Analyzing Kerry's acceptance speech...
-
Yeah, thats the point exactly Man can't get nothin by you can we?
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
There is no liberal Democrat alive who can get anything by me - or any other thinking human being. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
adonisv wrote: Your solution is? the solution is: 1) vouchers so kids can leave poorly performing schools, 2) parents that teach their kids the value of learning, 3) government that stays out of the classroom, 4) the destruction of teacher's unions, 5) parents (again) who pay attention to their kids schoolwork. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me Paraphrasing Kerry: I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are. Me
-
1.) Severly reducing or eliminating government bureaucracy. 2.) Severly reducing or eliminating the politically correct BS in schools. 3.) Allowing teachers and administrators more latitude in punishing/removing disruptive students. 4a.) Holding teachers and administrators accountable for poor student achievement. 4b.) Pay bonuses for exceptional student achievement. 5a.) Hold administrators responsible for budget overruns. 5b.) Pay bonuses for budget efficiency. At a college/university level I would totally eliminate athletic scholarships and reduce nearly all sports to intramural. Let the NBA and NFL fund their own minor leagues. Just a few thoughts, some of which need "fleshing out" before implementation. "The gay marriage thing scared me, but that's only because I thought at first it was mandatory." Jon Stewart
When we talk about "removing BS," are we including the "abstinence only," BS and the refusal to teach evolution? What about teaching "sex education?" Would this include the reinstatement of the P.E. class "dodgeball?" :omg: What is "exceptional student acheivement?" If I'm a really good at tests, going in, does the teacher get a bonus? Don't you mean "applied knowledge" not just great SCORES? I agree with your view on sports, its really just glorified P.E. :~
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Well what are the intellectual origins of modern "liberal" principles? one of the main roots is definitely the 1910's progressive populism of people like Teddy Roosevelt - who advocated for things like government imposed safety standards, living wages, business regulation, environmental conservation, etc.. just skim the speech i link to; you'll find an interesting mix of modern liberalism, federalism and libertariantism. Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with the centralized social control political systems exercise today, Jefferson or Marx? Marx would probably vomit if you called the current American govt system "Marxist". Jefferson would probably do the same if you told him this is what he wrought. but that's not solely the fault of the left. Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with the promotion of a secualar society by government Jefferson or Marx? that's a meaningless question, since the left isn't promoting a "secular society". Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with placing increased tax burdens on the "rich" Jefferson or Marx?
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
Marx believed that taxes could destroy capitalism, and that they could also be used to perpetuate it, depending on the rates. But since his goal wasn't simply to destroy capitalism but to replace it with a system where there wouldn't be any "rich" people to tax at a high rate, taxes are kindof irrelevan
Chris Losinger wrote: Chris Losinger wrote: one of the main roots is definitely the 1910's progressive populism of people like Teddy Roosevelt - who advocated for things like government imposed safety standards, living wages, business regulation, environmental conservation, etc.. All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. Chris Losinger wrote: Marx would probably vomit if you called the current American govt system "Marxist". So far, which is why the left is trying so hard. Jefferson would probably do the same if you told him this is what he wrought. but that's not the fault of the left. Actually it is almost completely the fault of the left (not to defend the Republicans in that regard) Chris Losinger wrote: that's a meaningless question, since the left isn't promoting a "secular society". yeah, it is. Christ, its the largest component of their social agenda. Chris Losinger wrote: "Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. Marx believed that taxes could destroy capitalism, and that they could also be used to perpetuate it, depending on the rates. But since his goal wasn't simply to destroy capitalism but to replace it with a system where there wouldn't be any "rich" people to tax at a high rate, taxes are kindof irrelevant to Marx, in the long run. Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day. We can surmise he would have been opposed to it
