LGP Political Discussion Thread

[shafnutz05]

ahh very well said. I do see your point about the warrants, and I will look for that Judge Napolitano peace. He is one sharp cookie

[GaryRissling]

Really?! So cap and trade must then be rooted in sound scientific data? Or deficit spending on stimulus projects is likely to lead to sustained economic recovery

Certainly there are arguments to be made on both sides, no?

Not really. There is no proven link between anthropogenic co2 emissions and global temperatures. That is a fact that is indisputable. Despite the $14 billion of taxpayer money used to line the pockets of climate change scientists, no models predicted the plateau/cooling that has taken place over the last 11 years. That is also a fact that is indisputable. Now our cap-n-trade proposal and the Copenhagen conference are all based on similar computer models which have demonstrated these wild inaccuracies over the past decade and more. There is no counter-argument which does not include the phrase "computer models suggest", which is like basing an argument on a Huffington Post piece (or Sean Hannity if you like).

Or TARP was the salvation of non-wall street jobs?

No, but TARP was a Republican program, so, you know, not relevant.[/quote]

it was strongly and visibly supported by Senator Obama, as well as Bush, McCain and other top Republicans.

Or money for GE to create green energy jobs won't just be more government-subsidized jobs, rather than profitable, private sector jobs? Or government run healthcare program will be the first government program in history to meet budgetary projections? Or low-interest rates don't lead to the under-capitalization of our banks and our nation? Or higher minimum wages don't lead to more unemployment or outsourcing? Or industrial unions don't lead to more unemployment or outsourcing? Or deliberating for months on Afghanistan policy is merely being prudent rather than reckless with American lives? Or Kanye West is a ******* (OK, so he may have gotten one fact right)?

Yes, sadly, the thing is, disagreeing with you on a debatable issue of policy is not the same thing as lying. The Democrats lie. Everybody lies. But most people who aren't elected Republicans and their friends in the opinion media occasionally mix in a little truth. [/quote]

I am assuming that the policies are routed in some sort of reasoning. It is the reasoning that i find disingenuous at best for the reasons stated above. Protecting unions and raising minimum wages strengthen the D's and lead to more unemployment and outsourcing of jobs. Obama circumvented our bankruptcy laws when he gave GM to the UAW rather than allowing the bankruptcy court to compensate the secured creditors. There is no arguing what the motivation was in that case.

I don't really care about the Democratic Party, but as for myself I live in a world where:

1 Saddam Hussein wasn't behind 9/11
2 The War in Iraq didn't end on May 1, 2003
3 Torture is unconstitutional, not patriotic
4 Government spying on American citizens is unconstitutional, not patriotic
5 The current president was not born in Kenya
6 There is nothing in any of the health care bills that will send the FBI out to kill my grandma

The opposite of those statements are all massive and bald-faced lies that the GOP has tried to sell just in the past seven or eight years. And that's by no means an exhaustive list.

I live in a similar world with respect to your first two points and your fourth and fifth point. I don't recall anyone saying torture is "patriotic", but I will say that using some techniques to stave off attacks is acceptable to me. I understand the distaste for it, but when I think about the people in the WTC deciding to jump hundreds of feet to their death in order to escape the flames, using sleep deprivation and water-boarding techniques to reduce the likelihood of a similar attack seems compromise I can live with.

With respect to healthcare, should there be a public option there will certainly be rationing. The government wants to control costs, but without tort reform and interstate competition, it isn't the prices that they will reduce, it is the level of service. Under this plan, it wouldn't be the market that is responsible for allocating scarce resources, it will be the government. Assuming that resources are not unlimited, decisions will have to be made regarding where they will best be allocated. How do you think the government will decide on who gets what if not based on a cost/benefit analysis? Would not those who establish the parameters of such an analysis be considered a "death panel"?

[largegarlic]

I do think that the Obama Administration has made an error in going after Fox in such a hostile manner. It just serves to draw further attention and viewers to the network and makes the Administration look petty and vindictive.

