...and found it funny, while also being accurate:
"Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram for...wait for it...
"My ultimate Ayn Rand porn".
I guess someone watches "Sneakers" too much.
Rats Cooty Se...nevermind.
Sure don't believe anyone on this thread has a sense is humor.
Quote from: shadows on August 26, 2012, 11:01:47 PM
Sure don't believe anyone on this thread has a sense is humor.
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/052011/1307032252_atomic_bomb_mushroom_cloud_explosion.gif)
Ayn Rand is the gateway drug for the extremist right.
And yet, even though so many of them claim to be adherents (groupies?), they refuse to embrace her in all her glory - rejecting some of the most important parts of her philosophy. Picking and choosing... goes well with their 'pickin' and grinnin'....she thought religion was a gateway drug.
But hearing some of the nonsense being spewed last week by Atkins about how women who are raped really didn't mind because otherwise they could and would keep themselves from getting pregnant....you can start to see where this comes from since Rand not only excuses rape (in a couple of her books), but pretty much glorifies it by showing how the women so treated actually end up with the guys who did this to them. It's the old "caveman" theory of mating rituals - if you abuse a woman, she's gonna end up loving you for it. Groupthink ala Rupert and the Boys.
Ayn Rand glorifies rape....Todd Atkins dismisses it as a trivial event.
May be time to start discussing repeal of the 19th Amendment...??
Gweeds normal contribution. I'm guessing he has a case of the sad these days.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 27, 2012, 08:33:17 AM
Ayn Rand is the gateway drug for the extremist right.
And yet, even though so many of them claim to be adherents (groupies?), they refuse to embrace her in all her glory - rejecting some of the most important parts of her philosophy. Picking and choosing... goes well with their 'pickin' and grinnin'....she thought religion was a gateway drug.
But hearing some of the nonsense being spewed last week by Atkins about how women who are raped really didn't mind because otherwise they could and would keep themselves from getting pregnant....you can start to see where this comes from since Rand not only excuses rape (in a couple of her books), but pretty much glorifies it by showing how the women so treated actually end up with the guys who did this to them. It's the old "caveman" theory of mating rituals - if you abuse a woman, she's gonna end up loving you for it. Groupthink ala Rupert and the Boys.
Ayn Rand glorifies rape....Todd Atkins dismisses it as a trivial event.
May be time to start discussing repeal of the 19th Amendment...??
You know Rand was pro-abortion. She didn't think embryos had rights. The benefits of Rand's line of thought was that she realized that no one can make decisions that benefit oneself better than oneself. Which is why conservatives latch on to her.
Quote from: erfalf on August 27, 2012, 09:16:57 AM
You know Rand was pro-abortion. She didn't think embryos had rights. The benefits of Rand's line of thought was that she realized that no one can make decisions that benefit oneself better than oneself. Which is why conservatives latch on to her.
Like I said...pickin' and grinnin'...
And you managed to put in one tiny little paragraph the whole fallacy of the extreme right - how they believe (which they don't) in personal rights, but must intrude into a woman's relationship with her God and her doctor. Or your right to sit down in the evening and light up a fatty as an after dinner "aperitif".
And thinking someone knows how to run their own life - well, they ALWAYS leave out the second half of it - you know...or maybe not, given a lot of past posts - the part that alludes to all this "freedom to act" as an individual, right up to the point where it infringes on another's rights.
Extreme rightist latch on for a few select sound bytes, and leave the meat of her philosophy alone. Threading their way through the marsh of hypocrisy, misdirections, and lies. She was way more libertarian that extreme rightist. And that is something Rupert and the Boys really cannot tolerate.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 27, 2012, 10:36:25 AM
Like I said...pickin' and grinnin'...
And you managed to put in one tiny little paragraph the whole fallacy of the extreme right - how they believe (which they don't) in personal rights, but must intrude into a woman's relationship with her God and her doctor. Or your right to sit down in the evening and light up a fatty as an after dinner "aperitif".
And thinking someone knows how to run their own life - well, they ALWAYS leave out the second half of it - you know...or maybe not, given a lot of past posts - the part that alludes to all this "freedom to act" as an individual, right up to the point where it infringes on another's rights.
Extreme rightist latch on for a few select sound bytes, and leave the meat of her philosophy alone. Threading their way through the marsh of hypocrisy, misdirections, and lies. She was way more libertarian that extreme rightist. And that is something Rupert and the Boys really cannot tolerate.
