hahahaha.

I think it was Bobby Blue Bland who sang:

...if loving you is wrong, I don't want to be right...

how fucking perfect is that?

:lol:

...

Interesting results from a Pew Center poll this week....Public is less enthusiastic about the Republican victory this year than the two previous switches in control of the House...and approve less of the Republican plans and policies.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1798-1.png

ace...there is no mandate..there is not widespread popular support for your rigid ultra-conservatism.

And no, you and the Tea Party and/or the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party do not represent the values of a majority of Americans, who also btw, want the Republicans to show a greater willingness to compromise and not be so rigid (and sanctimonious - my editorial observation) in their ideology.

But you obviously dont understand the concept of compromise...to you, it is a sign of weakness, not consensus-building for the greater good.

I do play video games. I'm not arguing video games aren't addictive, they can be (as much as anything which is not physically addictive). What' I'm arguing is that the euphoric high from endorphins released when playing video games do not have a dangerous physical effect on human beings. In that way, it cannot be compared to a high fat, salt, and sugar diet and smoking. They are apples and oranges.
Fine.
That's not causal. Anyone that eats a Happy Meal is increasing his or her risk of heart disease and diabetes. Anyone that smokes is increasing his or her risk of heart disease. What about video games or other activities that trigger a natural release of endorphins?
Having new values first doesn't make our values less American.
You're arguing that the national wave of bigotry against the gay community is your example of American values? Did you follow the Proposition 8 appeal? Are you aware that banning gay marriage in the United States is in direct contradiction to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? In what way is that an example of American values?

Yes DC that's what I was talking about when I mentioned the GOP might not be looking at this election correctly. They're calling it a "mandate," the polls show it completely different.

But I also disagree with Ace's assessment that Miller lost because he swung too far right. I think he lost (or will lose) because several facts such as his lying came to light after the primaries were over. That's pretty much what the exit polls show from what I read.

It was easy for the Republicans to just be the party of NO for the last two years and the simplistic (and ideological) response would be to conclude they were successful.

But now they have to lead the House, with policies and positions that, for the most part, do not have widespread public support.

Yep, most people favor many parts of HCR but don't care for some parts or elements. Instead of trying to fix it the GOP wants to unfund and dismantle it. Things like that will not go over well even with Fox News spewing lies 24/7.

I think Miller lost because he was exposed as a tea party poseur. Hard to be a credible tea party candidate when you had to go on public assistance while attending your ivy league law school. Also, the whole having-your-private-security-goons-detain-a-local-journalist couldn't have played too well. He lost because he is obviously crazy and obviously completely full of shit.

You saw his post and you question me?

Concur, that's what I meant when I said "other stuff" just couldn't remember most of it.

How crazy do you have to be to be too crazy for the tea party? Gez.

I believe I have been saying that there was a rejection and anti-Pelosi sentiment that was used by winning candidates and that the approach worked.

Again, I know most Americans are not as far right as I am. Haven't I made that clear. If not, let me say - I see things in (figuratively) in black and white, I think being a "centrist" is being nothing and is a cop-out or fear of taking a stance. I don't compromise on issues important to me.

True. I have been trying to understand this concept for several years now. when I ask questions and seek clarification, I get ignored or the name calling begins. I am not going to give up - one day perhaps you can communicate how and why you compromise on your core values or beliefs. President Obama's willingness to compromise often leaves me confused.

Exit polls dont support your opinion....and in broader terms, neither do the polls results above.

its a good thing the framers of the Constitution understood the concept of compromise.

Nearly every of those guys left Philadelphia unhappy about one or more provisions of the Constitution.

But they understood the greater good....a concept that you still dont get if you think is a sign of weakness.

And you get feedback that you might not like when you take the discussion off course rather than address the issues and facts when confronted.

You are simply wrong regarding how you present the comparison above. Salt, sugar and fat are all required as normal part of human functionality. So are endorphins. In some circumstance they all can be dangerous.

Since I have no credibility present the question to someone who has credibility in your book.

Never said that, did I?

Please put the issue in a proper historical perspective.

