![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Fair and Breezy ~ High: 87°F ~ Low: 57°F Wednesday, May 16, 2012 |
|
Survivor ModePosted Friday, February 13, 2009, at 10:03 PM
Of course I am shocked by the severe direction our country has turned. I compare it to being on the TITANIC. After smacking into the iceberg, it is time to figure out how to SURVIVE, and worry about HOW it happened later. Folks, the left flat took over. I know, I know, they used questionable means and dubious methods, but right now, we need to survive. It would be foolish to have been on the TITANIC, and while the damn boat is sinking, run about the ship yelling "who is responsible for this?" The boat is sinking, time to survive. Elections have consequences, and never more so than this past one. The United States is about to get a big lesson in why socialism is a bad idea. You try and tell folks about how nasty Socialism is, but they don't want to hear it. Sometimes you just got to learn the hard way. Small Business owners will have a fight on their hands. You folks that run a small business know what I mean. The biggest obstacle to success for small businesses is none other than government. Somebody has got to pay for this disaster, it will be Small Business that the Socialists will turn to, with their greedy little eyes, for cash.
Surviving. I believe in the American Spirit. I think the voters will eventually wise up. Until they do, survive. We conservatives know that government, and whacked out government spending, is not the answer. Sooner or later, when the misery index reaches 25%, the American people will end this exercise in Socialism. Actually, when the dust settles, I see the leftists going down to a horrible, long lasting defeat. They finally have enough rope to hang themselves, and they will. Next, or very soon, they will seek to silence opposition, they will continue to demonize business, and do their best to see that everyone works for the government or gets a government check. They will try and control everything, and by doing so, they will over reach, and down in my heart I know, we'll end up throwin' the bums out...for good. Until then, survive. Oh, and don't take any money from the government. It's poison. It is money that has been stolen from our children and grandchildren. Stolen money corrupts everything it touches. It may be hard to say no to the poison money, but you can do it. Work a little harder. If twelve hours won't do it, work fifteen, if fifteen falls short, work eighteen. Survive. When America comes to it's senses, you'll be better for it. Getting money from the government is like getting a favor from a MOB boss. Sure, he'll loan ya the money, but you'll owe him, big time. When the time to pay up comes, well...that is the moment of truth. I was very proud of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. They stood together, stood for sanity, and freedom. Maybe the Republicans have learned, finally, that it is better to stand for right and lose, than to give in to foolishness. Until then my friends, I am gonna SURVIVE. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Risking My Life Is The Bravest Thing You Do(77 ~ 12:03 PM, Oct 30)
Hayseed
Paybacks and Nuttiness
I Am Ready For REFORM!
Lib Kicker
|
Email link
Read comments (30)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Sam,
I think that, in a way, you are correct. If the stimulus becomes a dismal failure that worsens the economic crisis it is meant to alleviate, the democrats may have "hanged themselves". The American people tend to not tolerate the failures of the democratic party. And if the bill is ineffective (or worse, harmful) they may expect to lose some congressional seats, and possibly even their majority.
However, if the bill is effective, and DOES help to revive our economy (as I hope it will), then the democrats will likely solidify their majority in congress and put the white house out of reach for at least a term.
Republicans have distanced themselves from this bill, by voting (almost) unanimously against it. They will probably avoid blame if the bill fails. They also need to understand, that if the bill succeeds, the democrats will get ALL of the credit, and people may be bitter that it had no republican support.
Now, I don't hope the bill works because it will be good for the democrats (although that would be nice), I hope the bill works because I want to see my country flourish economically, or at least recover from this recession.
Sam, regardless of whether or not you THINK the bill will work, I certainly hope you WANT the bill to work. The bill's intention is to save our failing our economy. Actively rooting against it just because you don't think it's a good idea is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
So please, if you think the bill is a bad idea, say so. However, I would hope that you are not actively rooting for it to fail.
G5,
We aren't trying to "spend ourselves rich". We're trying to spend our way out of an economic crisis by stimulating the economy (that is, pumping money into the economy by spending it on things. At a micro level (your own personal economics) it doesn't make any sense to "spend your way out of" a fiscal crisis.