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Chris Losinger wrote: one of the main roots is definitely the 1910's progressive populism of people like Teddy Roosevelt - who advocated for things like government imposed safety standards, living wages, business regulation, environmental conservation, etc.. All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. Chris Losinger wrote: Marx would probably vomit if you called the current American govt system "Marxist". So far, which is why the left is trying so hard. Jefferson would probably do the same if you told him this is what he wrought. but that's not the fault of the left. Actually it is almost completely the fault of the left (not to defend the Republicans in that regard) Chris Losinger wrote: that's a meaningless question, since the left isn't promoting a "secular society". yeah, it is. Christ, its the largest component of their social agenda. Chris Losinger wrote: "Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. Marx believed that taxes could destroy capitalism, and that they could also be used to perpetuate it, depending on the rates. But since his goal wasn't simply to destroy capitalism but to replace it with a system where there wouldn't be any "rich" people to tax at a high rate, taxes are kindof irrelevant to Marx, in the long run. Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day. We can surmise he would have been opposed to it
Stan Shannon wrote: All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. it is possible to use a philosophy as a way to reframe a debate without necessarily buying into that philosophy. and, new philosophies, even when proven wrong on their own, can easily lead to the discovery of non-wrong philosophies by reframing the debate. ex. Libertarianism and Randianism are basically impossible to implement and wouldn't work if you could, but they do provide ways of looking at politics which can yield benefits in non-impossible political philosophies. using what they dictate to reframe a debate does not require that you want to live in anarchy. unless you're saying Teddy Roosevelt was a communist wanna-be ... in which case we should stop right here because we don't even live on the same planet. Stan Shannon wrote: Just because the left found no way of implementing Marx in the pure sense, doesn't mean they are not still devoted to experimenting with the essential elements of that philosophy. no Democrats are interested in experimenting with the essential elements of Marxism because the essential elements of Marxism are absurd, alien and silly. Stan Shannon wrote: Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day leave the goalposts where they are: you weren't referring to "income tax" either. you said "Who do you think would be most comfortable with placing increased tax burdens on the "rich" Jefferson or Marx? ". the quotes i provided demonstrate that he was comfortable of the idea that those who could afford to pay more "should". Stan Shannon wrote: If you are suggesting we return to a pre-income tax, Jeffersonian, policy of funding the government, I'll be more than happy to comply. i'm not. this is the 20th century, not the 18th. Stan Shannon wrote: Marx himself would have probably made similar adjustments to his own philosphies had he lived to see the consequencies of the early experiments with it. well, ya got me there. i can't dispute the actions of a Marx from an alternate universe that exists only in your imagination. Software | Cleek
-
-
When we talk about "removing BS," are we including the "abstinence only," BS and the refusal to teach evolution? What about teaching "sex education?" Would this include the reinstatement of the P.E. class "dodgeball?" :omg: What is "exceptional student acheivement?" If I'm a really good at tests, going in, does the teacher get a bonus? Don't you mean "applied knowledge" not just great SCORES? I agree with your view on sports, its really just glorified P.E. :~
adonisv wrote: When we talk about "removing BS," are we including the "abstinence only," BS and the refusal to teach evolution? What about teaching "sex education?" In my scenario government bureaucracy is gone so what is removed and what is taught is determined by local school boards. Face it - what flies in New York, NY may not fly in Jerkwater, AL. Each community decides what gets taught in their schools. Their children (and only their children) must live with the consequences. adonisv wrote: Would this include the reinstatement of the P.E. class "dodgeball?" I hope so, I loved dodgeball. :cool: adonisv wrote: What is "exceptional student acheivement? Again, each community (thru it's local school board) decides what metrics are used. "The gay marriage thing scared me, but that's only because I thought at first it was mandatory." Jon Stewart
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Chris Losinger wrote: one of the main roots is definitely the 1910's progressive populism of people like Teddy Roosevelt - who advocated for things like government imposed safety standards, living wages, business regulation, environmental conservation, etc.. All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. Chris Losinger wrote: Marx would probably vomit if you called the current American govt system "Marxist". So far, which is why the left is trying so hard. Jefferson would probably do the same if you told him this is what he wrought. but that's not the fault of the left. Actually it is almost completely the fault of the left (not to defend the Republicans in that regard) Chris Losinger wrote: that's a meaningless question, since the left isn't promoting a "secular society". yeah, it is. Christ, its the largest component of their social agenda. Chris Losinger wrote: "Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. Marx believed that taxes could destroy capitalism, and that they could also be used to perpetuate it, depending on the rates. But since his goal wasn't simply to destroy capitalism but to replace it with a system where there wouldn't be any "rich" people to tax at a high rate, taxes are kindof irrelevant to Marx, in the long run. Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day. We can surmise he would have been opposed to it