Slavery at one time was an accepted American value, change germinated.
Women sufferage was not always an American value, it germinated.
Emmisions control as I recall was first and foremost a California value, where California lead the rest of the nation, it was a value that germinated.
Pelosi style liberalism was germinating and was rejected.

Do you get what i am trying to say?

Take this to another thread please.

This is what you do, ace....you take threads off course...you go off on tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread topics....repeatedly.

Many politicians over come lies or mis-statements. The real issue that created the opportunity for Murkowski was Miller being inexperienced and too far right. Conservative business people in particular want what they consider a reasoned voice in Washington - they do not want an extremist who they think would be considered a joke. Miller lost that base and it will cost him the Senate seat.

Wow, this is a tough bit to swallow. Centrism is a stance. What are you saying? That one must be either a communist or a fascist or they're copping out? Are Republicans copping out in their lite-rightism and should take a firm fascist stance and be done with it? Should Democrats forgo moderate positions that support both capitalism and social liberalism and just go ahead and be the socialists/communists that they're already labelled as?

You might see things in black in white, but in reality the world is in colour.

I think the underlying problem in America is a perpetual sense of crisis. Can you think of a time when America wasn't faced with a perceived crisis? I can't. America runs on fear. It was built on fear.

The current fear was triggered by an economic meltdown, so now people are lashing out at what they fear: liberalism, socialism, the "nanny state," entitlement spending, tax-and-spend Democrats, taxes, etc.

Before that, it was triggered by terrorism, and so people were pushing for war.

We could probably trace the entire history of America back long some trail made up by a pattern of crisis. The really interesting thing would be to determine how much of that is fabricated and how much of it is of legitimate concern.

Things would be so much easier if they were in black and white. I'm pretty sure popes, emperors, kings, and dictators believed so too. I'm pretty sure mainstream black and white thinking began to wane sometime during the Age of Enlightenment. However, I think the biggest shift occurred during the 20th century. Those damn French philosophers. They really made things confusing.

...

I don't believe the polls. I believe what I heard, what I saw. I listened as people went off on the subject of President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's agenda. If you believe the polls, that is o.k. If everybody in the world believes them and I don't, that is o.k. too - I will stand alone.


Wow, do I disagree. They compromised on the slavery question, need I say more. That screw up alone cost this country over 200 years of racial strife. On that issue they failed in my opinion.

P.s. - I am not Glenn Beck nor do I put our founding fathers on an imaginary pedestal the way he does. They had issues, like most of us do.

---------- Post added at 11:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 PM ----------

What I do is respond to people.

I get it...national polls of scientifically selected samples of cross-section of voters are less meaningful than your personal observations of your friends and neighbors.


There would not have been a United States of both north and south w/o that compromise. Are you really that clueless?

Civics less for you, ace:

What did the Framers think when the Philadelphia Convention ended?

The Constitution has been described as "a bundle of compromises." As you have seen, such prominent features of the Constitution as the different plans for representation in the House and the Senate and the method of selecting the president were settled by compromise. Compromise, however, means that everyone gets less than they want. There were enough compromises in the completed Constitution that nearly every delegate could find something he did not like. During the four months the delegates had spent putting the Constitution together, there were some strong disagreements. Some had walked out of the convention. Three refused to sign the finished document.

http://www.civiced.org/index.php?page=wtp_hs15_sb

One could even suggest that your "no compromise" rigidity is counter to American values.

Am I allowed to respond? If so, and I have posted my view on this, is that there is no centrist position on the major political issues of the day. Fro example you can not be centrist on the question of war, it is either in or out.

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 PM ----------

I get questioned about going off topic etc, you direct your comment to me not Roach, I don't see balance on these issues. In my view, I think some want me to go away.

...

Did you not understand the first time?

Sez you. How do you know? You found that an acceptable compromise? I would have never accepted that - so I don't get your point.

I know what happened, but my point is that they failed on that point. The compromise lead to 200 years of racial strife and a civil war. You don't see that? You don't see those two things as a problem?

This clearly illustrates how I see something like health-care reform and how you see it. This crystallizes our differences, nothing I can add to make it clearer - and I don't understand your thought process on the issue of compromise.