But this is not your personal finances we're talking about. It is the country's entire economy, which does not work on the same principals as your checkbook and bank account.
Have stimuluses failed in the past? Yes, some have. But you are overlooking a glaring example of a successful stimulus. Look at what ended the great depression, a HUGE increase in government spending (New Deal + war effort).
The spending doubled the GNP, businesses took advantage of all the new government contracts and kicked the economy out of the depression. People who were without jobs finally had work, so they worked even harder. We even had price controls (about as anti-capitalist as you can get).
Following your "common sense" approach (which on a macroeconomic level would be cutting government spending and balancing the budget), was attempted. Leading up to the depression, President Hoover tried just that, and it only made things worse.
So economic stimulus via spending CAN work, and HAS worked. Doesn't it make sense, during the biggest economic recession SINCE the great depression, to look at what ended the great depression for answers? If you are dying on a hospital bed, don't you want the doctor to try what has worked in similar situations before?
Too bad that Journalism died last year huh? Regrettably, that it part of the "iceberg" we have hit.
I have a suspicion that eventually the Press will grow to resent being the lapdog for the Obama Administration. They are going to end up feeling like a lover than has been taken for granted. They will grow to resent it, and maybe we will get lucky, and they will become real journalists again.
Who knows, maybe they will begin to investigate what truly happened last September, when the forces of the left made a run on our market institutions, and brought about the sub prime crisis, just in time for election.
Ha Ha! There I go again! Who cares? I am in survivor mode! Obama is the Pres., deal with it! I admit it is hard, when you are floating around in the lifeboat, to not think about the why of it all. Get to shore, worry about the why later.
Roosevelt's policies did nothing but make the problems worse. After eight years of spending under FDR, unemployment was actually higher. We all know it was WW2 that saved the economy. I get a kick out of this "worst economy since the depression" stuff. Come on now.
Democrats have tied this Socialism around their necks with chains. Sink or swim baby. I know they will work to blame any failures on Bush, about how bad it was when they took over. The blame Bush thing is going to get old too.
Sometimes the best way to defeat your enemies is to give them every thing they think they want, until they drown in their own contraptions.
Hey Jhat...how do you think they will propose to pay back this money? I heard a figure that, with interest, this bill could end up costing $3 trillion.
I am sure the Obama Administration has at least thought about how this money will eventually get repaid. Are you aware that Russian analysts predict that the USA will collapse when our debt reaches 11 trillion? I refer you to Drudge, "Russian Analyst Predicts Breakup of the USA," from November 25th, 2008.
Gentlemen..and Gentlewomen,
Yes we certainly are in some very difficult times and like most Americans I have found myself in a survivor mode. I have to take time to laugh and disengage from the madness in the media, both TV and radio, or I find myself getting angry wondering how we got ourselves into this mess. I believe it was avoidable but I have a different take from the liberals vs. conservatives theory that seems to divide our land. The liberals blame the conservatives and the conservatives blame the liberals.
Here goes...for many years but really starting in the early 1980's congressmen/women and other elected officials have been in bed with the "captains" of industry and most of us have heard the term "the best congress money can buy". I have no doubt that both those on the left and right believe that to be true, as we should. The titans of industry, financial and otherwise donate to political reelection campaigns of both democrats and republicans and if you think these donations do not come with strings...then I have some seaside property in Arizona to sell you.
The purpose of these donations are to ensure access to the politicans so big industry (this includes financial institutions) can get favorable legislation passed and increase their profit margin. We have seen this process accelerate to the point where greed and outright criminal activity has reached a level that would make the old robber barons blush. Think about the ridiculous money the executives of many of these huge transnation corporations have been pulling down the last couple of decades. I know every one of you have scratched your head and thought...good Lord how can this guy get fired and pull in $142 million as a "going away present"? We have seen this occur time and time again.
Do we remember when Enron gamed the electrical markets in California and cost the good people of California hundreds of millions of dollars? That was allowed to happen because Enron convinced our legislators that unfettered electrical markets would benefit the country. Well, we know who it benefited and it wasn't us.
