Why is it that libertarians (or RonPaulItes or whatever you call yourselves these days) always try to belittle government protections by calling them "holding our hands"?
Why is that liberals always answer a question with a question?;)
Actually, while I'm not a libertarian on anything other than civil liberties, I would answer with my belief that after you reach the age of majority you bear a certain amount of responsibility for yourself. I don't expect the government to hold my hand throughout my lifetime and am perfectly happy to let the chips fall as they may regarding my decisions. I'll take the freedom to screw up over the benevolent government that seeks to protect me from myself any day of the week.
Moreover, I've grown weary of the nanny state as I've gotten older. Here in NY our Governor wants to impose an "obesity tax" on soda. I have a serious problem with that, because A) Soda in moderation is perfectly fine, B) A tax won't teach people moderation, C) If I know it's bad for me and decide to do it anyway then why should Albany or Washington care? I'm a grown up. My body, my choice, right?
IMHO, taxes exist to fund Governmental operations. They don't exist to encourage behavior that happens to be politically popular at the current moment in time. I don't care if that behavior is home ownership (the mortgage interest deduction) or living a healthy lifestyle (extra taxes on alcohol, tobacco, soda and the outright prohibition of recreational drugs)
And, no, 1/3 of this country isn't evil. The majority of that 1/3 is merely duped or bullied by the actually-evil remainder.
Typical partisan thinking. Anybody who doesn't agree with you is being "duped". Maybe we need a governmental agency to verify truth in political advertising since we are all too stupid to judge politicians for ourselves?
They didn't care a fig for how Texans did things in the past, and immediately began changing things to suit themselves
I've contemplated moving to New Hampshire but am worried this will happen to them as all of the Boston ex-pats seek cheaper real estate. Guess that leaves me with Alaska. I suppose I'll have to learn to deal with months of darkness and the constant threat of Russian invasion;)
Not even wingnut Republicans are denying that this is the worst recession we've had since the 30's.
Thankfully all we have to do is spend some money on new furniture for DHS, smoking cessation and STD prevention and the economy will turn right around.
You know I don't object the Democrats trying to pass their agenda early in Obama's term while they still have a mandate. I just object to them tying that agenda into a bill that's supposed to be about stimulating the economy. When the Republicans tried this sort of stuff people bitched and moaned about it. I guess it's perfectly ok if the Democrats use the exact same tactics huh?
But all attempts at distraction aside, don't think no one noticed that your talking point re: Democratic group think went down in flames.
Don't think no one noticed how you glossed over the little bit about the centralization of power in the leadership. If you think you can bring a bill to the floor of the US House without the support of the Speaker you are sadly mistaken. My counter to your example of Webb and Tester would be the outrage among the liberally minded netroots after the selection of Gillibrand as Hillary's replacement.
Too bad Dingell is 100% full of shit. Harry Reid is pro-life
I missed this before. Tell me, what does Harry Reid have to do with the House of Representatives?
Or you could do something. I googled her name, found her web site, and left a message telling her about my opinion
Why should she give a shit what my opinion is, seeing as how I'm not a resident of the <sarcasm>People's Republic of</sarcasm> California? I'll stick to worrying about what my own Senators are up too.
A few thousand angry comments would change her mind pretty quickly.
Like the tens of thousands of angry comments changed Obama's opinion on FISA?
I bet the Republicans thought it was true when it was GWB saying it. Personally I don't believe a word that comes out of any of their mouths. Mr. Obama hasn't exactly proven himself to be particularly trustworthy.
Why won't it work? Are you saying that a hundred challenges will all fail? Are you saying that Democrats should pursue a strategy of ceding territory without a fight?
Care to venture a guess on the number of sitting US Senators that have lost a primary election in the last 100 years?
it'll be considered a gain for progressives.
And a net loss for everybody else who values real freedom instead of Governmental hand-holding nanny state bullshit.
If you care enough to want to make a difference, then why not hold a fundraiser or get some big corporate donations? Do you think you should be able to dictate US policy by whining into a phone or sending an e-mail?
Do you really think that fundraisers and big corporate donors should be dictating policy?
Abraham Lincoln when he acted like George Dubya - like a military dictator.
Lincoln went a lot further than GWB ever dreamed. If GWB had the cojones of Lincoln he would installed puppet governments in the state capitols of the blue states that opposed his policies and ordered the army to arrest the entire editorial board (well, except Kristol) of the New York Times.
People who blindly idolize Lincoln really need to open a history book and see what he was all about. I'm not convinced that forcing the South to remain a part of the Union at gunpoint was really worth it.
To be fair, Bush's TARP plan was basically "put a giant pile of money on the table, turn your back, and whatever the banks want they can take". The Obama plan is far more directed and includes oversight as well as earmarks to reduce the chance that the money just goes directly into someone's pocket, never to be seen again.