I give up, ace.

I just dont have the patience for simplistic black and white thinking that only serves to support an extreme ideology.

And I dont want you to go, but I will be asking the moderators to remind you to stay on topic in the future.

I have no interest in PM's. My question had a point to it, one for all to see. I thought the point was obvious.

---------- Post added at 12:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 AM ----------

Send me a PM, as if this is on topic!

Bottom line is you think the Constitution compromise on the question of slavery was o.k. - unbelievable! Truly unbelievable! There is nothing more to say to you.

...

I thought you were referring to centrism on the political spectrum. The question of whether to go to war—yes or no—is something else. It's like you're assuming that a centrist would say, "maybe" or "let me think about it" or "can I get back to you?" or "I'm not sure." Centrism does not refer to the response one makes to a yes-or-no question regarding a particular issue.

I hate having to do this, but:
Centrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Centre-right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Centre-left - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now tell me whether you can find political stances anywhere in there. Take your time.

You've more or less acknowledged that politics exist on a spectrum or continuum. Are you saying that a spectrum/continuum does not have a centre? Or are you saying that taking a position somewhere on the centre isn't as desirable? If so, why is that?

I apologize if I have misread your position. I think I have. American politics has been steeped in centrism for decades if not centuries.

I think it's funny that all my conservative friends think this vote was a "mandate" on anything.

It was nothing more than anger and impatience, and with just two choices in most races, they chose the "other", not realizing that who they were voting in are people representing the party that got us into this mess in the first place.

Endorphins carry with them no direct health risk.
Can you share your definition of "value", in the ethical sense of the word?

Sprinkle in some good ol' racism and I think you've hit the nail on the head.

This sums it up. The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

You don't trust polls. Instead, you choose to rely on what you've heard from people in your vicinity, which is actually just an unscientifically sampled poll with a small, sample size and no rigorous quantitative analysis.

This is why it's hard to take your opinions seriously sometimes.

I don't believe polls either. They have much higher error percentages than they proclaim. Yeah, 95% of the time they will be right (+/- 4%), but it doesn't answer the question of is it the right thing to do.

I bet Obama could lift the full-auto ban, lower taxes 10%, and cut benefits and gov jobs, yet the right will still hate him.

I heard some interesting things today that Pelosi might have to take an extreme left stand on the issues in order to win back the democratic base. Obama is failing to push for any far left ideas, and pushing more moderate and centrist ones. But, even when the left passes something, it is meeting too much resistance in our own party.
Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys - CNN.com

Maybe Pelosi is to blame, maybe single-issue dems are to blame, maybe the politicians are corrupt and would rather take 'donations' than advance any left wing agenda. (Close Gitmo, Strict limits on emissions, fight obesity, get out of Iraq/Afghanistan, double CAFE standards, DADT, non-profit healthcare, cut FCC obscenity funding, etc...) This is one thing where having 24/7 talking heads will get your message across, will keep the politicians from straying or compromising, and

ace--->first off i have no problem with the last post i made. in one of the directions your usual shuck and jive leaked into earlier in the thread, you were declaring people "real americans" and unamerican---you know, that lame mccarthyite shit that seems to loom in the background with alot of far right discourse. this in the midst of yet another demonstration of the reality-optional conservatism you espouse. don't like the evidence that the right media apparatus made up the nancy pelosi you don't like? pretend it isn't there. don't like the polls that demonstrate your contention that the midterms represent some conservative renaissance is a figment of your imagination? pretend they aren't there.

it's always the same. what seems to matter is the avoidance of dissonance. it's like you write in order to flirt with it. but the game is to exclude it, over and over--so the movement in your positions is always lateral, a rearrangement of blocks. and you seem to conflate that with thinking.

at this point, much of this thread is a trail of exasperations.

but hey, why confront that when you can dodge it by whinging about my mod status?

In context, my reference to Casper was very much on target. If you didn't get it, perhaps go through the thread again and you may see why I wrote what i wrote. Or if you want to question me in that thread on the issue, feel free to do so.