Stan Shannon wrote: "What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. Stan Shannon wrote: Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day. We can surmise he would have been opposed to it based on this: Maybe you can surmise that from those two quotes, the one you posted from 1801 and the one Chris posted from 1811. But in my opinion your supposition makes no sense. Those two quotes in chronological order would seem to indicate the Jefferson was talking exactly about what Kerry proposed for a Tax Plan. Of course you have to also account for the difference in time. I mean life in 1811 vs life in 2004. Jefferson was talking about infrastructure of the day, roads and schools etc. Our needs are vastly more and complex today in comparison and I for one believe that unlike you Jefferson would be smart enough to understand that. I see no proof of your hypothesis in the quotes offered in this thread. If anything it is easier to surmise that he would have eventually conceded to the necessity of income tax in modern times to enable the government to continue supplying the infrastructure support that he clearly favored in 1811.
Hate is not a family value.
-pete
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Well what are the intellectual origins of modern "liberal" principles? one of the main roots is definitely the 1910's progressive populism of people like Teddy Roosevelt - who advocated for things like government imposed safety standards, living wages, business regulation, environmental conservation, etc.. just skim the speech i link to; you'll find an interesting mix of modern liberalism, federalism and libertariantism. Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with the centralized social control political systems exercise today, Jefferson or Marx? Marx would probably vomit if you called the current American govt system "Marxist". Jefferson would probably do the same if you told him this is what he wrought. but that's not solely the fault of the left. Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with the promotion of a secualar society by government Jefferson or Marx? that's a meaningless question, since the left isn't promoting a "secular society". Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with placing increased tax burdens on the "rich" Jefferson or Marx?
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
Marx believed that taxes could destroy capitalism, and that they could also be used to perpetuate it, depending on the rates. But since his goal wasn't simply to destroy capitalism but to replace it with a system where there wouldn't be any "rich" people to tax at a high rate, taxes are kindof irrelevan
So what's the deal? Did you major in Political Science or something? You have more facts about American Politics than I have about... uhh ME! :) Or maybe you have a Cray in your bedroom? :laugh::laugh:
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
adonisv wrote: If teachers were highly paid, people would WANT to be teachers do you know what the pay scale is? I know junior high school teachers who make 60k - 75k per year. is that bad? the reason many qualified people don't teach is the politically correct nature of the classroom. discipline is not allowed and attempting to get rid of a problem kid that disrupts everything takes an act of God. It is a thankless job, if a teacher fails a kid the teacher gets into trouble. These, along with the fact that parents that don't do their job is the reason for school problems, not a lack of money. if parents do their job, kids can be taught in a tent with a lantern for light. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me Paraphrasing Kerry: I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are. Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: do you know what the pay scale is? Well I am no Chris Losinger :laugh: but even I could do this one ;P http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm[^] Median annual earnings of kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers ranged from $39,810 to $44,340 in 2002; the lowest 10 percent earned $24,960 to $29,850; the top 10 percent earned $62,890 to $68,530. Median earnings for preschool teachers were $19,270. According to the American Federation of Teachers, beginning teachers with a bachelor’s degree earned an average of $30,719 in the 2001–02 school year. The estimated average salary of all public elementary and secondary school teachers in the 2001–02 school year was $44,367. Private school teachers generally earn less than public school teachers.
