Being pragmatic is not a strenth of the right wing.

[James D Hill]

Obama is likely a true tea bagger.

In what way? Have you been drinking that tea my friend? Come to Washington and try some of our legal pot. That is way better than tea unless you listen to the King Diamond album Them. They drink satanic tea. Blood.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

The pot calling the kettle black? I don't think that works here Elvis because we do not have rednecks on the left. We do have some nutjobs but we keep them under control while your side puts them in office like Louie Gohmert. He is as thick as a brick and even right wingers say it.

Up the lithium intake. It's not working.

I totally agree with your assessment that liberals have their nutjobs. Reading the OP of this thread pretty much proves that.

 

[Paschendale]

You mean kind of like Democrats rammed Obamacare through, when 70% of the American public was against it?

Why do people persist in pretending that the American people aren't mainly in support of healthcare reform, and support the actual provisions contained within the ACA? The only people who are really opposed to the program are Fox News right wingers, and people who don't actually know what Obamacare does. Those two groups actually often overlap.

 

[Mycroft]

Why do people persist in pretending that the American people aren't mainly in support of healthcare reform, and support the actual provisions contained within the ACA? The only people who are really opposed to the program are Fox News right wingers, and people who don't actually know what Obamacare does. Those two groups actually often overlap.

Oh...I think most of the people who think Obamacare sucks are the average, run-of-the-mill people who are finding out that Obamacare is making a mess of their lives. I think most of those people are people who don't really care about government or Parties...they just want to be left alone.

Unfortunately for them...and for many others who haven't been affected yet, but will...Obamacare won't be leaving them alone.

 

[Paschendale]

Oh...I think most of the people who think Obamacare sucks are the average, run-of-the-mill people who are finding out that Obamacare is making a mess of their lives. I think most of those people are people who don't really care about government or Parties...they just want to be left alone.

Unfortunately for them...and for many others who haven't been affected yet, but will...Obamacare won't be leaving them alone.

Fun fact: When polled, people support the Affordable Care Act 20% more than they support Obamacare.

 

[vvx]

And yet 52% of young americans want to opt-out of Social Security. Isn't that kind of funny? I wonder if that exposes a flaw in the program?

Young people believe that with a little hard work they'll all manage to get high paying jobs and put away plenty of money for whatever they need. Same way they believe they're all healthy and invincible. They won't need social security, or healthcare. They'll have plenty of money by the time they need it.

 

[Henrin]

Young people believe that with a little hard work they'll all manage to get high paying jobs and put away plenty of money for whatever they need. Same way they believe they're all healthy and invincible. They won't need social security, or healthcare. They'll have plenty of money by the time they need it.

When I was in my teens and just started working all I wanted was my money and when I was in my twenties all I wanted is my money to save myself. I don't need the government taking my money and making promises to me for later. I can take care of myself and it would be great if the government stopped taking my money to use towards old people. I never asked to be involved in any government program and it would be great if they took me the hell off of it and stopped using me.

Maybe young people just want their money to do with as they please? Maybe it's not the government place to make sure people have money for when they're older? Maybe the government shouldn't be taking peoples money to use towards welfare programs be that SS, medicare, Obamacare, public education, etc? Just a thought.

 

[Mycroft]

Fun fact: When polled, people support the Affordable Care Act 20% more than they support Obamacare.

So what?

How about a poll of people that don't like getting their work hours reduced because of Obamacare? That would be more relevant, don't you think?

 

[Mycroft]

When I was in my teens and just started working all I wanted was my money and when I was in my twenties all I wanted is my money to save myself. I don't need the government taking my money and making promises to me for later. I can take care of myself and it would be great if the government stopped taking my money to use towards old people. I never asked to be involved in any government program and it would be great if they took me the hell off of it and stopped using me.

Maybe young people just want their money to do with as they please? Maybe it's not the government place to make sure people have money for when they're older? Maybe the government shouldn't be taking peoples money to use towards welfare programs be that SS, medicare, Obamacare, public education, etc? Just a thought.

