AM   #108
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Today's Democrat's are Socialist Progressives who envision the U.S. as a Socialist Democracy like most European countries. That's pretty clear.

Bill Clinton, with a Republican Congress ran a budget surplus for a couple years and reformed welfare. That would never happen with Obama.

To feign as if Obama hasn't done everything possible to achieve his "fundamental transformation" of the US, with every single Democrat in Congress voting in line with the President's (and the party's) agenda, is in a word, ludicrous.
What has Obama done that you would consider "socialist?" His health care plan was pure Bob Dole, Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation and did nothing more than funnel a bunch of poor suckers into the maw of the insurance industry.

The terms "socialist" and "progressive" are not interchangeable, BTW (although I know that those indoctrinated by Fox propaganda eat it up). TR considered progressivism to go hand in hand with conservatism, as a matter of fact. Progressivism is an economic term coined to encompass a movement that seeks to correct the inherent inequalities created by laissez faire capitalism. It's purpose was to create a more stable society not constantly being upended by labor riots, market crashes and piratical capitalism. Unlike Libertarianism, it was not dreamed up as a utopian ideology. It was created in reaction to facts on the ground, ie. the obvious failures of laissez faire capitalism that were tearing apart the fabric of society.
Refer to this for a reality check: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

The way "socialist" is used now in America is no different than the way the word "communist" was used during the Red Scare. It's purpose is to misinform and terrorize; a manipulation of the masses to keep them away from recognizing the fact of massive capitalist failure.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 07:33 AM   #109
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,142

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
What has Obama done that you would consider "socialist?" His health care plan was pure Bob Dole, Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation and did nothing more than funnel a bunch of poor suckers into the maw of the insurance industry.

The terms "socialist" and "progressive" are not interchangeable, BTW (although I know that those indoctrinated by Fox propaganda eat it up). TR considered progressivism to go hand in hand with conservatism, as a matter of fact. Progressivism is an economic term coined to encompass a movement that seeks to correct the inherent inequalities created by laissez faire capitalism. It's purpose was to create a more stable society not constantly being upended by labor riots, market crashes and piratical capitalism. Unlike Libertarianism, it was not dreamed up as a utopian ideology. It was created in reaction to facts on the ground, ie. the obvious failures of laissez faire capitalism that were tearing apart the fabric of society.
Refer to this for a reality check: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

The way "socialist" is used now in America is no different than the way the word "communist" was used during the Red Scare. It's purpose is to misinform and terrorize; a manipulation of the masses to keep them away from recognizing the fact of massive capitalist failure.
Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid is covering far more previously uninsured people than the new exchanges ever will. Not a very Heritage/Dole friendly concept.

And it's a dumb argument anyway. I can find Democrats who argued proactively for attacking Iraq. Even before GW was inaugurated. Was invading Iraq a Democratic Plan?
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 07:47 AM   #110
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

There are still people who are not covered by insurance in this country, so this goal of everyone being covered is bunk. Not to mention the endless cancellation notices, higher premiums, and worse, higher deductibles. Obama said that wouldn't happen. He's either a liar, a fool, or both. No wonder other democrats are running from Obamacare, well the ones who plan to win at least.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 07:48 AM   #111
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid is covering far more previously uninsured people than the new exchanges ever will. Not a very Heritage/Dole friendly concept.

And it's a dumb argument anyway. I can find Democrats who argued proactively for attacking Iraq. Even before GW was inaugurated. Was invading Iraq a Democratic Plan?
Beavis drops in, right on cue, and makes another lame attempt at changing the subject while misinterpreting the present discussion. You know, Beavis, a little college might serve you well. At least you chose an apt profile name.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 09:29 AM   #112
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,142

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Beavis drops in, right on cue, and makes another lame attempt at changing the subject while misinterpreting the present discussion. You know, Beavis, a little college might serve you well. At least you chose an apt profile name.
I didn't change the subject. I laughed at your characterization of the ACA as something Dole or Heritage would've ever supported. Because that was pretty terrible. Can't really adhominize your way out of it.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 10:11 AM   #113
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I didn't change the subject. I laughed at your characterization of the ACA as something Dole or Heritage would've ever supported. Because that was pretty terrible. Can't really adhominize your way out of it.
And there are plenty of threads (and I do mean PLENTY) where the ACA is being discussed. Perhaps you could pose your questions there instead of trying to deflect other threads?

The point is, the ACA is not "socialism" by any stretch of the imagination. Fundamental aspects of the ACA were the same as the Dole/Heritage plan:

Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island was the point man. The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, (yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic co-sponsors.