I'd hardly call that hypocritical. Do you agree with every single plank of the Democrat party? Unlikely. Does it make you a hypocrite? No way.
Just because the right seems to latch on to Rand but not agree with her lock step is no big deal. Let's say they did (which some do...Ron Paul'ish), you know they would be crucified for being so rigid in their ideology. Of course that is already a meme used by many in the media today, which I find extremely ironic considering many of the things that the modern day elected Republicans have been doing.
For example, many in the media and on this board claim that the far right wing of the party has all the power, or too much power over the Republican party. And they are pulling the party too far to the right. In light of the last three nominations for President I find this extremely hard to believe. I can't believe I am saying this but of the three Bush was the most conservative of the bunch, and that's saying something.
Quote from: erfalf on August 27, 2012, 06:07:31 PM
I'd hardly call that hypocritical. Do you agree with every single plank of the Democrat party? Unlikely. Does it make you a hypocrite? No way.
Just because the right seems to latch on to Rand but not agree with her lock step is no big deal. Let's say they did (which some do...Ron Paul'ish), you know they would be crucified for being so rigid in their ideology. Of course that is already a meme used by many in the media today, which I find extremely ironic considering many of the things that the modern day elected Republicans have been doing.
For example, many in the media and on this board claim that the far right wing of the party has all the power, or too much power over the Republican party. And they are pulling the party too far to the right. In light of the last three nominations for President I find this extremely hard to believe. I can't believe I am saying this but of the three Bush was the most conservative of the bunch, and that's saying something.
Not every point, no. But when one picks out ONE point and uses that as the only point of focus, then one is being disingenuous, hypocritical, and of dubious oral hygiene. And then contradicts that one point in several areas, as do the extreme rightists, one is also most likely lying in the process.
Like I said - Ayn Rand is the gateway drug of the extreme rightists. And they can't even get her right when they fawn upon her. In addition to being dishonest, that is stupid.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 27, 2012, 10:08:10 PM
Not every point, no. But when one picks out ONE point and uses that as the only point of focus, then one is being disingenuous, hypocritical, and of dubious oral hygiene. And then contradicts that one point in several areas, as do the extreme rightists, one is also most likely lying in the process.
Like I said - Ayn Rand is the gateway drug of the extreme rightists. And they can't even get her right when they fawn upon her. In addition to being dishonest, that is stupid.
In all fairness, going from what we have now to the ideal Ayn Rand world would be impossible. Millions of huge steps would need to be taken. I don't think she is being taken out of context so much as her context is just so far removed from what we have today, it is difficult to apply her ideals to the world we live in today. She lived in a different time. And she spoke from a point of view that came from a life that was dictated to a life that was extremely free in comparison.
Why do you seem to have such a hatred for the woman's ideas anyway? If anything they should be pretty well respected since she felt not one person had any rights over another. So any belief she had couldn't be forced down your through. You would be free to do what you wanted. Personally I think it is crazy that her ideals are considered extreme.
Oh, and this is what I am talking about ealier. The media and many on this board are labeling this Republican party as extreme. See the Bloomberg article below.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-28/hero-reagan-s-compromise-would-collide-with-tea-party-certitude.html
Again, from my standpoint, the current iteration of the Republican party is far too liberal if anything to select a person like Reagan.
Quote from: erfalf on August 28, 2012, 10:08:56 AM
Oh, and this is what I am talking about ealier. The media and many on this board are labeling this Republican party as extreme. See the Bloomberg article below.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-28/hero-reagan-s-compromise-would-collide-with-tea-party-certitude.html
Again, from my standpoint, the current iteration of the Republican party is far too liberal if anything to select a person like Reagan.
You must be living in bizarro world...
Really. Nothing you're saying makes any sense to me as relates to my perception of current events or past events.
Republicans today are too liberal to consider a Reagan? Weird. Its own party members consider his big government behavior as way too liberal in practice. He exploded the national debt. He used government as a tool. That sound like today's conservatives to you? Today's republican leaders are extreme compared to his pragmatism.
Have you seen the interview with Ayn Rand on an early 60's news program where she talked about her views? It was obvious to me that as a psychologist she was merely ruminating about the nature of humanity. As a roadmap for society it would be about as strange as trying to implement ancient Greek philosophers teachings. Taking parts of it for use as a political movement isn't very bright.