I have gotten fed up with all of the major cable news stations, which have all seemingly resorted to sensationalism, screaming matches and pandering to whatever viewers who make up their core audience. I can't find the link anymore, but I agree with a piece on slate.com arguing that the real problem with Fox is not its conservative bias, but rather the degree to which the station has popularized name-calling, shouting and emotionally charged rhetoric and made these practices a more acceptable way of discussing important social and political issues. I don't know if I am remembering correctly, but it seemed to me that before Fox News, cable news (and really all news broadcasts) focused on trying to provide calm, rational accounts of what was going on in the world and tried to maintain at least the appearance of objectivity (although we all know that perfect objectivity in reporting is pretty much a fantasy). Fox News came onto the scene with brash, opinionated personalities, who seemingly aimed more at firing up the viewers who already agreed with them than reporting objectively or trying to formulate well thought-out, rational criticisms of whatever views they were opposing. Fox started moving up in the rankings. CNN and MSNBC then began to copy this style (CNN with shows like Crossfire and MSNBC with Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc.) and eventually the "news" devolved into "pundits" from one side or another making snarky remarks about and/or yelling at pundits from the other side. Does this developmental path of cable news seem right to anyone else?

[HomerPenguin]

How do you think the government will decide on who gets what if not based on a cost/benefit analysis?

And isn't that the same way insurance companies do it now, absent the extra insurance company motivation to take your premiums and then renege when it comes time to pay up?

Would not those who establish the parameters of such an analysis be considered a "death panel"?

Not unless we're calling claims analyst departments at private health insurance companies "death panels" as well, since this is the same thing they do all the time.

[HomerPenguin]

Fox started moving up in the rankings. CNN and MSNBC then began to copy this style (CNN with shows like Crossfire and MSNBC with Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc.) and eventually the "news" devolved into "pundits" from one side or another making snarky remarks about and/or yelling at pundits from the other side. Does this developmental path of cable news seem right to anyone else?

I think Crossfire pre-dated Fox News. Otherwise, that seems about right.

[HomerPenguin]

The Democrats lie. Everybody lies. But most people who aren't elected Republicans and their friends in the opinion media occasionally mix in a little truth.

The sweeping generalizations you make are ridiculous. So with this statement, you are implying that all elected Republicans and their friends are raving liars that spread distruths and lies about everything and anything?

Yes, that's about right.

Come on man...I am about as conservative as it gets, and I acknowledge that there are a lot of Democrats out there that are solid, good people (albeit misguided). For you to dismiss the entire "other party" as liars makes you sound just as irrational as the people you criticize in your next breath.

Oh well.

[HomerPenguin]

Saddam Hussein wasn't behind 9/11
The War in Iraq didn't end on May 1, 2003
Torture is unconstitutional, not patriotic
Government spying on American citizens is unconstitutional, not patriotic
The current president was not born in Kenya
There is nothing in any of the health care bills that will send the FBI out to kill my grandma

Taking things to ultimate extremes once again....

1) I know Saddam wasn't behind 9/11
2) I am aware the War in Iraq did not end on that day
3) Torture is not "patriotic", whatever that is supposed to mean
4) Do you really think the NSA cares about your conversations with friends, etc?
5) We know the president was not born in Kenya
6) When did I ever say the "FBI is coming to kill Grandma"?

Guinness already explained why you're wrong on torture and spying, and as for the other four, when did this become about you?

[shafnutz05]

The Democrats lie. Everybody lies. But most people who aren't elected Republicans and their friends in the opinion media occasionally mix in a little truth.

The sweeping generalizations you make are ridiculous. So with this statement, you are implying that all elected Republicans and their friends are raving liars that spread distruths and lies about everything and anything?

Yes, that's about right.

Come on man...I am about as conservative as it gets, and I acknowledge that there are a lot of Democrats out there that are solid, good people (albeit misguided). For you to dismiss the entire "other party" as liars makes you sound just as irrational as the people you criticize in your next breath.

Oh well.

Thank you for at least admitting the fact that you are completely driven by ideology. I don't agree with most of the stuff that comes out of the Democratic side, but I am not bitter/cynical enough to think every single Democrat is some evil person that is incapable of telling the truth. So to sum up your political thought process "REPUBLICAN BAD!! LIE!!! DEMOCRAT GOOD!! CORPORATIONS BAD!!" We could have summed this up 40 pages ago

[shafnutz05]

Guinness already explained why you're wrong on torture and spying, and as for the other four, when did this become about you?

Guinness and I respectfully disagree on those two points. As for the other four, I was making the point that you can't just assume everyone that is on the right shares all of the views you listed there.