Now don't get me wrong and start calling me a communist or Marxist, or socialist, as I am neither. My point is that there is a reason why government oversight over "big" corporations and pools of capital is essential if we are to avoid the continued rise and fall of economic bubbles that have been causing us so many problems lately. Money is power and money has been so consolidated in the last 20 years into large pools of capital that markets can and have been manipulated by these large unregulated hedge and other investment funds.
It is a much different world than the one most of
us grew up in and it requires us, the working middle class, to educate ourselves on how big capital works and how big business has "gamed" the system in concert with our government and to the detriment of the middle class.
I will give one example and then close. In the early to mid 1990's Phil Gramham of Texas, supported and financed by the financial industry, worked to overturn the Glass-Steagall Act. I would encourge you to look this act up in Wikipedia, but it was among other things designed to separate traditional lending banks from investment banks and not allow another speculative financial bubble to bring down our economy as occurred in the great depression. The Glass-Stegall act was repealed in 1999. It has only been 7-8 years since the repeal of this act and now the results are starkly obvious.
Folks...this is not about left vs. right, liberal vs. conservatives. It is about the working class of the world vs. those who control the money and power in the world. Until all Americans from the various political and social spectrums of our country left, right, center, gay, straight, realize the battle for justice is not between us little folks, but rather between our government and transnational corporations and massive pools of capital, then we will continue to play right into their hands. They want to keep us fighting amongst ourselves because we then take our eyes off of their criminal activity and they can continue to fleece us.
I believe that the good people of this country are in the early stages of waking up. The fraud has been exposed and it is up to us to demand changes to better the status of all American..not just the uber rich. Stand up, unite, stay engaged and let's take our country back through a peaceful revolution at the ballot box.
Above all in these difficult times, do not allow yourself to give up and do not allow "them" to divide us any more. We are all American's and let's honor our differences because in the end, that is what makes our social experiment so unique and powerful.
Kurt, I dont agree with all your posts, but that last one, imho, was an excellent one. And I whole-heartedly agree!
Amazing how those with no comprehension of what our new president is trying to help us recover, are so full of vitriolic attack.
The economic crisis is dominating current thinking, but recognize Obama inherited a military which has been bled dry by Bush, with two wars being fought, the terrorist Al Qaeda having been allowed to rebuild, while Bush pursued Sadaam, as part of the Bush Family's personal vendetta. And during these eight years, our national infrastructure being allowed to disintegrate.
The outstanding scholar in the in-laws family, which consists of very high-achieving men and women, is in his final year at Univ. of Chicago Law School.
He has worked out during early morning hours in the CU Health Club facility with Obama. He enrolled in Obama's Constitutional Law classes, despite the hours after Senate service required adjustment.
Obama would be at the health club by 5 a.m., Mondays and begin his class at 6:30 a.m.in the university's largest lecture hall (Seating capacity about 1,500)
Enrollment was usually about 100-150. Attendance at 6:30 a.m., Monday always exceeded 1,000, sometimes filled the hall with overflow into the foyer.
Friday night Obama would return from D.C. and begin the second class at 7:30 p.m., with the same type of attendance.
Since my first Okla. A&M lectures in 1949, I have never heard of such turnouts at any hour. Getting urban students in class voluntarily at 6:30 a.m. Monday morning, and again at 7:30 p.m. Friday evening is unheard of. These were some of the best minds in the world, with high levels of critical, analytical thinking.
The chronically negative thinkers need to consider their narrow, shallow complaints.
Obama has assembled a group of cabinet officers and advisors far superior to any seen in all history.
They are there to help get this country out of the worst Wealthy Men's Greed disaster since the profiteers of the Civil War and transcontinental railroad graft.
If you want to complain, try moaning about DubYah's loosely crafted Bank Bailout which has allowed five leaders of a failed bank to draw $250-Million in 2008 wages for failure and Wall Streeters to draw more than $250-Million out of Bailout Moneys, as their reward for failure.
At the same time, Bank of America, among others has not granted a residential loan in nine months. BoA took $50-Billion, bought Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Mortgage Co., and has not issued a single home loan.
Back off on the people who are working to straighten out DubYah and Bird-Misser Cheney's mess, and pay attention to who has been stealing your tax money.