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
Stan Shannon wrote: All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. it is possible to use a philosophy as a way to reframe a debate without necessarily buying into that philosophy. and, new philosophies, even when proven wrong on their own, can easily lead to the discovery of non-wrong philosophies by reframing the debate. ex. Libertarianism and Randianism are basically impossible to implement and wouldn't work if you could, but they do provide ways of looking at politics which can yield benefits in non-impossible political philosophies. using what they dictate to reframe a debate does not require that you want to live in anarchy. unless you're saying Teddy Roosevelt was a communist wanna-be ... in which case we should stop right here because we don't even live on the same planet. Stan Shannon wrote: Just because the left found no way of implementing Marx in the pure sense, doesn't mean they are not still devoted to experimenting with the essential elements of that philosophy. no Democrats are interested in experimenting with the essential elements of Marxism because the essential elements of Marxism are absurd, alien and silly. Stan Shannon wrote: Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day leave the goalposts where they are: you weren't referring to "income tax" either. you said "Who do you think would be most comfortable with placing increased tax burdens on the "rich" Jefferson or Marx? ". the quotes i provided demonstrate that he was comfortable of the idea that those who could afford to pay more "should". Stan Shannon wrote: If you are suggesting we return to a pre-income tax, Jeffersonian, policy of funding the government, I'll be more than happy to comply. i'm not. this is the 20th century, not the 18th. Stan Shannon wrote: Marx himself would have probably made similar adjustments to his own philosphies had he lived to see the consequencies of the early experiments with it. well, ya got me there. i can't dispute the actions of a Marx from an alternate universe that exists only in your imagination. Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: it is possible to use a philosophy as a way to reframe a debate without necessarily buying into that philosophy. and, new philosophies, even when proven wrong on their own, can easily lead to the discovery of non-wrong philosophies by reframing the debate. ex. Libertarianism and Randianism are basically impossible to implement and wouldn't work if you could, but they do provide ways of looking at politics which can yield benefits in non-impossible political philosophies. using what they dictate to reframe a debate does not require that you want to live in anarchy. unless you're saying Teddy Roosevelt was a communist wanna-be ... in which case we should stop right here because we don't even live on the same planet. Of course, I agree with that. I'm merely trying to establish that there are two general political themes competing for supremacy today. One, growing out of a genrally Marxist set of principles, promotes the notion that centralized political power serves a positive good within human society. And another, arising primarily from the core Jeffersonian principles the U.S. was founded upon, promotes a decentralized, anti-federalist, pro-indiviualist, pro-private property set of principles. These two philosophies represent the current political extremes of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative. I am an extremist in the sense that I believe the centralization of social and economic power in the hands of a federal politcal system is inherently dangerous and to be avoided at all costs. I vote for 'conservatives' and republicans, not because I agree with many of their principles, but merely because they establish a means of opposing the most dangerous politcal agenda on the planet today. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
So what's the deal? Did you major in Political Science or something? You have more facts about American Politics than I have about... uhh ME! :) Or maybe you have a Cray in your bedroom? :laugh::laugh:
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
palbano wrote: Did you major in Political Science or something? hell no. i majored in Computer Science! the only science that matters. :) palbano wrote: You have more facts about American Politics than I have about... uhh ME one positive (???) effect GWB has had on me is to get me deeply interested in current politics. four years ago i didn't give a crap about it, didn't pay attention, didn't think there was any real difference between the two major parties as far as my everyday life was concerned, would've voted for Nader if he was on the NC ballot just cause I thought it'd be fun to shake things up. i knew about the old stuff from high school and college, but wasn't really interested in the current stuff because it seemed so removed from my daily life. 9/11 and W's actions afterwards got me to pay attention. palbano wrote: Or maybe you have a Cray in your bedroom? just IE. those blogs can