---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

I don't know what a centrist would say.

I don't think I understand what you want. If a centrist adopts moderate policies that lie between the extremes - I don't see how that is possible on an issue by issue basis, however, if the net of position equates to zero, then perhaps real centrism exists. For example I support the legalization of marijuana and I support gun ownership rights, a left and a right position - would I be a centrist if those were the only tow issues in question? I would say no, because there is no moderate position on those questions. I can not think of any issue where there is a true moderate position, only positions where a person may not have a strong opinion.

The notion of people willing to compromise their beliefs on important issues, perhaps because those issues are not important to them personally leads to a false belief that there is a center. At the end of a process with people like this making decisions we get results like the one referenced above regarding the US Constitution question on slavery. People who did not appreciate the importance of the question forged a compromise that was a disaster. We have better clarity, better law, better results when matters are resolved by those on the extremes who have an opinion. Our nation is trying to compromise on health-care, war, deficits, taxation, energy, trade, etc., and in each case we are getting unworkable responses

On many of the big question when this nation has made the most progress it has been because of a full commitment to either extreme. For example there was no moderation on the question of social security - some argue it was a liberal position and we needed to go all in or not do it. During the same era, WWII - some would argue a right issue, we needed to go all in or not do it. I say with health-care reform, we go all in with single payer or do the minor fixes to make it more free market.

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

what I suggest is that it was an "against" result. I agree that it was not a mandate "for" a Republican platform, very few actually ran on that. I have been saying the anti-Pelosi message worked. The Speaker Pelosi angle worked more so than the Pres. Obama angle because many people like him and he has relatively high favorability ratings given the circumstances.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

You gotta be kidding. You think a measurable component of the results had a racial element? Do you think in less than 2 years all the non-racist people who helped put Pres. Obama in office all of a sudden became racist? Is this what you think or is the racist thing just a liberal knee-jerk reaction to when things don't go their way?

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

Neither do Happy Meals.

I think cultural "values" are a reflection the general shared views of a population. There are views I hold that are not in sync with American cultural values, even to the degree where I ( and I have stated this before) don't think I would be electable to a statewide or national political office. Given my strong feelings on some issues conservatives would consider liberal I could not get conservative support and on most issues liberals consider conservative I could not get liberal support. In my view, the suggestion that Pelosi, is out of sync with American values, is not an insult - I think it is simply self-evident and some people have become very vocal about it.

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

If it is raining, I don't check with a weatherman for him to tell me its raining. And if it is raining and he saz it ain't raining, I won't believe him. I don't care about his education, his scientific approach or whatever. That is how I live, call me what you will.

Also, on many of the polls there is a need to drill down. If a response is - its the economy. If you drill down with a follow-up you may find some real answers. Most polls in my view are superficial and are agenda driven. If you put blind faith in them - If I were you I would pause and reflect on that rather than attacking me.

Ace, I guess another way to put it is that if you find yourself critical of market economies, free trade, and how capital is used, and if you'd rather see the economy organized a different way—a planned economy, for example—and that you'd rather see the nation's production organized from either the top down or via unions/councils, then you've probably left the centre entirely. If you would like to see a revolution to make this happen, then you've definitely left it.

With this in mind, Obama is obviously not a left-wing politician. He's a centrist. Centrists are more likely to support regulation and other forms of government intervention in a market economy. I don't think Obama is striving for a command economy, depsite what Tea Partiers would like us to believe.

Still insisting the far right is responsible for what happened to Democrats this past election?


My point has been that perhaps letting things be made up is a weakness.

I did not make an issue of the polls, others did. What I think about the polls is not important to the issues in this thread. I know that, so whats the point?

it's always the same. what seems to matter is the avoidance of dissonance. it's like you write in order to flirt with it. but the game is to exclude it, over and over--so the movement in your positions is always lateral, a rearrangement of blocks. and you seem to conflate that with thinking.

at this point, much of this thread is a trail of exasperations.[/quote]

All I do here is share my views.

Was my point lost? Do I need to explain it? Let's just say there was a sophomoric response to a sophomoric post.