All the "social welfare" costs combined for decades do not equal what the management failures of the banks received in one massive bit of welfare for the wealthy.
G5,
I am sorry you feel the need to denigrate Obama so much. There are ways to disagree with someone and get your point across without resorting to put down's that only point out the shallowness of your arguments.
When you call people who don't agree with you "sheeple" and use derogatory words like "rag heads", and then call Obama an "empty shirt" and a "shill" it is hard to take anything you say seriously. Make an intelligent argument for your position and perhaps we can upgrade the level of conversation, not just here but around our country.
How do you know Obama has "no plan or ability to govern?" What do you mean when you say "he falls on his face the rest of the time?" The guy has been in office for 5 weeks now and he has been handed a burden unlike anything in our country's history. Two war's, doubling of the national debt in the last 8 years, unregulated financial markets leading to a financial and housing meltdown, unaffordable health care with 47 million American's without health insurance...and you blame Obama?
I don't know if the Obama administration and our elected representatives are going to be able to get this country back on track but I do know that a majority of American's decided that the direction this country was going had to be changed.
One last thing...the last I checked George W Bush was our president when the terrorist attack took place in New York City.
Kurt, many of the things you post are true. And two wrongs dont make a right, but did you not hear or see any of the things the left said and printed about President Bush? I didnt agree with all his policies either, but I respected the man and the office. Deplorable as it is, I guess its tit-for-tat.
doodle bug,
Unfortunately the radical elements of both the left and right claim to hold the high moral ground. Those of us that seek solutions to our problems must tune out those elements and sit down with reasonable people representating a broad spectrum of ideas and ideology. The radical left and the radical right represent only a very small minority of people in this country, unfortunately they are the one's screaming the loudest.
Times are changing and most people want civility and cooperation to be restored to the political process so that we can solve our dire problems. I am one of those that find myself disgusted by virtually all of the politicians on both sides of the aisle. Are they serving their personal interest or the interest of our country? My take is that they seem to be serving their own personal interests...and that just isn't good enough for me or for this wonderful country.
Here is the problem I'm seeing. The reason for the left and right's irreconcilable differences. They only see the worst in each other.
Each party is similar in makeup. Each has a HUGE moderate population. People who believe in their ideas, but are certainly not extremists. People who generally don't care about politics (at least not the way extremists do), but still vote in every election for the party they agree with.
Each party also has a small percentage of extremists. Demagogues that are dedicated to ideas that mainstream society considers extreme. People who can ONLY support their party's ideas and decry everyone else's.
Unfortunately, the smaller percentage is much louder, and they drown out the voice of the majority. So each side sees only the worst in the other.
Before anyone takes offense to what I'm saying, let me qualify my statement. I do not mean to say that you shouldn't be vocal about your beliefs, that does not make you extreme. The inflammatory and derogatory ways in which you make your points, as well as extreme positions on certain issues make you extreme. (And certainly, the line between extreme and moderate is not always black and white).
The problem is, that because the minorities are so vocal, the other side ONLY sees them, and projects their extremism onto the ENTIRETY of the opposing side.
Many democrats see ALL republicans as uneducated, ignorant, religion-crazy, gun-crazy, xenophobic nut jobs.
And many republicans see ALL democrats as elitist, tree-hugging, baby-killing, america-hating, godless heathens.
And because we can only see the worst in each other, we cannot reconcile our differences.
When you make statements about Obama as a "baby-killer" or a "socialist" or a "shill", it makes it hard to take you seriously as a member of the MODERATE wing of your party.
Just like it's hard for you to take any liberals seriously who say "Bush is a murderer" or "Palin is a jesus freak".
Statements like that are only adding to the problem, and widening the chasm between us.
And it is not an appropriate defense to say "the liberals started attacking first", nor is it an appropriate defense for liberals to say "republicans started this bitterness". That almost sounds like children bickering.
I know I am not a man of faith like many of you. But surely we can agree that we should "turn the other cheek", and that we should "do unto others as you'd have them do". Would Jesus truly want us to see the worst in each other? Or would he want us to look for the best in our enemies? To love them? To air our grievances between each other with understanding and acceptance?