I make no comment on the merits of either plan. I just find it ironic that Obama is using the same kind of language that Bush would have used (pass the legislation I want or catastrophe will strike!) and yet I don't hear the same kind of screaming coming from the far-left.
Unlike the republicans, the democratic party has a lot of people with their own views
And those views are dead on arrival if they conflict with the views of the party/congressional leadership. The NY Times just had an interesting article about the oldest serving member of the House. Here's the interesting part:
More troublesome for Mr. Dingell has been the long-term trend toward ideological polarization, making the Democratic Party less hospitable for members with socially conservative views, like his support for gun rights. When redistricting pitted him against the more liberal Representative Lynn Rivers in a 2002 primary, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California sent $10,000 to Ms. Rivers.
Mr. Dingell survived. But like colleagues in both parties, he has chafed under Ms. Pelosiâ(TM)s speakership at the centralization of decision-making within the House leadership. "It started under Gingrich," he said, "and it continues today."
The joys of living in a blue state with no term limits on senators...
Even if your state wanted to it couldn't put term limits on Federal offices. It was tried and SCOTUS shot it down. We'd need a Constitutional Amendment to term limit these bastards. Given that the Congresscritters themselves get a vote on amendments through the typical process, we'll have to convince 2/3'rds of the state legislatures to call for a convention.
The hypocrisy of the democrats who ripped on republicans and Bush and now ignore it when they do the EXACT same type of stuff just kills me.
My favorite was all the whining I heard from the far-left when Bush was selling the TARP plan by telling us how society was going to collapse if we didn't pass it. "Bush is just trying to scare us so he can raid the treasury!" they all said. I'm glad that Obama is above such fear-mongering to pass his agenda. He would never use loaded words like "catastrophe", would he?
I mean, I thought it was the Republicans who were destroying America and the Democrats were going to save us? You mean to tell me that they are all beholden to business interests? Say it it isn't so!
Just apply for a bed time story license from the authors guild. Make sure that you educate your children about copyright law though -- the license is only valid for you and if they repeat the story to their friends at school we'll have to haul them into court.
And those who are not as assiduous as you don't deserve to be protected by the law?
Why is it that liberals (or progressives or whatever you call yourselves these days) always assume that somebody who doesn't think we need the government to hold our hands thinks that people don't deserve to be protected?
Strawman much? We're talking about telling you that yes, you can afford what you are about to do with us and there will be no problems, knowing it's a lie.
Again, if you didn't do the research on your own to figure that out then I don't have a lot of sympathy for you. If that makes me a cold son-of-a-bitch then so be it. If I'm selling you something it's not my job to make sure you can afford it. The bankers should probably be punished for a lot of reasons (fraud comes to mind) but that doesn't mean I'm not sick of this "think of all the people who can't think for themselves!" whining. It turned me off to liberalism and made me realize that what you guys are peddling is really no better than what the GOP is peddling.
He and Hillary are the DLCers, the ones who think Democrats need to become more like Republicans in order to win elections -- which is to say, they have an essential urge to capitulate to evil
Evil? That's a mighty big word you've used there. There's evil in this world -- open a history book, take a trip to Burma or try to enroll in school in Afghanistan as a female -- but calling a major American political party 'evil' just makes it that much harder to take you seriously. 1/3 of this country is 'evil'? Really? Give me a fucking break.
On the other hand, the Republicans have done nothing but gleefully press the pedal to the metal in rushing our country to the cliff's edge, so I shall give them no quarter whatsoever
Have fun with the next four or eight years of Democratic dominance. I don't think you'll find that they do any better. The only difference is which freedoms we'll lose. Eventually the Democrats will overstep in the same manner as the GOP has overstepped and the pendulum will swing the other way. Too bad the sane people among us get clonked on the head by that pendulum every time it swings from the far-left to the far-right and back again.
Enjoy your partisan delusion that the Democrats are actually better than the Republicans. Meanwhile I'll try to live my life like most Americans. Try not to steal too much of money or take away too many of my guns in the meantime, ok?
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that libertarians (or RonPaulItes or whatever you call yourselves these days) always try to belittle government protections by calling them "holding our hands"?
Why is that liberals always answer a question with a question? ;)
Actually, while I'm not a libertarian on anything other than civil liberties, I would answer with my belief that after you reach the age of majority you bear a certain amount of responsibility for yourself. I don't expect the government to hold my hand throughout my lifetime and am perfectly happy to let the chips fall as they may regarding my decisions. I'll take the freedom to screw up over the benevolent government that seeks to protect me from myself any day of the week.