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

What I have been trying to say is Pres. Obama's approach is nothingness. In his eagerness to compromise or find a mythical center he fails to solve problems. On the economy it appears he has no real core belief or that his core belief is compromise. If true this fails - went met with those who have real core beliefs. If I walk into a negotiation knowing the other party is going to compromise, I win. I get what I want, because at the end of the day I won't give in.

Ace, there's some evidence that Obama is a Keynesian.

And your talk about a mythical centre implies that Bill Clinton's presidency is a myth too. That's just one example.

I won't touch on your opinion on compromise. I think that deserves its own thread.

A Keynesian is something, you either are one or you are not. You can not be both a Monetarist and a Keynesian, there is no coherent center between the two. Given, Keynesians argue aggregate demand can be managed and monetarist argue that it can not be, a compromise or a hybrid of the two is failure. Because no matter which side is correct, the compromise solution can not solve the problem.

Bill Clinton shifted from the left to the right. given that shift he was able to work with the Republican Congress. Bill Clinton, cut taxes, reformed welfare, passed NAFTA, cut federal spending, passed a crime bill, reduced government bureaucracy, and some would argue he reduced regulations. That sounds pretty right wing to me.

Both Obama and Bush have used Keynesian strategies. Both Canada and the United States are quite familiar with them, just as they are familiar with monetary policies. Most advanced economies are mixed economies, and so you don't even need to be a centrist to use both strategies.

This is mostly true. Bill Clinton was mostly centre-left until he lost the House, after which he became centre-right. It's not uncommon to see liberal/progressive politicians shift around the centre. I wouldn't call Clinton a conservative, however. At best, he was able to bridge the gap between liberalism and conservatism through compromise and appropriation. He's not the only liberal/progressive to do that. Canadian politics is filled with it.

NAFTA was started by conservative Canadian and American leaders (Mulroney/Bush Sr.) and was finalized by liberal Canadian and American leaders (Chrétien/Clinton). There were renegotiations in between.

The Liberal Party of Canada has been known to go on a platform that includes tax cuts as well. Obama has cut taxes.

Clinton balanced the budget and eliminated the deficit. The Liberals are champions of a balanced budget, and have been known to cut spending to achieve it.

This is centrisim, my friend.

Assuming agreement on the above, my point is that the hybrid solution is no solution. The hybrid solution is perhaps the reason this recession is as bad as it is - perhaps it is the cause. Either way I am not debating the reasons for the recession, I am illustrating the problem with the mythical center. The argument that both a liberal and a conservative both make the same mistake in my view means both are wrong - not that it is the center.

This is usually when I use an analogy to try to illustrate what I see as the problem in the position above. Today, I will refrain and simply say what I have been saying. If there is a mix at best it is a half solution, at worst it is a disaster, and most likely the underlying economy has the power to over come incompetence.

Again, I am not clear if your meaning of center is like the sum of the pluses and minuses adding up to zero. If that is the definition, I agree there is a center - but I don't see how any conclusions can be drawn from such an approach.

To me NAFTA was an aggressive move towards true free market capitalism between North American Nations. I agree that the finer details where negotiated, but again I would argue where there was compromise there were on-going problems.

And some taxes have increased during his administration. Seems to me, his goal is not to cut taxes but to redistribute wealth and that he wants to use tax policy to accomplish that goal. I think Bush, for example, simply wanted to cut taxes to lessen the burden on the American people.

I consider that a conservative approach (and I would agree that Bush and Congress failed during his administration), so if our difference is in semantics - we agree in principle. Some how I don't really think that is the case though.

ace--no republican administration has actually **been** monetarist. they've all been "compromises" between talking monetarist and acting keynesian, particularly in the usage of military spending. clinton was more an actual monetarist than any republican before or since, much to the chagrin of the republicans who had to try to frame him as some phantasmagoric "leftist" so they could differentiate themselves from him.

the problem with monetarism is that it's horseshit. look around you. this is the world that the paralysis of talking monetarism as if it made sense has made.

you really should make an effort sometime to get your historical facts straight.
this reality-optional stuff is a crushing bore.