And we cannot just turn the other cheek when the opposition promises to turn the other cheek as well. We must do so even when the opposition promises nothing but more bitterness and hatred. I'm fairly certain the message wasn't "Turn the other cheek, but only when the opposition promises not to hit you any more."
G5,
Notice where I said "I do not mean to say that you shouldn't be vocal about your beliefs". By all means, stand up for what you believe in. I have not asked you to change your political beliefs.
But don't expect moderates or liberals to take you seriously when you make personal attacks on people or use such inflammatory language. This is "widening the chasm".
You say you do not care about the "widening chasm", but you really should. It prevents your ideas from being taken seriously by the majority of the population. I know you don't take seriously the people who claim that Bush is a mass murderer (and neither do the people in the middle). You must understand that the people on the other side (and the people in the middle) won't take you seriously when you claim that Obama is an America-hating socialist.
This "chasm" prevents each side from accepting the other. And whether you like the democrats or not, they are the majority. And I'm not just talking about in the capital. There are many more registered democrats than republicans (approximately 41% vs 32.5%). Elections are typically close because the republicans have a much higher turn-out percentage than the democrats do.
Whether you care or not, the chasm is widening, and there are more people on my side of the gap.
So the republican party is at a crossroads. They can choose to accept the democratic majority with understanding and reasonable disagreement (not saying they have to agree, just disagree respectfully). This way, their ideas will still be heard as reasonable, and they will be able to exert influence and take back congressional seats and maybe the white house.
OR
The republican party can devolve into partisan attacks and political grand-standing. Shouting about how the socialists are killing freedom/babies/christians/america/etc. I fear that if that happens, the republican party will be weaker for it, as eventually the general populace will not take them seriously ("the widening chasm"). And then the democrats will have ALL of the power, and believe it or not, I don't want that (and I'm sure you do not).
G5, you have to understand that people disagreeing with you doesn't make them evil or wrong. You and I both know that the far-leftists calling Bush a "fascist" was absurd. I am only asking you to see the same absurdity in your own personal attacks against the democrats.
I am not that well educated in political science, so some of this discussion went way over my head. I do understand the concept that would a person to attempt a plan such as this one. I think it is being approached in the wrong way.
Please tell me why allowing the unemployed to stay unemployed longer would stimulate the enconomy. There are a lot of unemployed hard working Americans out there that deserve a break, but a majority of the unemployed are unemployed by choice. They only keep a job long enough to qualify for benefits again, and they have done nothing to improve thier skills in order to maintain quality employment.
Why would we want to increase the benefits to welfare recipients? Again, there are some of these folks that have fallen on hard times and deserve a break. But a majority of the recipients are just milking the system.
I have not seen on the internet or in the paper an exact break down of this stimulus plan. What I have seen, in my opinion, only offers to prop up business that have failed to evolve, create several more useless government programs, offer people the opportunity to not climb out of a hole, and create a debt that will be next to impossible to pay.
Unless someone can explain it to me so I will understand; I still believe that the fastest way to stimulate the economy is to put the money in that hand of the people that pay the taxes. They will spend more, people will be called back to work and they will spend more. I may be wrong, but I cant see that this stimulus package will do anything usefull.
G5,
By golly you might be on to something. I am going to contact my congressmen and tell them that we need to drop social security. Most people above the age of 70 have taken out more in social security payments than they have put in anyway. Why should I have money taken out of my paycheck to support these old people? It's not my problem they didn't save enough to support themselves. Just give me the money I have put in throughout my life and let's call it good.
I'm not going to stop there either. Why the heck should I have taxes taken out of my paycheck for medicare and medicade when my own health insurance is going up every year? I don't get free health insurance so why should anyone over the age of 65? Let the markets work their magic and lets stop this socialist madness right now.
Yes sir...thank you so much for opening my eyes. I have seen the light! :)
seentoomuch,
This is a decent breakdown of what the stimulus is going to.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
It's not really designed to "prop up" businesses (maybe you are thinking of the bailout). What it is designed to do is spend money on the country. It spends ALOT of money on infrastructure, education, green energy, and modernization in general (smart electric grid, digitizing health care records, etc). It also spends quite a bit on tax cuts and tax incentives.