really teach you a lot. some of them are pretty serious discussions by pretty smart people: Josh Marshall (foreign policy from a left-leaning journalist) Tacitus (military and foreign policy with a rightward slant) Calpundit/Political Animal (lefty politics) Volokh (legal analysis from the right) Crooked Timber (serious philosophy from the left) Max Sawicky (serious economics with a lefty political slant) Matt Yglesias (philosophy and centrist politcs) Whiskey Bar (lefty politics) some of them are just red meat/hot topics: Atrios, KOS. excellent for learning about the outrage of the day. and some are brutally funny shredding of rightwing nonsense: tbogg, World O' Crap, Pandagon of course, there are rightwing equivalents to all of those, too. start with Instapundit. and, of course Google. but mostly... i love to argue, and that means i need to have facts in my quiver. if you go into a place like Tacitus or Yglesias unarmed, you get ripped up pretty quickly :) Software | Cleek
-
Stan Shannon wrote: "What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. Stan Shannon wrote: Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day. We can surmise he would have been opposed to it based on this: Maybe you can surmise that from those two quotes, the one you posted from 1801 and the one Chris posted from 1811. But in my opinion your supposition makes no sense. Those two quotes in chronological order would seem to indicate the Jefferson was talking exactly about what Kerry proposed for a Tax Plan. Of course you have to also account for the difference in time. I mean life in 1811 vs life in 2004. Jefferson was talking about infrastructure of the day, roads and schools etc. Our needs are vastly more and complex today in comparison and I for one believe that unlike you Jefferson would be smart enough to understand that. I see no proof of your hypothesis in the quotes offered in this thread. If anything it is easier to surmise that he would have eventually conceded to the necessity of income tax in modern times to enable the government to continue supplying the infrastructure support that he clearly favored in 1811.
Hate is not a family value.
-pete
If it were merely a question of infratstructure, I, and probably Jefferson, would agree that is an entirely prudent rationale for acquiring and using public funds. However, Jefferson was staunchly anti-federalist. The modern federal government of the U.S. stands as a nearly complete repudiation of the core principles Jefferson ,et al, struggled so hard to establish. Those principles were universal and are as relavent in 2004 as in 1811. It is really not so much a matter of how taxes are raised, it is how government translates taxation into the ability to influence the direction of society in ways that it has no strictly stated constitutional authority to do. For example, consider prayer in school. There is nothing in the constitution that makes any school any where in the country an extension of the federal government, so obviously any prayer said in a public school cannot possible violate the wording of the first amendment. However, because schools are dependent upon funds raised from taxation they become, by default, an extension of the state and thus can be controlled, via the courts, by constitutional prohibitions upon the government including the first amendments prohibition on establishing a religion. Thus the power to tax becomes the power to coerce and influence social institutions at the local level and that violates the most basic principles of Jeffersonian federalism. Thats the problem and not taxation itself. That logic, taken to its ultimate conclusion, gives the government a monopoly on setting and maintaining the social agenda for the entire country, which, ironically, violates the very rational for having the First Amendment in the first place which was specifically to prohibit the federal government from having any such power. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Oops. I was wrong. Freakin Liberal... piss off you idiot :laugh::laugh:
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
palbano wrote: Did you major in Political Science or something? hell no. i majored in Computer Science! the only science that matters. :) palbano wrote: You have more facts about American Politics than I have about... uhh ME one positive (???) effect GWB has had on me is to get me deeply interested in current politics. four years ago i didn't give a crap about it, didn't pay attention, didn't think there was any real difference between the two major parties as far as my everyday life was concerned, would've voted for Nader if he was on the NC ballot just cause I thought it'd be fun to shake things up. i knew about the old stuff from high school and college, but wasn't really interested in the current stuff because it seemed so removed from my daily life. 9/11 and W's actions afterwards got me to pay attention. palbano wrote: Or maybe you have a Cray in your bedroom? just IE. those blogs can really teach you a lot. some of them are pretty serious discussions by pretty smart