Among other features, the Chafee bill included:

An individual mandate;

Creation of purchasing pools;

Standardized benefits;

Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;

A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...are-plan-1993/

Specifically, it contained the one issue that pisses off the Right Wing more than any other: The mandate.


The point of this discussion is that Price throws around terms without knowing their proper meaning or history.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 10:19 AM   #114
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,142

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
And there are plenty of threads (and I do mean PLENTY) where the ACA is being discussed. Perhaps you could pose your questions there instead of trying to deflect other threads?
The guy who brought up the ACA suddenly thinks it's non-relevant?

Quote:
The point is, the ACA is not "socialism" by any stretch of the imagination. Fundamental aspects of the ACA were the same as the Dole/Heritage plan:
Show me the talk of medicaid (socialized) expansion or trillion dollar price tags, and maybe you'll have something.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 10:42 AM   #115
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default !

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The guy who brought up the ACA suddenly thinks it's non-relevant?



Show me the talk of medicaid (socialized) expansion or trillion dollar price tags, and maybe you'll have something.
Yep. First the Right squealed about the mandate. That's all you heard: Mandate, mandate, mandate. Then, when they saw it was a key element of their own original plan, they simply changed gears. "Mandate? We don't care about the mandate! It's the expansion of Medicaid! THAT is the outrage."

Next week, it will be something else. Whatever Fox tells you to bark about.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 11:52 AM   #116
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,940
Default

Here's an interesting article on European's who are now breaking from the Socialist Democracy model, while continuing to embrace more free markets.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...cial-democracy

The problem with Socialism is that the debt of burden created from their unsustainable programs eventually collapses the entire economy, much like we are seeing here in the US.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 12:43 PM   #117
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,142

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Yep. First the Right squealed about the mandate. That's all you heard: Mandate, mandate, mandate. Then, when they saw it was a key element of their own original plan, they simply changed gears. "Mandate? We don't care about the mandate! It's the expansion of Medicaid! THAT is the outrage."

Next week, it will be something else. Whatever Fox tells you to bark about.
You talk about it as if there's the monolithic Republobot that controls what every party member and appendage says or does over decades.

Obama alone has been on both sides of the mandate issue over a span of less than 3 years. He thumped Hillary with it as a terrible idea in 2008. Then he signed legislation built around it.

But you happily ignore all that while blaming Paul Ryan for what Bob Dole mighta said 20 years ago.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 06:02 AM   #118
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You talk about it as if there's the monolithic Republobot that controls what every party member and appendage says or does over decades.

Obama alone has been on both sides of the mandate issue over a span of less than 3 years. He thumped Hillary with it as a terrible idea in 2008. Then he signed legislation built around it.

But you happily ignore all that while blaming Paul Ryan for what Bob Dole mighta said 20 years ago.
For some reason you keep thinking I'm a supporter of Obama. I've been thoroughly opposed to the ACA since the Heritage Foundation came up with it. I despise Obama for refusing to even have the guts to bring the discussion for nationalized health care to the table. I've said again and again that I consider Obama one of the worst presidents, certainly in the bottom ten. But I also think what the Right has done to America over the last thirty years is even more despicable than anything Obama has come up with, starting with Raygun's extremist tax cuts for the rich and corporations, paying for it by robbing Social Security, and starting the avalanche of deregulation which led to the second great depression. The interesting factor of this depression has been that it has only applied to the lower economic classes. Since 2008, the top percent have raked in more wealth than ever. That is the politics of destruction we can expect from the Right.

You forget, the wreckage of America that Obama has been confronted with was not created by him. He did not rescind Glass/Steagle. He did not invade Iraq in revenge for 911. He did not miss the signals for 911 because he was too busy giving out favors to corporations to pay attention to his job. He has been an inept and ineffective president, especially in how he dealt with Wall Street and the Banksters, but he isn't to blame for the swath of destruction his predecessor, the worst president in history bar none, left him. When Bush entered office, he enjoyed the greatest surplus this country had produced in the last hundred years. What did he do with it? I'll answer that. He flushed it down the ****hole of Iraq.