Yes, it also spends money on welfare recipients. Most notably, $40 billion to increase unemployment benefits by $25 a week and $24.7 billion to extend the coverage of healthcare to the recently unemployed (via the COBRA program). But this isn't meant so much as a handout to those who refuse to work, but a helping hand for the hundreds of thousands of americans who have lost their jobs due to the recession (that they had little to no part in creating).
While I revile the people who abuse the welfare system, I know how important it is to extend a hand to the people who have been victimized by the economic recession. Especially the people who have lost their employer-based healthcare. It is a shame to think that you can lose your job AND your healthcare through no fault of your own.
As for putting the money back in the hands of the people. Direct spending has more of a stimulative effect. Directly spending money on infrastructure, energy, etc. ensures that the money is actually being spent. Many people do spend stimulus checks, but many people save them as well (especially in such an unsure economy).
The tax breaks in the stimulus package will put money back into the taxpayers hands. I know that conservatives may not like this, but the tax cuts in the package are more geared towards low income families (see child tax credit, college tax credit). But these are the people who are more likely to spend the money, and do not have the luxury of being able to save money like middle/upper class families do.
I don't think it is a perfect bill. But I am hopeful that it's a step in the right direction.
Hey, look at it this way. If it doesn't work at all and the economy still bombs, our national debt will increase from $12 trillion to $14 trillion, but we will have better roads, better schools, and greener energy.
Kurt and jhat
Dont try to elevete the discource here. Let me sum it up for you.
republicans good
consertative good
democrat bad
liberal bad
the right has never done anything wrong
the left has never done anything right.
I have tried to have have a civil debate here only to get shouted down over and over. I love the format the gazette has offered us here but its difficult to engage in a debate with someone who cant see the forest for the trees. It would seem the old axiom is true, "the right has never let the facts stand in their way"
Yo Dawg - You seem kind of angry for someone who is getting everything you what. You guys on the left, your agenda is going through.
Cheer up. It will take some time before you all hang in your own rope. In some strange way, I am actually looking forward to it.
This so-called stimulus bill was SO important that Congress could not even take time to read it. Yet Obama, in this super duper emergency, went on a three day vacation. Some emergency. This is all going to come back to kick you guys in the fanny.
As it stands right now, the only credibility you guys on the left have, is yourselves. At no time in history has Socialism worked, and when it fails here, you robots on the left will be finished, once and for all.
Oh, I know we have a fight on our hands, you leftists are trained in cliches and balderdash, but truth always wins out.
Right now, you guys need to go after Rush Limbaugh...Quickly! (have some more rope)
Hurry and make it so homosexuals get married everywhere. Do it now! (have some more rope)
Kill our energy productions, slap up expensive windmills, right now! (have some more rope) Those windmills one day will be marvelous idle monuments to failed leftist rule.
Make sure more babies die, here and abroad. Build more abortion mills, with taxpayer money. (have some more rope) Get that death toll up to sixty million, maybe even seventy million.
Continue to attack Bush. Do it daily. (have some more rope) Blame him for everything from AIDS to Britney Spears not wearing underwear.
I am going to love watching this outhouse go up in flames.
G5 I am a little baffled. I finally see the light after one of your eloquent dissertations on the evils of Marxism, socialism and the welfare state, and find myself now working to immediately stop the socialist welfare state programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicade, and I don't even get an "atta boy"?
Wait till I push through the repeal of these programs for the elderely and then the little children of this country better look out because I am coming after their programs next. They don't need no damn health insurance. If their parents can't afford to buy health insurance for them... well then it certainly is not our problem. Let them beg on the streets like the poor kids around the world do. Their parents are probably lazy, liberal,immoral atheists anyway.
This is getting exciting...I got the old folks and the children begging for food, health coverage and dignity now who can I go after next?
Hmmmmm...why are we paying taxes to fund schools? Stay tuned.......
G5,
I don't think you have engaged in one civil debate with me. That is, unless your definition of a civil debate is proclaiming anyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by leftist propaganda. Anytime I've ever brought up points or ideas, you have either dismissed me as a leftist, ignored them, claimed I am "revising history" (with no proof), or descended into personal attacks about liberals in general.