To make an analogy, consider that in part of Plato's Utopia he suggested that mating should be organized and accomplished at huge seasonal orgies to better effect population management and planning. To do that of course the participants would have to be within a few years of age of each other or over twenty years apart so as not to be having intercourse with your own children. The state would then raise the children. (all that from memory philosophy majors). To take any part of Plato's work and make a political or societal movement from it is just as crazy as taking parts of Rand. Its insightful material, not instructional.
Quote from: erfalf on August 28, 2012, 11:10:30 AM
How so?
Read up!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-28/hero-reagan-s-compromise-would-collide-with-tea-party-certitude.html
Quote
Hero Reagan's Compromise Would Collide With Tea Party Certitude
Ronald Reagan remains the modern Republican Party's most durable hero. His memory will be hailed as The Great Uncompromiser by those who insist the GOP must never flag in its support for smaller government, lower taxes and conservative social values.
His record tells a different story.
During Reagan's eight years in the White House, the federal payroll grew by more than 300,000 workers. Although he was a net tax cutter who slashed individual income-tax rates, Reagan raised taxes about a dozen times.
His rhetoric matched that of many of today's most ardent Christian conservatives, yet he proved to be a reluctant warrior on abortion and other social issues. Perhaps most tellingly, he was willing to cut deals, working closely with Democratic leaders such as House Speaker Tip O'Neill of Massachusetts to overhaul Social Security and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois to revamp the tax code.
That record prompted President Barack Obama in April to invoke a predecessor's words about tax fairness, quoting a story about an executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary and millionaires who exploited loopholes to pay no taxes while a bus driver paid his fair share.
"That wild-eyed socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan," Obama said.
More Complicated
It isn't that Reagan wasn't a true believer. He was simply more complicated than that. "Reagan was a splendid politician," said Lou Cannon, who has written five books about the 40th president. "He didn't personally think compromise was bad. It's what he did rather than what he said. He gave the right rhetoric but his policies were centrist."
That willingness to compromise is what led former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to tell a group of Bloomberg editors in June that Reagan "would have a hard time" leading the Republican Party if it gets to a place where orthodoxy doesn't allow for disagreement.
One of Reagan's strengths was his ability to create a compelling narrative about America and its role in the world. "A Time for Choosing," the talk Reagan delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater that aired nationwide on Oct. 27, 1964, didn't help much at the polls; it did launch one of the most successful political careers of the 20th century.
Recurring Themes
Reread the speech today, and you will see the themes Reagan returned to, as governor of California, as White House candidate and, finally, as a two-term president. "This is the issue of this election," declared Reagan almost 50 years ago. "Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little, intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol (sic) can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."
Those words are vintage Reagan, which explains why Senator Jim DeMint is quick with his answer to those who say Reagan wouldn't have a home in today's Republican Party.
"That's nonsense," says the South Carolina Republican and hero of the Tea Party movement.
Yet Reagan understood the difference between a speech meant to attract voters and governance designed to achieve larger goals.
He was politically supple, a master at finding that connective tissue between actions and words. He was willing to accept tax increases if he could obtain a broader overhaul of the tax code, and a larger government if that meant increases in defense spending.
Not in Lockstep
He won over Southern evangelicals who thought he was in lockstep with them in opposing abortion, and then he spoke to their mass rallies only via teleconference, with no image of him on the scene. He appointed moderate judges such as Sandra Day O'Connor.
Then there is the ironic push of Reagan's legatees to name highways, buildings and schools for him, cost be damned. Not to mention the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, a 3.1-million-square-foot structure, which is the largest office building in Washington.
The Republican Party that Mitt Romney will lead after he accepts the nomination this Thursday is in transition, with an anti-tax, anti-government energy that has stoked enthusiasm while almost guaranteeing the partisanship that has left Washington so paralyzed will deepen.
'Looks Like Reagan'
Romney is still viewed with skepticism by many Tea Party backers, which may help explain why he picked Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate. "He reminds us of Ronald Reagan," Nancy Milholland, co-organizer of the Tea Party chapter in Racine, Wisconsin, said of Ryan. "He's like the second coming of Reagan. It's like he's channeling Ronald Reagan. He even looks like Reagan."
In its quest for another Reagan, the party has been driving out members deemed too moderate or accommodative. Senator Richard Lugar was one of Reagan's most loyal supporters in the U.S. Senate in the 1980s, but the Indiana Republican was defeated by a primary challenger who sees DeMint as a role model.