While I...any most any other self-reliant, responsible person...might agree with you, there is a whole segment of citizens who think they know better than you as to what you should be doing with your money. They are the ones who want to take your money and tell you how to live your life.

 

[Paschendale]

So what?

How about a poll of people that don't like getting their work hours reduced because of Obamacare? That would be more relevant, don't you think?

What do you mean "because of Obamacare"? There's nothing in the law about reducing anyone's hours. There's just the big companies, who care more about profiteering than about paying their employees a sufficient wage. Employers should never have been given that kind of power in the first place. One more reason why healthcare is too important to be left to the whims of selfish businessmen. It should be handled by the people a whole, with a single payer UHC system. Keep the people who will do anything to get more money out of the equation.

 

[Mycroft]

What do you mean "because of Obamacare"? There's nothing in the law about reducing anyone's hours. There's just the big companies, who care more about profiteering than about paying their employees a sufficient wage. Employers should never have been given that kind of power in the first place. One more reason why healthcare is too important to be left to the whims of selfish businessmen. It should be handled by the people a whole, with a single payer UHC system. Keep the people who will do anything to get more money out of the equation.

ummm....wow...okay....ahhhhhhh....

I know you self identify as a socialist and, I guess, that's your desire for the US, but we are not there yet. We are a capitalist country. That means that business owners still have the freedom to operate...mostly...as they desire, including reacting as they will to bad laws passed by the legislature. As such, one of the unintended reactions to Obamacare (at least, I THINK it was unintended. I may be wrong.)...caused by its redefining of "full time employment" from 40 to 30 hours per week...was to move a lot of people from full time to part time employment subsequently reducing their weekly pay.

I know you may find it hard to believe...being a socialist and all...but, for some reason, a lot of people didn't like that happening to them. They know that the only reason this happened to them is "because of Obamacare".

 

[Paschendale]

ummm....wow...okay....ahhhhhhh....

I know you self identify as a socialist and, I guess, that's your desire for the US, but we are not there yet. We are a capitalist country. That means that business owners still have the freedom to operate...mostly...as they desire, including reacting as they will to bad laws passed by the legislature. As such, one of the unintended reactions to Obamacare (at least, I THINK it was unintended. I may be wrong.)...caused by its redefining of "full time employment" from 40 to 30 hours per week...was to move a lot of people from full time to part time employment subsequently reducing their weekly pay.

I know you may find it hard to believe...being a socialist and all...but, for some reason, a lot of people didn't like that happening to them. They know that the only reason this happened to them is "because of Obamacare".

And they abuse that power like spoiled children. They are just flexing their power. They dominate this society while the working class suffers. Ostensibly, that working class has rights, too. Only they don't really, because they're broke. And in this country, money is power. More money means more rights. Until actions are taken to curb the power that owning wealth provides in this country, then the American ideals of equality before the law, justice, and liberty, don't really exist. By exalting business and profit, we've protected the same class system that this country rebelled against two centuries ago. Or had you not noticed the big recession going on, and how even when the economy is falling apart, the rich keep getting richer, the middle class is disappearing, and the poor are getting poorer?

 

[Mycroft]

And they abuse that power like spoiled children. They are just flexing their power. They dominate this society while the working class suffers. Ostensibly, that working class has rights, too. Only they don't really, because they're broke. And in this country, money is power. More money means more rights. Until actions are taken to curb the power that owning wealth provides in this country, then the American ideals of equality before the law, justice, and liberty, don't really exist. By exalting business and profit, we've protected the same class system that this country rebelled against two centuries ago. Or had you not noticed the big recession going on, and how even when the economy is falling apart, the rich keep getting richer, the middle class is disappearing, and the poor are getting poorer?

A seller's power ends at the point that a buyer makes a decision...whether that buyer is an individual deciding to buy a loaf of bread, a worker deciding to expend energy for pay...or a politician deciding whether to buy a vote. But, in every case, the decision is there to be made.