I cannot speak for anyone else, on this site, as I have not been posting here very long. But I have seen you attempt to engage in debates with others. However, one of you eventually falls into making attacks about democrats/republicans in general, and the opponent follows suit, and the "debate" is lost to personal attacks.
My previous two posts have been advice, in a sense (for you and conservatives in general). See, I WANT your ideas to be taken seriously by the mainstream. I really do. I want reasonable and rational debate over these issues. I don't want to live in a country dominated by a single party. Unfortunately, if all Republicans begin "debating" the way you (and many on this site do), I'm afraid your party is doomed to in-sustainable extremism. Of course, that is unless the democrats screw up royally. Then the republicans will be voted back into power, until they screw up royally again, and the cycle continues...
I want something better. Most citizens do not get involved in politics for exactly this reason. They view it as two shrill sides screaming incoherently at each other. Two sides that are both wrong and hateful. And we're not really giving them any reason to think differently. We cannot truly become better as a country until the majority of the populace begins to pay attention and CARE. Which will NEVER happen when neither side admits they can be wrong, when neither side admits the other can be right, when both sides claim the other is the embodiment of evil.
The only way to FIX this is to elevate the discourse. And elevating the level of discourse does NOT mean trying once, then giving up because the other side won't play by the same rules. It means persisting DESPITE the fact that you are answered with only personal attacks. It means remaining calm and rational IN THE FACE of hatred and spite.
Sam,
First, liberals are not getting "everything" they want. They toned down the stimulus quite a bit to appease the republicans (and still only managed 3 republican votes). Many people (including the Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman) think the stimulus package is not enough, and that we are "jumping halfway over a canyon".
Second, I am upset that the stimulus bill was rushed so quickly. I think any legislation of this magnitude needed to be discussed more in depth. I feel very much like I felt about the patriot act, I realized that it was a generally necessary bill, but lamented that it was pushed through so quickly that our civil liberties suffered. I hope the same does not happen with this stimulus bill.
Third. I'm sorry to say this in such a blunt way, but the only people talking about becoming a socialist country is conservative commentators and republicans. If you could classify what the democrats are pushing us towards as anything it would be a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (though I don't think they are aiming to take us even that far). Social democracies have worked, and are working. See Norway, Holland, Finland, Sweden, Belgium, and others.
jhat
Thank you very much for the link and the explanation, it was very helpful.
sam,
we may hang just like the right did after the elections. They ran the country for 6 yrs. and promptly got voted out. We gave them the rope and they hung themselves. I really dont know why you keep writing a blog, you just say the same things over and over. You could save yourself alot of time if you just kept saying "the lib's are bad, everything they do is wrong".
Can you name the president who took the most vacation while in office?
Perhaps instead of getting your talking points from rush limbaugh and sean hannity you could do some critical thinking on your own.
Just think, I could get a radio show, get divorced three times, get hooked on drugs, doctor shop for perscriptions and get caught with viagra at the the airport and everyone would think im the smartest guy ever. You could even listen and use my talking points.
Thanks once again for proving my point about the left.
I guess the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly should be demonized and chastised for their success. After all, the left has their shining example of Air America that couldnt make it even with all the financial support of G Soros and his ilk. My apologies to the moderate liberals, but I am so tired of the lefties rant about successful right leaning talk shows. Come on leftist liberals, shout me down for your mass media failures. And one of you please explain to me the need for government sponsored equal air time if your ideas are so enamored by the masses.
I don't think they should be demonized and chastised for their success. Although I find quite a few faults with the conservative arm of the news they have created. The republican machine wields enormous power in the media.
However, I do not believe (as some liberals do), that the fairness doctrine should be reinstated. I have heard liberals say that the level of discourse was higher in the country when the fairness doctrine was in place.
Even if the level of discourse WAS higher, and even if it WOULD elevate our discourse today, I would still be against it. Speech cannot be controlled by the government, period.
That is one of the great things about freedom. You reap what you sow. If the American people choose to listen to the people on the far-right, that is their right. Even though I feel very strongly that the spite and misinformation spread by those individuals is hurting America, the government has no right to tell them to stop saying it.
