Let's impeach the president.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Yeah, that's definitely more intricate than my definition. The only point I would argue is the assertion that Milton Friedman was an "ex-leftist". Admittedly, I haven't done a whole lot of research on him. If I'm wrong on that though, I have certainly learned something new.

How do you describe yourself politically, 70Chip?

Friedman is not , you're right. Again I was riffing. Friedman is a disciple of Hayek who I thought the neo-cons revered but according to Wiki, they do not.

I became a conservative in reaction to disco music. I'm thoroughly anti-disco. Seriously, politics is for me a lot like the NFL. I like to root for my team but I've come to realization that it doesn't really affect my life that much, or at least it shouldn't. I think most people understand this instinctively and show it by not paying attention. People always bemoan the apathy of the American people, but I prefer it to the activism that often finds expression in other countries. I think it's actually sophistication in disguise.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Polls suggest that somewhere between 65-70% of the American people believe there should be a nationalized health care in some form.

Yes, and for a good reason too. Health care in this country is very expensive and for what? It's certainly not because we have the best health care, especially when compared with developed nations that do have national health care. Yes, we have the best doctors in the world but not everyone can afford them. Certainly not your average Joe. Anyone who has health problem in this nation will most certainly go into a financial hole. Someone declaring bankruptcy because they can't cover their health care costs doesn't sound right to me.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

-- Bush's call for the privatization of a portion of everyone's Social Security in an investment account went absolutely nowhere. Most Americans want the government to handle their retirement account. I find that unbelievable.

Social Security is a safety net not an investment program. There is a reason why as you get older you move your money to safer investments. This money is primarily intended for the old and disabled. It is intended for those who have the least and those can not generate (livable) income. If you want to privatize social security, why not get rid of it all together? I mean, you might as well have people manage their own funds. Of course there are issues like what happens to your employer's SS match? I'm sorry but privatization is not the answer. The gap between the haves and havenots will only grow.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

-- An apparent zeal from the American public to call for price controls or taxes on "windfall profits" from oil companies. When the People think it's just fine and dandy for someone to be called in front of Congress to answer for their profits, that's pretty scary -- and very socialistic.

Since the Republicans are in the business of getting elected, it's hard for them to hold true to their conservative-libertarian philosophies (assuming they ever truly existed in the GOP) when the people are leaning the way they are. So now, they are forced to follow suit.

What's wrong with price control, or rather examining excessive profits? The United States successfully utilize price and wage control during war time. Left to their own devices corporations will seek to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and the competition. For that reason there are valid economic motivation for outlawing cartels and monopolies. It's simply isn't good for the economy in the long run. Looking at the profits generated by the oil companies, it pretty clear they are taking advantage of the public.

Finlay, the role of the government is to administrate the nation's affairs, this includes looking out for the people first and foremost.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Seriously, politics is for me a lot like the NFL. I like to root for my team but I've come to realization that it doesn't really affect my life that much, or at least it shouldn't. I think most people understand this instinctively and show it by not paying attention.

??????
We are at war. However you feel about that, the idea that politics doesn't affect our lives directly seems to me to be pretty nuts.

Originally Posted by 70Chip

People always bemoan the apathy of the American people, but I prefer it to the activism that often finds expression in other countries. I think it's actually sophistication in disguise.

This has got to be sarcasm right?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Yes, and for a good reason too. Health care in this country is very expensive and for what? It's certainly not because we have the best health care, especially when compared with developed nations that do have national health care. Yes, we have the best doctors in the world but not everyone can afford them. Certainly not your average Joe. Anyone who has health problem in this nation will most certainly go into a financial hole. Someone declaring bankruptcy because they can't cover their health care costs doesn't sound right to me.




Social Security is a safety net not an investment program. There is a reason why as you get older you move your money to safer investments. This money is primarily intended for the old and disabled. It is intended for those who have the least and those can not generate (livable) income. If you want to privatize social security, why not get rid of it all together? I mean, you might as well have people manage their own funds. Of course there are issues like what happens to your employer's SS match? I'm sorry but privatization is not the answer. The gap between the haves and havenots will only grow.



What's wrong with price control, or rather examining excessive profits? The United States successfully utilize price and wage control during war time. Left to their own devices corporations will seek to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and the competition. For that reason there are valid economic motivation for outlawing cartels and monopolies. It's simply isn't good for the economy in the long run. Looking at the profits generated by the oil companies, it pretty clear they are taking advantage of the public.

Finlay, the role of the government is to administrate the nation's affairs, this includes looking out for the people first and foremost.

See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.