You would remove the ability to make that decision from each of those people and put it in the hands of some "government". I appreciate your desires, but I would rather be able to make my own decisions...not leave it up to you.

 

[Paschendale]

A seller's power ends at the point that a buyer makes a decision...whether that buyer is an individual deciding to buy a loaf of bread, a worker deciding to expend energy for pay...or a politician deciding whether to buy a vote. But, in every case, the decision is there to be made.

You would remove the ability to make that decision from each of those people and put it in the hands of some "government". I appreciate your desires, but I would rather be able to make my own decisions...not leave it up to you.

When did I say that? I just said that the balance of power is tilted way too far in one direction. I didn't even offer any solutions to that, other than asserting that a more balanced distribution of power would be ideal.

I get that you don't want some overarching tyrannical authority controlling everything. Guess what, I don't either. But don't limit your view of tyrannical authorities to just official governments. Viacom isn't a government, but it has a whole lot of power and uses that power a lot more tyrranically than congress does. Power is power, whether it's in government hands or private hands. There's no reason to give abuses of power a pass or to pretend that they're not really abuses merely because that power lies in private hands.

 

[Oftencold]

The right wing is like a bunch of pitbull's. They never admit defeat and they don't like to compromise. If they did we would not be helt hostage by Tea Bagger nutjobs who only represent 18% of GOP population. If the right was pragmatic they would have given up on the war on drugs long ago because 78% of Americans say it is lost yet the defend the status quo on bad law and bad policy.

The same is true with the ACA. They have been defeated three times and they still don't give up. If they where pragmatic they would be working with the left on making it better instead of the my way or the highway attitude they seem to hold on to no matter how many times they get their head jhanded to them. It is too bad because being pragmatic is a part of doing a good job in the house,senate and the Whitehouse. If the GOP was pragmatic they would not be holding the nation hostage over a lost fight. They has their chance in 2012 and lost by over 5 milion votes. Get over it.

So you favor admitting defeat and compromising with despots. Parlez-vous Français?

 

[Mycroft]

When did I say that? I just said that the balance of power is tilted way too far in one direction. I didn't even offer any solutions to that, other than asserting that a more balanced distribution of power would be ideal.

I get that you don't want some overarching tyrannical authority controlling everything. Guess what, I don't either. But don't limit your view of tyrannical authorities to just official governments. Viacom isn't a government, but it has a whole lot of power and uses that power a lot more tyrranically than congress does. Power is power, whether it's in government hands or private hands. There's no reason to give abuses of power a pass or to pretend that they're not really abuses merely because that power lies in private hands.

Viacom??? They have no power over my life that I know of.

The thing is...you say that these powerful businesses should be limited in some manner. Who do you suggest do that limiting? I suggest their customers should be the ones. I suppose you suggest the government be the one?

In any case, I'm sure James didn't intend his thread to veer off into the realm of whether socialism is a good thing or not, so I'll bow out of this line of discussion.

 

[James D Hill]

And yet 52% of young americans want to opt-out of Social Security. Isn't that kind of funny? I wonder if that exposes a flaw in the program?

But they won't my friend.

 

[James D Hill]

Not the point and you know it. You only call for pragmatism when it not your oxen being gored. Weak and hypocritical.

The left has been pragmatic several times my friend. When Reagan won in 1980 Tip O'Neil worked with the Gip even though he disagreed with him on almost everything. Bill Clinton worked with Newt as was pragmatic.

 

[James D Hill]

So, James, your latest buzzword is "pragmatic". Shall we take a look at that?



I'm sure you will probably disagree, but it seems to me that the liberals are the ones who are not being pragmatic, while the conservatives in our government are doing their best despite those un-pragmatic liberals.

I mean, who is it that spouts their lofty goals that are based on ideas and theories with no sound judgment as a basis? Who is it that wants to "fundamentally change the US" with no clear, logical way to do it? Liberals? Or conservatives?