people: Josh Marshall (foreign policy from a left-leaning journalist) Tacitus (military and foreign policy with a rightward slant) Calpundit/Political Animal (lefty politics) Volokh (legal analysis from the right) Crooked Timber (serious philosophy from the left) Max Sawicky (serious economics with a lefty political slant) Matt Yglesias (philosophy and centrist politcs) Whiskey Bar (lefty politics) some of them are just red meat/hot topics: Atrios, KOS. excellent for learning about the outrage of the day. and some are brutally funny shredding of rightwing nonsense: tbogg, World O' Crap, Pandagon of course, there are rightwing equivalents to all of those, too. start with Instapundit. and, of course Google. but mostly... i love to argue, and that means i need to have facts in my quiver. if you go into a place like Tacitus or Yglesias unarmed, you get ripped up pretty quickly :) Software | Cleek
You must have a hell of a lot of time on your hands. I barely have time to poke in here on occassion... "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
Work harder. When I was a child in the 50's and 60's my parents were poor and there were no government programs or insurance to help us and we were easily able to avail ourselves of health care. They had to work hard, but they did it (with some help from local churches and on one occasion the Lion's club) The more government helps, the harder it is to get it. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
Stan Shannon wrote: And, yes, the rich would have better education than the poor. The poor would have to work harder. Being poor sucks. The only responsibility the government has to the poor is to maximize their opportunities to work their way out of it. And that means a healthy, growing economy, with low taxes across the board. Stan Shannon wrote: Work harder Stan, well said. I have always known that this was the center of the modern Republican philosophy. However you are the first one to come right out and say it. Good for you. Of course, this makes you a Heartless Profiteer rather than a Patriotic American but I am sure that is a distinction that is lost on you. So even though I am completely wasting my time, hey it is my time to waste right, I will point out why it is so. In other posts you reference Jefferson and his disapproval of income tax. Instead Jefferson proposed that government be funded with property taxes. This was in a time when you could become a property owner by walking out on land that was not already claimed by another and saying, THIS IS MY PROPERTY. I think we can all agree that times have changed. If you can’t agree with that just stop reading. Therefore it is logical to believe that in modern times Jefferson might have had a different opinion on income tax, obviously we will never know. Of course since he was a slave owner, which of course makes him a Heartless Profiteer BY DEFINITION, I personally don’t put any credence in anything he had to say about anything, period. The fact that you seem to adore him so much certainly gives me pause regarding your mental stability but that is neither here nor there. So we form a government and fund it to be responsible for the infrastructure of our new country, as per our beloved Jefferson. We do so because we realize the simple fact that it is in our own best interests to work together to build our own future in this new land of abundance an opportunity. So ordinary (not rich) Americans get jobs building the infrastructure. Take the case of Stanley who gets a job building American Roads. The same roads that many businesses use to their advantage to make themselves rich. Now 20 years later technology is taking a lead in the world and road builders are not needed so much and Stanley can not find any work. Tough shit for him right? After all we have all the roads that he built so we don’t need him anymore right? Piss off Stanley, you should have become the Vice Duke
-
-
I guess your asking me? Yeah that's why I called you a liberal, real Rebublicans never admit they made a mistake. :-D Also, the laughing faces traditionally mean ur joking. :)
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
>> Yeah that's why I called you a liberal, real Rebublicans never admit they made a mistake. Ah, OK. Hey, you never know. In order of importance for me: God Family Country Ideology Party And party may even be further down. I make mistakes, not many, but occasionally. Kidding. I make them often.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Hmmm, I bet health care wasn't as expensive back then as it is now. But that shouldn't matter...nawww. I somewhat agree with you that "choices" reflect whether you are poor or not. Like if you make diddly squat, don't have eight kids! My objections to conservatism are cutting funding for education, raping the environment and a refusal due to a conflict of interest to move us toward alternative fuels. Although I somewhat blame the public for not putting their money behind green products. I also dislike the Christian Faith being shoved down my throat and a blind devotion to Israel...