"The idea is not simply to boost the Republican Party but it is to purify the party, and if this requires two or four or six years, so be it," Lugar said. "The need to move the middle-of-the-roaders, moderates, out of the picture is an insistent one." While Lugar says Reagan would recognize the Republican Party today, "he would find it a much more difficult group of people with whom to work."
Even Goldwater
Even Goldwater might have trouble navigating some Republican lanes today. Goldwater, who died in 1998, criticized the rise of religious conservatives in the party and in his later years came to support gay rights and abortion rights.
Republican presidents in the last generation also have pursued policies that would have gained little traction in today's GOP. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, which has been targeted by some conservatives for elimination. He also advocated wage-and-price controls. George H.W. Bush pushed the Americans with Disabilities Act. George W. Bush expanded Medicare by providing a prescription-drug benefit, one of many measures that substantially increased the federal budget deficit.
Reagan did have an advantage in keeping his party united that doesn't exist today: The Cold War. "The glue that held Republicans together in the Reagan era was anti-communism, anti- Soviet," said Cannon. "That's the reason Reagan was transformational. But once the Soviet Union disappeared," he adds, "there was no glue to hold the party together."
Big Business
While Reagan railed against Big Government, he supported Big Business; after his Hollywood career cooled, Reagan made his living as a spokesman for General Electric. Big Business is one area where DeMint and his Tea Party colleagues may diverge from Reagan's beliefs, at least to the degree that corporations use the levers of power in Washington to gain advantage through changes in regulation and tax policy.
"What the Republican Party needs to communicate to business is that the business of America is business, but the business of business is not to come to Washington to look for some kind of handout or loophole or to get us to pick winners and losers," DeMint says. "And that's what we've got in the business community now with some of the big players."
He says, "they figure they've got a better shot of getting something through legislation than they have through competition, and Republicans can't be a part of that."
Fiscal Cliff
DeMint says that also means it will be harder to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff at the end of the year when tax cuts expire and mandatory spending cuts are imposed. "It's a critical time because if we go too much further with the public depending on government and business dependent on government, it's going to be difficult to turn that around in an election. This could be our last chance to get it right," he said.
Tip O'Neill was only half right when he called Reagan "an amiable dunce," yet only in today's climate does one realize just how critical the amiability part was. Reagan liked to negotiate with Rostenkowski over drinks at the White House, and according to Jim Jaffe, Rostenkowski's press secretary, each man knew the value of giving something to get something.
"When we were growing up, the social skills of politicians were to get along with everybody," Jaffe said. "That's something that doesn't exist anymore." Richard Norton Smith, a historian at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and former director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library, is among those who questioned whether Reagan would find a home in today's Republican Party.
Tipping His Hat
"When he ran in 1980 he felt the need to tip his hat toward moderate Republicans, even toward the Roosevelt consensus that governed," said Smith, who also directed the libraries of four other Republican presidents. "Reagan very shrewdly had been a big-tent Republican and recognized at that point in time that there were a fairly significant number of moderate, liberal Republicans who could be wooed into the tent."
Since the time of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party has been made up of disparate factions. Today, the party is closer to monolithic than at any time since. Smith insists that Reagan "would barely recognize the degree to which not only have conservatives consolidated their control but conservatism itself has been redefined."
How would Reagan have adapted to today's political world? It's a fun question to debate, with, of course, no certain answer. "Reagan demonstrated skill and dexterity," said Smith. "He kept the big picture in mind." It is a measure of Reagan's gifts as strategist and tactician that one of the closing lines of "A Time for Choosing" came not from a hero of conservatism but from the famous 1936 speech of that Democratic Party rabble rouser, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "You and I," said Reagan, "have a rendezvous with destiny."
To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Tackett in Washington at mtackett@bloomberg.net
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/503c2ca6eab8ea2905000006/ronald-reagan-bloomberg.jpg)
Um, yeah, erfalf. Reagan was too liberal for the Tea Party, not too conservative.
T-town, you've got to know he's not going to read all that!
Quote from: AquaMan on August 28, 2012, 11:30:34 AM
T-town, you've got to know he's not going to read all that!
So you're telling me that the Republican party is to the right of this?
Told 'ya.
I was on the planet, a good reader and paying attention at the time. Reagan in office wasn't the same guy who ran for office. And he was too liberal for today's conservative Republicans. Heck, Goldwater was blown off by his party just before his death when he bitched about how the party was fringe.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 28, 2012, 01:16:30 PM
Told 'ya.