The other thing people (and historians) should keep in mind when assessing Obama; Before he was even inaugurated into his first term the leadership of the Republican Party announced that their singular goal would be to destroy his presidency and ensure that he was a one term president. I can't think of a single time in history, other than Lincoln, where such animosity was directed at a president prior to him even taking office. It most certainly has been a fundamental factor in his success, or failure, at the job.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 06-24-2014 at 06:44 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 06:54 AM   #119
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,142

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
For some reason you keep thinking I'm a supporter of Obama. I've been thoroughly opposed to the ACA since the Heritage Foundation came up with it. I despise Obama for refusing to even have the guts to bring the discussion for nationalized health care to the table. I've said again and again that I consider Obama one of the worst presidents, certainly in the bottom ten.
That's fine as far as it goes. But you can't call the ACA any more 'Republican' any more than I can call it Clintonian. Actually less so, because, in principle, there's little Conservative to the ACA. And at the time some Republicans proposed it, a much worse Hillary-invented plan was on the table as the alternative. Still, those 'conservatives' who proposed it were operating outside of the core tenets of conservative economic theory, which was a mistake.

Quote:
But I also think what the Right has done to America over the last thirty years is even more despicable than anything Obama has come up with, starting with Raygun's extremist tax cuts for the rich and corporations, paying for it by robbing Social Security, and starting the avalanche of deregulation which led to the second great depression.
Federal revenue went nowhere but up during Reagan's term. There's no argument to be made that he bankrupted the government with tax cuts. Spending exploded over the same period. Alot of that was military, which you can pin on Reagan if you want. But much of it was Democrat largess in Congress. Complete with (immoral I'm told) government shutdowns to ramrod it through.

Social Security was already on a short road to insolvency. Abd Reagan eventually signed the Democratic Congress' bill to patch it back together. Not sure what else you wanted him to do. Ponzi schemes are always going to be on the perpetual road to ruin, and Uncle Sam has to come in and pony up more cash every few decades.

Quote:
The interesting factor of this depression has been that it has only applied to the lower economic classes. Since 2008, the top percent have raked in more wealth than ever. That is the politics of destruction we can expect from the Right.
Post-industrial global-economic imperialism. Those with the means to own production anywhere prosper. Those who used to make ends meet with manual labor suffer on a global market. Blame Reagan for some of that if you like. But also Clinton, who did as much for global free trade as almost anyone.

Quote:
You forget, the wreckage of America that Obama has been confronted with was not created by him. He did not rescind Glass/Steagle. He did not invade Iraq in revenge for 911. He did not miss the signals for 911 because he was too busy giving out favors to corporations to pay attention to his job.
This is rich beyond all compare. Obama just couldn't hep with Glass Steagle despite it's modification being signed by Clinton almost a decade earlier. Even as he was in Congress for years taking Fannie's money and otherwise sitting on his hands while his besties on the Banking committee and elsewhere said they didn't see any problems.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...12948811465427

Meanwhile, 9/11 was Bush's fault because in 8 months as a new President with no prior involvement in Federal government he couldn't single-handedly ferret out a plot that had been in the works for years.

Once again, everything bad immediately belongs to a Republican, past or present. Everything good immediately belongs to a Democrat, past or present. Throwing out a "Obama's not liberal enough" at the end doesn't return this kind of thinking to reason.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 07:06 AM   #120
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

That's the other joke about modern Republicans: Besides thinking they are conservatives, while in fact, they are radical extremists, they also think Clinton was a democrat. In name only. Clinton perpetuated and supported Raygun's neocon revolution, certainly in deed, if not in word. Clinton was the ultimate triangulator, creating a whole new form of compromise wherein you just do whatever the opposition wants in order to reduce the heat on you and stay in office. This is why I dread the daily media positioning of Clinton II as the next president.

Sooner or later, we must face the fact that the Raygun neocon revolution was an abject failure and a disaster for this country, and return to those policies, and that ethos, that actually made us a stronger, and a more cohesive society. And that ethos is not libertarian or neocon. The weird thing is that we've done this all before at the turn of the 20th century just prior to TR taking office. And now we're doing it all over again.

Bush could have easily flushed out 911. All he had to do was "shake the trees" as Richard Clarke, his hired terrorism expert, was screaming at him to do for those eight months.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 07:41 AM   #121
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,142

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
That's the other joke about modern Republicans: Besides thinking they are conservatives, while in fact, they are radical extremists, they also think Clinton was a democrat. In name only. Clinton perpetuated and supported Raygun's neocon revolution, certainly in deed, if not in word. Clinton was the ultimate triangulator, creating a whole new form of compromise wherein you just do whatever the opposition wants in order to reduce the heat on you and stay in office. This is why I dread the daily media positioning of Clinton II as the next president.

Sooner or later, we must face the fact that the Raygun neocon revolution was an abject failure and a disaster for this country, and return to those policies, and that ethos, that actually made us a stronger, and a more cohesive society. And that ethos is not libertarian or neocon. The weird thing is that we've done this all before at the turn of the 20th century just prior to TR taking office. And now we're doing it all over again.