[HomerPenguin]

Guinness already explained why you're wrong on torture and spying, and as for the other four, when did this become about you?

Guinness and I respectfully disagree on those two points.

I know. He's right and you're wrong. Keeping it respectful is good.

As for the other four, I was making the point that you can't just assume everyone that is on the right shares all of the views you listed there.

I very carefully limited myself to elected Republicans and their opinion media buddies. Unless you're one of those, you weren't included.

[HomerPenguin]

So to sum up your political thought process "REPUBLICAN BAD!! LIE!!! DEMOCRAT GOOD!! CORPORATIONS BAD!!" We could have summed this up 40 pages ago

Except for the DEMOCRAT GOOD part, which I've never expressed, that's about right. I'd like the Republicans to stop being so bad, but they'll have to extract their heads from corporate hindquarters, for starters.

[shafnutz05]

Fair enough..the Republican are up corporate hindquarters, the Democrats are up their own hindquarters, and we are in the lurch. That's a fair assessment.

[HomerPenguin]

Fair enough..the Republican are up corporate hindquarters, the Democrats are up their own hindquarters, and we are in the lurch. That's a fair assessment.

Don't sell the Democrats short. Most of them have their heads up corporate hindquarters too.

[Guinness]

Fair enough..the Republican are up corporate hindquarters, the Democrats are up their own hindquarters, and we are in the lurch. That's a fair assessment.

Don't sell the Democrats short. Most of them have their heads up corporate hindquarters too.

You beat me to it. Theirs may or may not be up there as far, but really at this point it's merely hagglin' over price, as the story attributed to George Bernard Shaw goes. (Anybody?)

[Guinness]

I very carefully limited myself to elected Republicans and their opinion media buddies.

I'd give you that in all but one case. Agree with him or not, Ron Paul is fairly clean on this issue.

[shafnutz05]

lol....and as far as the disagreement with Guinness goes, I don't know if I would call it that. I am fully aware that if you give the federal government an inch, they will seize a mile. If we had better cooperation between different LE agencies, there would not be the need for the unconstitutional stuff. The problem is (and this was a huge part of what led to 9/11) there is so much interagency red tape, bickering, and everything else that they are more busy protecting their turf. If we had a well-oiled machine (I know, I am dreaming), warrantless crap wouldn't be necessary.

As far as enhanced interrogation goes, God that's a tough one. On one hand, I do not feel one iota of guilt for what happens to extremist fanatics hell bent on the destruction of everything they deem "unholy". On the other hand, who's to say the government couldn't use that power domestically one day? In a perfect world, if we didn't have to worry about the gov't using those techniques on American citizens or innocents, I would say "Hell yes, shove that terrorist's face underwater until he is begging for oxygen".

For me, torture isn't about a moral argument (maybe that's bad?? I am sure some would think so). If "aggressively" interrogating one terrorist who won't talk leads us to find an extremist camp, then I am all for it. My reservation comes on the government power side of things, and the slippery slope that could lead to domestic use of these tactics.

[shafnutz05]

You beat me to it. Theirs may or may not be up there as far, but really at this point it's merely hagglin' over price, as the story attributed to George Bernard Shaw goes. (Anybody?)

lol...I always thought this phrase came with the joke about the "promiscuous" woman offering her services, but I could be wrong. I have heard this attributed to Churchill as well, but I am pretty sure it was Shaw.

[doublem]

You irrationally hate FOX News because they report news that does not agree with your worldview.

It isn't irrational since I have reasons. I'm not just picking a number off the TV. I disagree with a lot of peoples worldview, but I dislike Fox becasue they don't have a worldview since most of what they say isn't in reality.

Fair enough. It is pretty scary to me that you actually condone the executive branch of government waging a full-out war on an independent media outlet. Of course, I have a feeling if Bush would have done this with the New York Times or MSNBC, you would be on here calling him a Hitler-like fascist.

When Obama goes to Rupert Murdoch's house and tells him to pull the plug, we can have that discussion, but until then Fox should just suck it up.

And do a little research on the fairness doctrine. Liberals understand full-well that FOX and talk radio are the only two sources of media that they do NOT control, and the sole purpose of that bill is to eliminate that problem.

Were we living in Soviet Russia until 1987? Do the liberals have a cable station where they defend the state?