It is up to the PEOPLE to elevate the level of discourse, not the government.
If we don't elevate our discourse, and the country splits into two extreme factions and falls into civil war, we will have reaped what we sowed. Not the government's fault, ours.
(and just so you conservatives don't crucify me for criticizing your heroes, I feel that there are people on the left guilty of similar spite and misinformation).
And I would also like to reiterate. There has been no legislation since the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act in 2005 that has attempted to reinstate the fairness doctrine.
And while I think we need to stay on guard for it's resurgence, I don't think it's the pressing and immediate concern that conservative broadcasting thinks it is.
That said, I will be the first to speak out against it if they try to reinstate it.
Im not saying anything about rush that he dosent say about others. Those in glass houses should not cast stones. Im not demonizing him for being successful, im demonizing him for being a drug addict.
According to most people on the far right the left has abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc and others that are far more successful then rush. I would not call them failures.
So, which is it, is the left more successful in mass media, or are the above news outlest fair and honest?
I dont think the left needs government sponsored air time, the people are so enamored with the ideas on the left they won elections. The left obviously dosent need it.
Personally I think the fairness doctrine is a load of crap and it will never work. Hannity and others just like to stir the pot and keep people afraid. The rule by fear idea.
and sam, exactly what point did I prove?
The point Dawg was that it is tough not to descend into personal attacks. I try not to, but I do, we get caught up in the battle.
Rush Limbaugh, for what personal problems he may have, same kind of personal problems I have, or you have, still has a right to make a living in the free market.
Rush does not need equal time, because he IS equal time. The left already controls most of the media, save talk radio and Fox News. The rest is theirs, including PBS, which we all get to pay for.
Hannity IS equal time. Let us use the same argument against CBS. Since CBS NEWS is a lapdog for President Obama, how would they give equal time?
Acting like RUSH is a fool that needs to be silenced for the common good is a kinda Nazi like. Isn't it?
As always, thanks for reading and commenting.
The question of bias in the media is such a subjective one. Any scholarly pursuit of the matter is always tainted by the "experimenter bias" (the bias towards an expected result due to the preconceptions of the experimenter).
Typically, when conservative organizations produce these studies, the results show a liberal bias. And when liberal organizations perform the studies, they show a conservative bias.
(the middle always looks like the left when you are on the right, and vice versa)
I can't find the source, but I remember reading a survey of american news organizations about their political beliefs. It found that the individual reporters had a tendency to be a bit to the left, while the editors (who decide what content to show) tended to be more towards the right.
This was of course, also an oversimplification, as many journalists were to the left on social issues, while remaining to the right on economic issues.
I think that american news organizations have a "ratings" bias. They air whatever point of view gets them the most ratings. I think much of the purported "liberal" bias during this election can be traced back to this. People were more interested in stories about Obama, so the news ran more stories about Obama to increase their ratings. He was a new face in the political arena, so he got more coverage.
People like Hannity and Limbaugh (as well as people like Olberman on the left) have found niche markets. That is, their shows are not intended for the entire market, but a subset of the market (in this case, right and left).
I know the retort will be that fox news has the highest ratings, therefore it is not a niche market channel, but a mainstream one. It's higher ratings is explained by the fact that demographic studies have shown that liberals have a much higher likelyhood of seeking out alternative news sources (such as print and the Internet).
For instance, use the Alexa internet ratings to compare foxnews.com and cnn.com. Or rushlimbaugh.com and huffingtonpost.com. They sites that would be considered "liberal" typically have higher rankings.
http://www.alexa.com/
I dont think rush should be stopped. I love it when he banters on and makes a fool out of himself. Rush if for entertainment only.
Obama said that he is opposed to the fairness doctrine. So, what did I hear on rush and hannity. "he says that but he is really for it". Well, he has made no attempt to enforce it, he said he was not for it, what more can he do to convince rush and hannity he is aginst it?
It's their job to get people to listen to them, stirring up fear and hatered is a proven way to do that. People should listen and use some critical thinking and investagate what is being said instead of just nodding their heads and following.