Moreover, I've grown weary of the nanny state as I've gotten older. Here in NY our Governor wants to impose an "obesity tax" on soda. I have a serious problem with that, because A) Soda in moderation is perfectly fine, B) A tax won't teach people moderation, C) If I know it's bad for me and decide to do it anyway then why should Albany or Washington care? I'm a grown up. My body, my choice, right?
IMHO, taxes exist to fund Governmental operations. They don't exist to encourage behavior that happens to be politically popular at the current moment in time. I don't care if that behavior is home ownership (the mortgage interest deduction) or living a healthy lifestyle (extra taxes on alcohol, tobacco, soda and the outright prohibition of recreational drugs)
And, no, 1/3 of this country isn't evil. The majority of that 1/3 is merely duped or bullied by the actually-evil remainder.
Typical partisan thinking. Anybody who doesn't agree with you is being "duped". Maybe we need a governmental agency to verify truth in political advertising since we are all too stupid to judge politicians for ourselves?
Why do you think they dueled so often?
We should bring back dueling. Who cares what two consenting adults are doing with each other? ;)
Gotta love New Hampshire.
They didn't care a fig for how Texans did things in the past, and immediately began changing things to suit themselves
I've contemplated moving to New Hampshire but am worried this will happen to them as all of the Boston ex-pats seek cheaper real estate. Guess that leaves me with Alaska. I suppose I'll have to learn to deal with months of darkness and the constant threat of Russian invasion ;)
Not even wingnut Republicans are denying that this is the worst recession we've had since the 30's.
Thankfully all we have to do is spend some money on new furniture for DHS, smoking cessation and STD prevention and the economy will turn right around.
You know I don't object the Democrats trying to pass their agenda early in Obama's term while they still have a mandate. I just object to them tying that agenda into a bill that's supposed to be about stimulating the economy. When the Republicans tried this sort of stuff people bitched and moaned about it. I guess it's perfectly ok if the Democrats use the exact same tactics huh?
The ends justify the means after all.
But all attempts at distraction aside, don't think no one noticed that your talking point re: Democratic group think went down in flames.
Don't think no one noticed how you glossed over the little bit about the centralization of power in the leadership. If you think you can bring a bill to the floor of the US House without the support of the Speaker you are sadly mistaken. My counter to your example of Webb and Tester would be the outrage among the liberally minded netroots after the selection of Gillibrand as Hillary's replacement.
Too bad Dingell is 100% full of shit. Harry Reid is pro-life
I missed this before. Tell me, what does Harry Reid have to do with the House of Representatives?
Works to ban gun ownership, but has her own concealed carry permit and uses it (so much for equal protection of the laws)
Remember that all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.
Chuck Schemer has (or had) a carry permit permit too. In NYC no less. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
Or you could do something. I googled her name, found her web site, and left a message telling her about my opinion
Why should she give a shit what my opinion is, seeing as how I'm not a resident of the <sarcasm>People's Republic of</sarcasm> California? I'll stick to worrying about what my own Senators are up too.
A few thousand angry comments would change her mind pretty quickly.
Like the tens of thousands of angry comments changed Obama's opinion on FISA?
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut line and you have reality.
The left or the right wingnuts? Both?
I bet the Republicans thought it was true when it was GWB saying it. Personally I don't believe a word that comes out of any of their mouths. Mr. Obama hasn't exactly proven himself to be particularly trustworthy.
And you don't know anything about elections Mr. Primary off sitting US Senators, so I guess we're even ;)
Still waiting for that answer on how many sitting US Senators have lost a primary election.
Why won't it work? Are you saying that a hundred challenges will all fail? Are you saying that Democrats should pursue a strategy of ceding territory without a fight?
Care to venture a guess on the number of sitting US Senators that have lost a primary election in the last 100 years?
it'll be considered a gain for progressives.
And a net loss for everybody else who values real freedom instead of Governmental hand-holding nanny state bullshit.
Term limits would also get rid of the honest, competent politicians who serve their constituents with integrity.
Don't worry, I'm sure both of them will find other jobs ;)
If you care enough to want to make a difference, then why not hold a fundraiser or get some big corporate donations? Do you think you should be able to dictate US policy by whining into a phone or sending an e-mail?
Do you really think that fundraisers and big corporate donors should be dictating policy?
Abraham Lincoln when he acted like George Dubya - like a military dictator.
Lincoln went a lot further than GWB ever dreamed. If GWB had the cojones of Lincoln he would installed puppet governments in the state capitols of the blue states that opposed his policies and ordered the army to arrest the entire editorial board (well, except Kristol) of the New York Times.
People who blindly idolize Lincoln really need to open a history book and see what he was all about. I'm not convinced that forcing the South to remain a part of the Union at gunpoint was really worth it.