I was on the planet, a good reader and paying attention at the time. Reagan in office wasn't the same guy who ran for office. And he was too liberal for today's conservative Republicans. Heck, Goldwater was blown off by his party just before his death when he bitched about how the party was fringe.
But comparing apples and apples, you're saying that this guy as a candidate would have no shot becuase the party is too conservative. Further, what did he do in office that was much more liberal than what Republican's have been doing over the last ten years?
What about that ardent cultural warrior and arch-conservative so extreme that the Republican party dare not speak his name? And no, I'm not talking about Bush II, though there's some excellent material for discussion. Instead, I'm thinking about Richard Milhouse Nixon, the Republican president who tried to control our economy by controlling both wages and prices. It had been done before, of course - in wartime - but Nixon decided to control inflation by controlling every aspect of the economy. How's that for over-reaching government power?
Dick Nixon didn't get half the kicking around he deserved.
Quote from: erfalf on August 28, 2012, 01:21:46 PM
But comparing apples and apples, you're saying that this guy as a candidate would have no shot becuase the party is too conservative. Further, what did he do in office that was much more liberal than what Republican's have been doing over the last ten years?
You're stretching comments to their breaking point. Reagan won because of his personality, his optimism, his charisma during a dismal time. I don't doubt it would carry him to leadership positions in todays world too but not because of his conservative credentials. No offence, but I suggest you do a bit more research into those two decades, 1970-1988 instead of asking me to defend your lack of diligence.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 29, 2012, 10:42:36 AM
You're stretching comments to their breaking point. Reagan won because of his personality, his optimism, his charisma during a dismal time. I don't doubt it would carry him to leadership positions in todays world too but not because of his conservative credentials. No offence, but I suggest you do a bit more research into those two decades, 1970-1988 instead of asking me to defend your lack of diligence.
I understand perfectly well the history of Reagan (drink!). However, I think you and I are not connecting on this because you are trying to say that Reagan (drink!) did things that would be considered quit liberal even in today's standards. I agree. Although I would argue that he was too gullible in trusting congress when he agreed to raise taxes. But, I challenge you to find someone who wouldn't say that he is the most conservative President in modern history. The main sticking point with many conservatives was that he took a pass on many social issues (which I don't particularly care for either). More conservative than any President since. So my point was, that I think it is a ruse by the media to keep claiming that the Republicans are too conservative, when in fact it seems that they have become too liberal for Reagan. Again, look at the recent track record at least at President. Look at what the two Bushes have done. Dole wasn't conservative enough so Perot ran and screwed everything up. McCain was widely considered one of the most moderate Senators. And Romney, well Romneycare anyone. There is no way these men are anywhere near as conservative in deed than Reagan (DRINK!).
On the flip side, Obama has not been near as extreme in his actions (again, based only on what he has actually done). In fact he has continued many of the policies of that conservative bastion George W. Bush.
Just for fun I posted a video below of how the Republicans have been called too extreme all the way back to 1988.
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/mrc-video-flashback-tv-reporters-always-scold-gop-too-conservative
Quote from: erfalf on August 29, 2012, 01:05:07 PM
I understand perfectly well the history of Reagan (drink!). However, I think you and I are not connecting on this because you are trying to say that Reagan (drink!) did things that would be considered quit liberal even in today's standards. I agree. Although I would argue that he was too gullible in trusting congress when he agreed to raise taxes. But, I challenge you to find someone who wouldn't say that he is the most conservative President in modern history. The main sticking point with many conservatives was that he took a pass on many social issues (which I don't particularly care for either). More conservative than any President since. So my point was, that I think it is a ruse by the media to keep claiming that the Republicans are too conservative, when in fact it seems that they have become too liberal for Reagan. Again, look at the recent track record at least at President. Look at what the two Bushes have done. Dole wasn't conservative enough so Perot ran and screwed everything up. McCain was widely considered one of the most moderate Senators. And Romney, well Romneycare anyone. There is no way these men are anywhere near as conservative in deed than Reagan (DRINK!).
On the flip side, Obama has not been near as extreme in his actions (again, based only on what he has actually done). In fact he has continued many of the policies of that conservative bastion George W. Bush.
Just for fun I posted a video below of how the Republicans have been called too extreme all the way back to 1988.