Bush could have easily flushed out 911. All he had to do was "shake the trees" as Richard Clarke, his hired terrorism expert, was screaming at him to do for those eight months.
You ascribe far too much blame to Reagan for things that were in motion long before he came to office. The unemployment rate was just as bad as it was when Obama took office. Oh and 14% inflation. Imagine that for a minute.

We had major systemic problems that started all the way back with Carter, Nixon and even LBJ. And many of them were nobody's fault. Just new global economic realities coming to bear.

And take most of what Richard Clarke says with a grain of salt.

http://www.wired.com/2010/04/cyberwar-richard-clarke/

He's become known through his shifting 9/11 fish tales and various other writings as somewhat of a serial exaggerator. Plus, he also worked for Bill Clinton. So what exactly was Bush supposed to see in 8 months that Bill apparently ignored right up until January 2001?
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 08:17 AM   #122
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You ascribe far too much blame to Reagan for things that were in motion long before he came to office.
Replace "Reagan" with "Obama" and it perfectly describes what you and several others do in this forum day in and day out.
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 08:34 AM   #123
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You ascribe far too much blame to Reagan for things that were in motion long before he came to office. The unemployment rate was just as bad as it was when Obama took office. Oh and 14% inflation. Imagine that for a minute.

We had major systemic problems that started all the way back with Carter, Nixon and even LBJ. And many of them were nobody's fault. Just new global economic realities coming to bear.

And take most of what Richard Clarke says with a grain of salt.

http://www.wired.com/2010/04/cyberwar-richard-clarke/

He's become known through his shifting 9/11 fish tales and various other writings as somewhat of a serial exaggerator. Plus, he also worked for Bill Clinton. So what exactly was Bush supposed to see in 8 months that Bill apparently ignored right up until January 2001?
Bull****. Reagan was responsible for a complete paradigm shift in American thinking, from economics to ethos. This was not a "conservative" revolution. Don't forget, one of the foundations of real conservative thought is that change is necessary and should be implemented gradually. Reagan instituted giant changes in economic philosophy and taxation overnight. He was a true revolutionary. The reverberations of his decisions have continued for decades. And not only have those policies failed, again and again, but those foundational principles of the neocon revolution are still being supported and hyped today as basic platforms of Republican governance. This is the proof of Right Wing dogma based politics: They don't look at evidence, only at ideology. Don't take it from me. Here's a Nobel prize winner in economics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/op...01krugman.html

The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation.

The gift that keeps on giving.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 09:03 AM   #124
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,142

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Replace "Reagan" with "Obama" and it perfectly describes what you and several others do in this forum day in and day out.
Nice try. I won't say others don't do that. But I try to reserve most of my criticisms for Obama to two fronts.

1. When he leads in the wrong direction. Even though the real fruits may not be seen for years. In other words, the kind of questioning that is essential in any democracy. Saying "This is the wrong way to go" is not the same as saying "Everything today is Obama's fault"

2. When he shows a complete incapacity to manage a federal government to the standard he personally held his predecessors to, or to a standard that he promised. Or a standard that he promises when he tells us that the federal government is the best solution to any of most of our day-to-day troubles.

You may also find times that I chuckle when people simultaneously praise Obama for what goes right yet still blame Bush for everything that goes wrong. Sometimes even on the same issue once the good turns bad or vice-versa.

But that has more to do with the person posting than the President.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 09:58 AM   #125
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,142

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Bull****. Reagan was responsible for a complete paradigm shift in American thinking, from economics to ethos. This was not a "conservative" revolution. Don't forget, one of the foundations of real conservative thought is that change is necessary and should be implemented gradually. Reagan instituted giant changes in economic philosophy and taxation overnight. He was a true revolutionary. The reverberations of his decisions have continued for decades. And not only have those policies failed, again and again, but those foundational principles of the neocon revolution are still being supported and hyped today as basic platforms of Republican governance. This is the proof of Right Wing dogma based politics: They don't look at evidence, only at ideology. Don't take it from me. Here's a Nobel prize winner in economics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/op...01krugman.html

The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation.

The gift that keeps on giving.
Paul "The VA is Wonderful!" Krugman's right sometimes. Wrong sometimes. The Nobel appeal to authority doesn't mean much though. Friedman and Hayek can be quoted along with the same appeal to authority. I doubt it would mean much to you either.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:52 PM.


Denver Broncos