To be fair, Bush's TARP plan was basically "put a giant pile of money on the table, turn your back, and whatever the banks want they can take". The Obama plan is far more directed and includes oversight as well as earmarks to reduce the chance that the money just goes directly into someone's pocket, never to be seen again.
I make no comment on the merits of either plan. I just find it ironic that Obama is using the same kind of language that Bush would have used (pass the legislation I want or catastrophe will strike!) and yet I don't hear the same kind of screaming coming from the far-left.
Unlike the republicans, the democratic party has a lot of people with their own views
And those views are dead on arrival if they conflict with the views of the party/congressional leadership. The NY Times just had an interesting article about the oldest serving member of the House. Here's the interesting part:
More troublesome for Mr. Dingell has been the long-term trend toward ideological polarization, making the Democratic Party less hospitable for members with socially conservative views, like his support for gun rights. When redistricting pitted him against the more liberal Representative Lynn Rivers in a 2002 primary, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California sent $10,000 to Ms. Rivers.
Mr. Dingell survived. But like colleagues in both parties, he has chafed under Ms. Pelosiâ(TM)s speakership at the centralization of decision-making within the House leadership. "It started under Gingrich," he said, "and it continues today."
does this make barak an oilman now?
Shit, I always suspected he had ties to the Middle East but who knew it was via oil ;)
(That was sarcasm for those too dense to grasp it)
The joys of living in a blue state with no term limits on senators...
Even if your state wanted to it couldn't put term limits on Federal offices. It was tried and SCOTUS shot it down. We'd need a Constitutional Amendment to term limit these bastards. Given that the Congresscritters themselves get a vote on amendments through the typical process, we'll have to convince 2/3'rds of the state legislatures to call for a convention.
The hypocrisy of the democrats who ripped on republicans and Bush and now ignore it when they do the EXACT same type of stuff just kills me.
My favorite was all the whining I heard from the far-left when Bush was selling the TARP plan by telling us how society was going to collapse if we didn't pass it. "Bush is just trying to scare us so he can raid the treasury!" they all said. I'm glad that Obama is above such fear-mongering to pass his agenda. He would never use loaded words like "catastrophe", would he?
She's not a good Democrat. Step 1 for Democrats was to get more elected Democrats. Now that is accomplished, step 2 is to get better Democrats.
Thank you for sharing the Daily Kos theme song with us ;)
Feinstein and many others will probably be facing primary challengers for the next election
Good luck with that.
I mean, I thought it was the Republicans who were destroying America and the Democrats were going to save us? You mean to tell me that they are all beholden to business interests? Say it it isn't so!
"Once upon a time in a mythical land called Soviet Russia, Natalie Portman had a big bowl of hot grits..."
Fixed that for you.
So no more bed time stories?
Just apply for a bed time story license from the authors guild. Make sure that you educate your children about copyright law though -- the license is only valid for you and if they repeat the story to their friends at school we'll have to haul them into court.
And those who are not as assiduous as you don't deserve to be protected by the law?
Why is it that liberals (or progressives or whatever you call yourselves these days) always assume that somebody who doesn't think we need the government to hold our hands thinks that people don't deserve to be protected?
Strawman much? We're talking about telling you that yes, you can afford what you are about to do with us and there will be no problems, knowing it's a lie.
Again, if you didn't do the research on your own to figure that out then I don't have a lot of sympathy for you. If that makes me a cold son-of-a-bitch then so be it. If I'm selling you something it's not my job to make sure you can afford it. The bankers should probably be punished for a lot of reasons (fraud comes to mind) but that doesn't mean I'm not sick of this "think of all the people who can't think for themselves!" whining. It turned me off to liberalism and made me realize that what you guys are peddling is really no better than what the GOP is peddling.
He and Hillary are the DLCers, the ones who think Democrats need to become more like Republicans in order to win elections -- which is to say, they have an essential urge to capitulate to evil
Evil? That's a mighty big word you've used there. There's evil in this world -- open a history book, take a trip to Burma or try to enroll in school in Afghanistan as a female -- but calling a major American political party 'evil' just makes it that much harder to take you seriously. 1/3 of this country is 'evil'? Really? Give me a fucking break.
On the other hand, the Republicans have done nothing but gleefully press the pedal to the metal in rushing our country to the cliff's edge, so I shall give them no quarter whatsoever
Have fun with the next four or eight years of Democratic dominance. I don't think you'll find that they do any better. The only difference is which freedoms we'll lose. Eventually the Democrats will overstep in the same manner as the GOP has overstepped and the pendulum will swing the other way. Too bad the sane people among us get clonked on the head by that pendulum every time it swings from the far-left to the far-right and back again.
Enjoy your partisan delusion that the Democrats are actually better than the Republicans. Meanwhile I'll try to live my life like most Americans. Try not to steal too much of money or take away too many of my guns in the meantime, ok?