They are already trying to take control of the Internet as we speak with their "net neutrality" crap. But I do think it is hilarious how worked up people get about FOX News, yet don't find any issues with MSNBC.

Who? I have never even tried to defend MSNBC. I think they are kind of crappy, just on different issues then Fox.

Get over it....there is a news station that is very popular that reports from a more conservative point of view, and it's not going anywhere. And if you support legislation/actions designed to muzzle independent media outlets, don't ever talk to me again about your righteous defense of the first amendment (a la G20)

And who cares if it is popular? That means nothing in terms of facts and content. Being a snake oil salesman should have nothing to do with with this. Why do you keep bringing up the first amendment? What does that have to do with what we are talking about?

[shafnutz05]

The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine is to force all media outlets, whether it is talk radio, news, etc, to air equal points of view from both the left and the right. Of all media outlets, what do you think will be the one area that is most severely affected by this? Talk radio. Liberals tried to enter the talk radio arena, and failed miserably...so what is their second option? To try and legislate talk radio out of business. The reason why I bring up the First Amendment is because the Fairness Doctrine infringes on freedom of speech and expression in a scary way.

And as far as the "state-controlled media" thing, come on. I am well aware that the current media falls a little short of being state-run. But surely even if you can see that in the ENTIRE media world, the only two sources that are anything but sympathetic and friendly towards the president are FOX News and talk radio. They are attempting to marginalize one opponent, and use unconstitutional legislation to forcefully silence another.

Say what you want about Bush 43....even as he was being eviscerated by the media, he never, ever sunk himself to the level of trying to pick a fight with them. Was he wrong on a lot of things? Of course he was. But he knew that the barrage of visceral rhetoric came with the job. Now you have Obama, who has been in office nine months and is already throwing a virtual temper tantrum over the fact that there are media outlets that dare not to recognize him as the bold, messianic leader that he believes he is. Obama is about as thin-skinned as it gets, and not even the most technologically advanced teleprompter in the universe can change that.

[doublem]

No, I don't think it is immature. I hope everyone goes on the attack of Fox News. Start pushing them around and see how they like it. I wish the liberals had some muscle like the conservatives. What does any of this have to do with the first amendment? Do you feel the same way when conservatives just make things up out of thin air? Lying about something has to be against something? You really think Obama is trying to shut down Fox, and if you do, you think that is possible.

Liberals have plenty of nugs, and they swing them around plenty throughout the media. I'm not defending Fox here, but it's kind of disingenuous to say that it's only the conservative voices that make any noise.

And Obama isn't trying to shut "down" Fox, they're trying to shut "out" Fox. The idea is to de-legitimize the channel, and thereby de-legitimize what is heard there. It's also a none-too-subtle message to the rest of media to toe the line, don't you think? No mention of MSNBC's "opinions"... wonder why? Even Scarborough essentially sticks to the establishment narrative. And seriously, someone should hit that "Ed" guy with a tree trunk. What a garbanzo that guy is...

Edit to add: ...just wanted to be clear that I'm not defending Fox, per se, but pointing out that the White House's stand here is pretty ridiculous.

I'm talking about how conservatives can say death panels, and liberals will try and reason with that. They should just say that is a flat out lie and made up. That is what I'm talking about. Of course, liberals have talking points. People that make up flat up lies should be de-legitimized. Conservatives are like attack dogs, they will go after anyone they find as a threat, liberals are cowards when it comes to that stuff most of the time.

The idea is to de-legitimize the channel, and thereby de-legitimize what is heard there.

Yea, it is.

[dagny]

If you guys want to carry on discussion about your differing viewpoints, and reasons for them, fantastic!

If this bickering over, I'm right, you're wrong, stuff doesn't stop, then I'm gonna have to lock the thread.

People are sharing their OPINIONS in this thread. Have some respect for one another.

[Guinness]

I'm talking about how conservatives can say death panels, and liberals will try and reason with that. They should just say that is a flat out lie and made up. That is what I'm talking about. Of course, liberals have talking points. People that make up flat up lies should be de-legitimized. Conservatives are like attack dogs, they will go after anyone they find as a threat, liberals are cowards when it comes to that stuff most of the time.