James, I know you will keep trying to convince people that conservatives are bad, but please, try to use terms and concepts that don't make you look stupid, eh?

Just look at conservatives stance on social issues. We all know the war on drugs is a failure just like Prohibition so other that the libertarians where is the pragmatism on that issue when the truth is as plain as day. Where is the right wing pragmatism on that issue? Where is the right wing pragmatism when it comes to their war on labor and the poor? The right knows just like the left that jobs are hard to come by. They know people are having a hard time but instead of being pragmatic they resort to calling people lazy and blaming them instead of employers not hiring which is the real problem. The right wing hates abortion but instead of being pragmatic and preventing abortions thru controcaption they are against handing out birth control pills and condoms. Where is the pragmatism there? People are going to have sex no matter what with or without birth control so to avoid abortion they should be pragmatic about it instead of being freaks about sex. I think the new Pope has the right idea.

 

[James D Hill]

So you favor admitting defeat and compromising with despots. Parlez-vous Français?

The right has lost this fight my friend. Us liberals have lost a few fights over the years. The Tea Bagger's must admit defeat and get on with it. The poll's are ripping the GOP on this fight and so is the press.

 

[Comunitee]

The right wing is like a bunch of pitbull's. They never admit defeat...

I agree with everything in your post. Let me address this one in particular:

One thing that really makes me shake my head is that right-wingers simply don't understand WHY they lose.

Ask a liberal, or someone in the media -- not necessarily one and the same, like the right-wingers want you to believe -- why a conservative lost, and he'll say something like, "He was too conservative," or, "He said something he shouldn't have, that made him look like he was too conservative."

Ask a supporter of said conservative why he lost, and, almost inevitably, he'll say, "He didn't hold true to conservative principles," or, "He did a poor job of articluating conservative principles," or, "He wasn't conservative enough."

Whiskey... Tango... Foxtrot?!? (And if you don't know what that means, do what I did the first time I saw it: Ask a veteran.)

It's not that, as my fellow New Jerseyan Jack Nicholson would say, they can't handle the truth: They can't even GRASP the truth.

 

[James D Hill]

I agree with everything in your post. Let me address this one in particular:

One thing that really makes me shake my head is that right-wingers simply don't understand WHY they lose.

Ask a liberal, or someone in the media -- not necessarily one and the same, like the right-wingers want you to believe -- why a conservative lost, and he'll say something like, "He was too conservative," or, "He said something he shouldn't have, that made him look like he was too conservative."

Ask a supporter of said conservative why he lost, and, almost inevitably, he'll say, "He didn't hold true to conservative principles," or, "He did a poor job of articluating conservative principles," or, "He wasn't conservative enough."

Whiskey... Tango... Foxtrot?!? (And if you don't know what that means, do what I did the first time I saw it: Ask a veteran.)

It's not that, as my fellow New Jerseyan Jack Nicholson would say, they can't handle the truth: They can't even GRASP the truth.

They are going to pay the price this time.

 

[iguanaman]

The right wing is like a bunch of pitbull's. They never admit defeat and they don't like to compromise. If they did we would not be helt hostage by Tea Bagger nutjobs who only represent 18% of GOP population. If the right was pragmatic they would have given up on the war on drugs long ago because 78% of Americans say it is lost yet the defend the status quo on bad law and bad policy.

The same is true with the ACA. They have been defeated three times and they still don't give up. If they where pragmatic they would be working with the left on making it better instead of the my way or the highway attitude they seem to hold on to no matter how many times they get their head jhanded to them. It is too bad because being pragmatic is a part of doing a good job in the house,senate and the Whitehouse. If the GOP was pragmatic they would not be holding the nation hostage over a lost fight. They has their chance in 2012 and lost by over 5 milion votes. Get over it.

I'm afraid the realization that the GOP will never again hold the Whitehouse has had this effect. Their latest and desperate plan is to change our Constitution to make the minority the "deciders" on what the Govt. can and cannot do. It won't work.