[dblanch66]

Again..everyone here has a legitimate take on politics. It still doesn't take away from the fact that Bush sucks donkey. One of the principal dangers of vesting power in a leader who is convinced of his own righteousness -- who believes that, by virtue of his ascension to political power, he has been called to a crusade against Evil -- is that the moral imperative driving the mission will justify any and all means used to achieve it. Those who have become convinced that they are waging an epic and all-consuming existential war against Evil cannot, by the very premises of their belief system, accept any limitations -- moral, pragmatic, or otherwise -- on the methods adopted to triumph in this battle. These principles illuminate a central, and tragic, paradox at the heart of the Bush presidency. The president who vowed to lead America in a moral crusade to win hearts and minds around the world has so inflamed anti-American sentiment that America's moral standing in the world is at an all-time low. The president who vowed to defend the Good in the world from the forces of Evil has caused the United States to be held in deep contempt by large segments of virtually every country on every continent of the world, including large portions of nations with which the U.S. has historically been allied.

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Again..everyone here has a legitimate take on politics. It still doesn't take away from the fact that Bush sucks donkey. One of the principal dangers of vesting power in a leader who is convinced of his own righteousness -- who believes that, by virtue of his ascension to political power, he has been called to a crusade against Evil -- is that the moral imperative driving the mission will justify any and all means used to achieve it. Those who have become convinced that they are waging an epic and all-consuming existential war against Evil cannot, by the very premises of their belief system, accept any limitations -- moral, pragmatic, or otherwise -- on the methods adopted to triumph in this battle. These principles illuminate a central, and tragic, paradox at the heart of the Bush presidency. The president who vowed to lead America in a moral crusade to win hearts and minds around the world has so inflamed anti-American sentiment that America's moral standing in the world is at an all-time low. The president who vowed to defend the Good in the world from the forces of Evil has caused the United States to be held in deep contempt by large segments of virtually every country on every continent of the world, including large portions of nations with which the U.S. has historically been allied.

nice post. bush's ineptitude goes beyond party lines (and international waters).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.

Is providing "free" public schooling socialism?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.

Well, I would argue there has never been a truly succesful libertarian state in history. The world's most succesful societies have managed to balance market based capitalism within a government sponsored socialistic framework - this country is no exception. I know people from Sweden and they are not poor, not apathetical, and not subject to totalitarianism.

I would say that pretty much all of northern Europe belies your final point as well.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i hope this is sarcasm. bush will go down as one of the worst presidents the free world has ever had

Actually it's not, I'm just being the anti bush hater. You guys claim he is so bad because you focus 100% on the negative. He's not a bad president...you're just too busy being a typical democrat...if you look for nothing but negative, guess what you'll find?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Actually it's not, I'm just being the anti bush hater. You guys claim he is so bad because you focus 100% on the negative. He's not a bad president...you're just too busy being a typical democrat...if you look for nothing but negative, guess what you'll find?

Jsarno, this would be a good time to substantiate your argument.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Jsarno, this would be a good time to substantiate your argument.

Umm what? I said I was just being the anti bush hater, the anti negative person when it comes to Bush...how do I substantiate that?
Too many people bash him as the worst ever, to substantiate this, feel free to go back and read posts on this thread.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Umm what? I said I was just being the anti bush hater, the anti negative person when it comes to Bush...how do I substantiate that?
Too many people bash him as the worst ever, to substantiate this, feel free to go back and read posts on this thread.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. What I meant was use what you believe to be Bush's accomplishments to construct an argument explaining why liberals are wrong in suggesting he is a historically bad president. Obviously you think that's the case, I am just curious specifically why.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Actually it's not, I'm just being the anti bush hater. You guys claim he is so bad because you focus 100% on the negative. He's not a bad president...you're just too busy being a typical democrat...if you look for nothing but negative, guess what you'll find?

Name 3 things he has accomplished that are positive.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Name 3 things he has accomplished that are positive.

That's very subjective isn't it, and (like most presidents) his accomplishments can't truly be measured until quite a while after he leaves office.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

That's very subjective isn't it, and (like most presidents) his accomplishments can't truly be measured until quite a while after he leaves office.

Come on Smootsmack, it's not unfair to ask someone to point to policy successes when arguing that a president will be judged favoribly by history. By your logic we can't even talk about the efficacy of a current president because we lack appropriate historical perspective. I think that's bogus, and I think the fact that so many people struggle to point to concrete things that this president has accomplished is a problem.

Some liberals aren't very smart or articulate, but when they are smart and articulate they do an excellent job breaking down in detail how the Bush agenda has failed. Jsarno argued twice in this thread that Bush will go down well in history, and I don't think it's unfair to ask why.