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/mrc-video-flashback-tv-reporters-always-scold-gop-too-conservative
You didn't go back far enough. Goldwater was painted as extreme. Even farther back was Adlai Stevenson who was painted as dangerously extreme, liberal and weak. Roosevelt's extremism was going to destroy our economic foundations. And on, and on. This particular path you are taking is fruitless.
Your problem is that you think its the press painting the picture. They are not the artist. The party has painted this masterpiece and one need only do a little research or shift channels occasionally to determine that. Moderates within the party who used to see it as the counterweight to Democratic financial excess now are leaving or ignoring the party as the weight is now too far right. They can no longer identify. Abortion. Women's rights. Birthers. These are not fringe. Boehner, Ryan et all carry those flags.
To call Reagan gullible is real fantasy and heretical within the party. He did seem to be suffering some Alzheimers late in the second term and definitely outmaneuvered by some other politicians, but gullible is different.
Quote from: erfalf on August 29, 2012, 01:05:07 PM
I understand perfectly well the history of Reagan (drink!). However, I think you and I are not connecting on this because you are trying to say that Reagan (drink!) did things that would be considered quit liberal even in today's standards. I agree. Although I would argue that he was too gullible in trusting congress when he agreed to raise taxes. But, I challenge you to find someone who wouldn't say that he is the most conservative President in modern history. The main sticking point with many conservatives was that he took a pass on many social issues (which I don't particularly care for either). More conservative than any President since. So my point was, that I think it is a ruse by the media to keep claiming that the Republicans are too conservative, when in fact it seems that they have become too liberal for Reagan. Again, look at the recent track record at least at President. Look at what the two Bushes have done. Dole wasn't conservative enough so Perot ran and screwed everything up. McCain was widely considered one of the most moderate Senators. And Romney, well Romneycare anyone. There is no way these men are anywhere near as conservative in deed than Reagan (DRINK!).
On the flip side, Obama has not been near as extreme in his actions (again, based only on what he has actually done). In fact he has continued many of the policies of that conservative bastion George W. Bush.
Just for fun I posted a video below of how the Republicans have been called too extreme all the way back to 1988.
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/mrc-video-flashback-tv-reporters-always-scold-gop-too-conservative
Keep studying your history...you just don't get it yet.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 29, 2012, 01:30:07 PM
Keep studying your history...you just don't get it yet.
How so? I understand you're not a mean guy and you don't want to just call me nieve or stupid or whatever, but your patronization isn't much better. I understand that Republicans have been called extreme for quit some time now, yet the party (from my perspective mind you) appears to be moving in a more liberal direction (at least by what they actually do, not what they say). I don't want a simple, you don't get it. answer.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 29, 2012, 01:20:11 PM
You didn't go back far enough. Goldwater was painted as extreme. Even farther back was Adlai Stevenson who was painted as dangerously extreme, liberal and weak. Roosevelt's extremism was going to destroy our economic foundations. And on, and on. This particular path you are taking is fruitless.
Your problem is that you think its the press painting the picture. They are not the artist. The party has painted this masterpiece and one need only do a little research or shift channels occasionally to determine that. Moderates within the party who used to see it as the counterweight to Democratic financial excess now are leaving or ignoring the party as the weight is now too far right. They can no longer identify. Abortion. Women's rights. Birthers. These are not fringe. Boehner, Ryan et all carry those flags.
To call Reagan gullible is real fantasy and heretical within the party. He did seem to be suffering some Alzheimers late in the second term and definitely outmaneuvered by some other politicians, but gullible is different.
I actually don't watch Fox news regularly. Shocking as this may sound I generally watch MSNBC (except some of the evening hosts, they are too out there for me) & CNN (I know, I'm one of the three that does, shocking!).
I just see what Republicans have done when in control (during Bush in particular) and it looks more and more liberal to me. How am I wrong. I mean the federal government has grown more than any other time largely under Republican control. Maybe I am jaded, but I am just not seeing this too extreme thing. I mean, heck the couple of speeches I watched last night at the convention were some of the most down the middle, who wouldn't agree with those things, speeches I've ever seen. No mention of extreme liberals or social nonsense to be heard.
And the gullible thing, I only say that because congress promised spending cuts and reneged after the taxes were raised. Never trust Democrats right? ;)
How old are you Erfalf? One wonders if you have the perspective to note that your party is getting more liberal unless you have a firm grip on their past status. More liberal than when? Reagan? Just can't imagine anything to suggest that. More liberal than before the T-Party exacted so much power within the party? Before Bachmann? Ryan?