 

[Comunitee]

Just look at conservatives stance on social issues. We all know the war on drugs is a failure just like Prohibition so other that the libertarians where is the pragmatism on that issue when the truth is as plain as day. Where is the right wing pragmatism on that issue?

You made a few good points, and I'd like to address the first one, the drug issue.

Someone who is conservative -- not necessarily a Republican, or a Tea Partier -- and believes that illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. should not be availabe to the general public, could only look at the way the War On Drugs has been waged, and conclude that it isn't working.

The question then becomes, Why?

It's a lot like the reaction to the Vietnam War in 1967 and '68: Liberals believed that the war was bad because it was not just destruction, but pointless; conservatives believed it was bad because it was ineffective. Conservatives attacked LBJ for fighting it badly, liberals attacked him for fighting it at all.

This time, it's not quite the other way around: We have the liberals saying, "The drug war isn't working, so let's stop it"; while we have the conservatives saying not, "It isn't working, so let's fix it," but, "Don't touch it at all."

Name some things conservatives hate, and the things you'll come up with will include "intrusive government," "wasteful spending" and "out of control crime." Essentially, the drug war has encouraged all three of those.

So a person unafraid to show some common sense, whether liberal OR conservative, would have to say, "Listen, guys, this stuff isn't working. We gotta try something else." I don't know what that "something else" should be. I'm not in favor of legalization: I've seen enough potsmokers to know that making pot more available is a bad idea. But I don't know what the good ideas are. So we need to find the people who have the good ideas, and put them into action.

War On Drugs A Costly Fiasco

 

[Mycroft]

Just look at conservatives stance on social issues. We all know the war on drugs is a failure just like Prohibition so other that the libertarians where is the pragmatism on that issue when the truth is as plain as day. Where is the right wing pragmatism on that issue? Where is the right wing pragmatism when it comes to their war on labor and the poor? The right knows just like the left that jobs are hard to come by. They know people are having a hard time but instead of being pragmatic they resort to calling people lazy and blaming them instead of employers not hiring which is the real problem. The right wing hates abortion but instead of being pragmatic and preventing abortions thru controcaption they are against handing out birth control pills and condoms. Where is the pragmatism there? People are going to have sex no matter what with or without birth control so to avoid abortion they should be pragmatic about it instead of being freaks about sex. I think the new Pope has the right idea.

LOL!! You still don't understand the meaning of the word, "pragmatic"...even after I gave you the definition. And then, to complete your illogical and downright dumbass anti-Republican rant, you trot out all your other failed talking points. But hey, I'm feeling generous today so I'll disabuse you of some of your talking points. Okay?

1. War on drugs: This is hardly a Republican policy. Every President...Republican and Democrat has kept that thing going. Heck, Democrats could have ended the thing when THEY had the majority a couple of years ago. They didn't.

2. War on labor and poor: There IS no war on labor and poor. Republicans have tried to increase jobs but have been stopped by the Democrats for years. And...speaking of the Democrats...what have they done that was pragmatic? Spend money we don't have with no results? Not very reasonable or logical. If there really is a war on labor and poor, give me a quote or two from Republican lawmakers in which they state they are in a war. Hmmm?

3. Hates abortion: They don't like abortion...that's for sure...but they are not against anyone using BC pills or condoms. They just don't want the government to spend the money to hand them out. I agree. Why should the government be making a stand by giving these things away when it should be a personal choice...and a personal responsibility?

You know, all the things you like about the Democrats are their ideas. That's fine. But when are they going to be pragmatic about their ideas? You remember the definition, right? "dealing with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories" Republicans are trying to be reasonable and logical. Kind of hard to to, though, when the Democrats are not. All they got are their ideas and theories and when they DO try to pass legislation to deal with problems, they make things worse. Obamacare is a prime example...but only one. Heck, do you remember how the Democrats decided to freeze the price of gas? Do you remember how THAT turned out? They were not very pragmatic about it, that's for sure.