Nancy Pelosi said that the "tea party" protesters were scary Nazis. Alan Grayson, whom I very much admire for his stand on the under-discussed Federal Reserve, said that the Republican plan for health care reform was for people to "die quickly". Janeane Garafalo (whose humor I very much used to enjoy) said that the "tea party" protesters were stupid racists. Keith Olbermann sat across from her, grinning and muttering, "yeah... yep". Jimmy Carter said that the overwhelming majority of those who oppose Obama are racists. Rachel Maddow now miraculously believes that opposition to the state equals treason - quite the conversion, that.

I guess I agree with you, then - these people should all be de-legitimized... especially the serving politicians.

The idea is to de-legitimize the channel, and thereby de-legitimize what is heard there.

Yea, it is.

Oops. I think you forgot to add, "and it is wrong for them to try to do so."

[doublem]

The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine is to force all media outlets, whether it is talk radio, news, etc, to air equal points of view from both the left and the right. Of all media outlets, what do you think will be the one area that is most severely affected by this? Talk radio. Liberals tried to enter the talk radio arena, and failed miserably...so what is their second option? To try and legislate talk radio out of business. The reason why I bring up the First Amendment is because the Fairness Doctrine infringes on freedom of speech and expression in a scary way.

Yea, but on some issues there isn't equal points of view. The media's job isn't to be neutral or cover equal sides, its job is to be objective. Example, Evolution vs ID. There is no other side to this. This is why the media sucks and will never get any better becasue they try and give anyone a voice, no matter how insane it might be or how made up it is. A new book that is out is called Idiot America, it talks about this. From the 1940's to the 80s we had the FD, so it wasn't like we were living in some authoritarian state. Actually, since the FD was stopped in the 80s objective media coverage has got a lot worse. It isn't a right to make things up and put crazy people on the airwaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Origins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And as far as the "state-controlled media" thing, come on. I am well aware that the current media falls a little short of being state-run. But surely even if you can see that in the ENTIRE media world, the only two sources that are anything but sympathetic and friendly towards the president are FOX News and talk radio. They are attempting to marginalize one opponent, and use unconstitutional legislation to forcefully silence another.

Like I said before, if Fox had real criticism I could understand that or if Rush, or someone on talk radio could make a coherent point, okay, but screaming death panels and racism isn't it. Some Libertarians( Ron Paul) do.

Say what you want about Bush 43....even as he was being eviscerated by the media, he never, ever sunk himself to the level of trying to pick a fight with them. Was he wrong on a lot of things?

Yea, he would just do a bunch of other things to get around things he didn't like. And when you did break the law, barely anyone in the media said anything.

[doublem]

Nancy Pelosi said that the "tea party" protesters were scary Nazis. Alan Grayson, whom I very much admire for his stand on the under-discussed Federal Reserve, said that the Republican plan for health care reform was for people to "die quickly". Janeane Garafalo (whose humor I very much used to enjoy) said that the "tea party" protesters were stupid racists. Keith Olbermann sat across from her, grinning and muttering, "yeah... yep". Jimmy Carter said that the overwhelming majority of those who oppose Obama are racists. Rachel Maddow now miraculously believes that opposition to the state equals treason - quite the conversion, that.

I guess I agree with you, then - these people should all be de-legitimized... especially the serving politicians.

Okay, go ahead. I really don't have a stake in what those people said, but some of that might be true, I wouldn't say everyone, but some are. Are some people that oppose Obama racist? Yea. I think that is pretty clear, if a lot more subtle then it used to be. Now, I can't throw out a %, I have no idea. It just seems like, well they did it, so we are all equally as bad. I think you have some substance on race when the first black president is elected in America.

Oops. I think you forgot to add, "and it is wrong for them to try to do so."

Sure

[Guinness]

Okay, go ahead. I really don't have a stake in what those people said, but some of that might be true, I wouldn't say everyone, but some are. Are some people that oppose Obama racist? Yea. I think that is pretty clear, if a lot more subtle then it used to be. Now, I can't throw out a %, I have no idea. It just seems like, well they did it, so we are all equally as bad. I think you have some substance on race when the first black president is elected in America.

You concede, and then quickly rush to their defense.

Well sure, some folks are out there because they don't like the fact that a black man is president. Some folks are also out there because the voices in their heads told them to go. Do you really think that those folks made those comments to highlight those particular participants, or to paint them all with a single, broad brush?

Oops. I think you forgot to add, "and it is wrong for them to try to do so."

Sure