adonisv wrote: Hmmm, I bet health care wasn't as expensive back then as it is now. But that shouldn't matter...nawww. Did it ever occur to you that the more the government spends on health care the more expensive it becomes? adonisv wrote: cutting funding for education Didn't happen... adonisv wrote: , raping the environment The environment will let us know when its tired of being raped... adonisv wrote: a refusal due to a conflict of interest to move us toward alternative fuels. Conservatives didn't invent oil. There is no 'alternative fuel' that is going to be able to compete in the market place with oil until it becomes a lot more expensive than it is now. That is simply a fact and is not the fault of W or any othre conservative. President Kerry will not be able to do a damned thing about it ether, any more than Clinton did. adonisv wrote: I also dislike the Christian Faith being shoved down my throat and a blind devotion to Israel... The only faith being shoved down anyone's throat in this country is that of the Secularist left. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
Stan Shannon wrote: And, yes, the rich would have better education than the poor. The poor would have to work harder. Being poor sucks. The only responsibility the government has to the poor is to maximize their opportunities to work their way out of it. And that means a healthy, growing economy, with low taxes across the board. Stan Shannon wrote: Work harder Stan, well said. I have always known that this was the center of the modern Republican philosophy. However you are the first one to come right out and say it. Good for you. Of course, this makes you a Heartless Profiteer rather than a Patriotic American but I am sure that is a distinction that is lost on you. So even though I am completely wasting my time, hey it is my time to waste right, I will point out why it is so. In other posts you reference Jefferson and his disapproval of income tax. Instead Jefferson proposed that government be funded with property taxes. This was in a time when you could become a property owner by walking out on land that was not already claimed by another and saying, THIS IS MY PROPERTY. I think we can all agree that times have changed. If you can’t agree with that just stop reading. Therefore it is logical to believe that in modern times Jefferson might have had a different opinion on income tax, obviously we will never know. Of course since he was a slave owner, which of course makes him a Heartless Profiteer BY DEFINITION, I personally don’t put any credence in anything he had to say about anything, period. The fact that you seem to adore him so much certainly gives me pause regarding your mental stability but that is neither here nor there. So we form a government and fund it to be responsible for the infrastructure of our new country, as per our beloved Jefferson. We do so because we realize the simple fact that it is in our own best interests to work together to build our own future in this new land of abundance an opportunity. So ordinary (not rich) Americans get jobs building the infrastructure. Take the case of Stanley who gets a job building American Roads. The same roads that many businesses use to their advantage to make themselves rich. Now 20 years later technology is taking a lead in the world and road builders are not needed so much and Stanley can not find any work. Tough shit for him right? After all we have all the roads that he built so we don’t need him anymore right? Piss off Stanley, you should have become the Vice Duke
Well, you're just plain wrong. A trully capitalisitc society offers the poor the best chance to improve their lot in life. All government help provides them with is more of the same poverty. But of course that doesn't bother you any, as long as there are plenty of poor you can pander to you will be more easily able to force your socialist, secularist agenda down the throats of Americans. You don't want to help the poor, you want to keep them dependent and use them for promulgating your completely unrelated agenda. The Democrats have never helped the poor, and never will. If they did, they would no longer have a base of power to stand on. The U.S. was established to be a place where indiviudals are afforded the opportunity to stand on their own two feet and live their own lives in their own way. Anyone who cannot accept that simple social contract should not live here. That is what we are and have always been. I am not in anything togther with anyone outside of my own immediate family. I don't need you or anyone else, and I only need the government to kill terrorist for me so that I don't have to waste my own money on ammo. That is how I was raised by my father who was raised the same way by his for many, many generations - that is the America we bought into when we fought and won the Revolution. The principles and values established than are universal and eternal. That is the American I intend to leave to my children. I do not intend to let it become a Euro-esk social welfare state dedicated to the brotherhood of humanity or other Marxist nonsense. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"