I can see that you are confusing conservatism and liberalism with the real mission of political parties...money and power. "Bidness". Of course they will talk middle of the road if that is what it takes to get to the money and power. Especially at a convention. But you must listen closer to the players when their jobs are not at stake. The financial meltdown was a business fiasco, not a political left or right failing. The same people who were enjoying money and power were also writing the regulations for business and jumping back and forth from private business to public business to do so.
We lose that battle every time. What is left is social issues and whose people are going to be running our lives and how deeply they intend to do so. So, yeah, all things aside, the Republican party is way more conservative today than...30 years ago.
The current GOP has defined their conservatism with their social issues. In that vein, the GOP has become far more conservative. In fiscal terms Reagan wouldn't recognized all these "Reagan Conservatives" who have been blowing money like drunken sailors since 2001.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 29, 2012, 01:48:57 PM
How old are you Erfalf? One wonders if you have the perspective to note that your party is getting more liberal unless you have a firm grip on their past status. More liberal than when? Reagan? Just can't imagine anything to suggest that. More liberal than before the T-Party exacted so much power within the party? Before Bachmann? Ryan?
I can see that you are confusing conservatism and liberalism with the real mission of political parties...money and power. "Bidness". Of course they will talk middle of the road if that is what it takes to get to the money and power. Especially at a convention. But you must listen closer to the players when their jobs are not at stake. The financial meltdown was a business fiasco, not a political left or right failing. The same people who were enjoying money and power were also writing the regulations for business and jumping back and forth from private business to public business to do so.
We lose that battle every time. What is left is social issues and whose people are going to be running our lives and how deeply they intend to do so. So, yeah, all things aside, the Republican party is way more conservative today than...30 years ago.
Look I get it, I'm young (30) and don't have first hand knowledge of this stuff. But I understand how things work too. I get what political parties are for and why they are a huge threat to our freedoms. But what I don't get is how the Republican party (for lack of a better name) is considered more radically conservative than ever (when they have been saying that since way before the Tea Party, Bachman, etc. mind you), when most of the policies at the federal level have been more big government than ever. Sure there are some outliers and stupid legislation, but I would contend that stupidity knows no political party. And just because you guys say its true doesn't make it so.
And I understand we live in Oklahoma so the issue may be more pronounced here, so maybe that's it. I just find it hard to believe that the party that has been labeled too conservative for at least the last 25 or 30 years and still keeps getting its members elected, is really too conservative at all.
Edit:Again, I am not trying to be ignorant or rude. This is just my perspective. I've been wrong before, I could be wrong now. But nothing (again, in my opinion) has shown me otherwise. Maybe it's because I don't really care about the social issues so I just tune them out. Maybe?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 29, 2012, 02:13:08 PM
The current GOP has defined their conservatism with their social issues. In that vein, the GOP has become far more conservative. In fiscal terms Reagan wouldn't recognized all these "Reagan Conservatives" who have been blowing money like drunken sailors since 2001.
During Reagan's term, the national debt almost tripled. I think he'd feel right at home with the deficit spending, especially since the deficits were caused mainly by military adventures and tax cuts, just as his were. There was no massive tax increase on the poor and middle class under Bush, though, so he might be a little miffed about that bit.
Quote from: erfalf on August 29, 2012, 02:18:10 PM
Look I get it, I'm young (30) and don't have first hand knowledge of this stuff. But I understand how things work too. I get what political parties are for and why they are a huge threat to our freedoms. But what I don't get is how the Republican party (for lack of a better name) is considered more radically conservative than ever (when they have been saying that since way before the Tea Party, Bachman, etc. mind you), when most of the policies at the federal level have been more big government than ever. Sure there are some outliers and stupid legislation, but I would contend that stupidity knows no political party. And just because you guys say its true doesn't make it so.
And I understand we live in Oklahoma so the issue may be more pronounced here, so maybe that's it. I just find it hard to believe that the party that has been labeled too conservative for at least the last 25 or 30 years and still keeps getting its members elected, is really too conservative at all.
Edit:
Again, I am not trying to be ignorant or rude. This is just my perspective. I've been wrong before, I could be wrong now. But nothing (again, in my opinion) has shown me otherwise. Maybe it's because I don't really care about the social issues so I just tune them out. Maybe?
You're being a good sport about all this. Its just a hard argument to sustain. To make your point you would have to strictly define what a real conservative is all about and do so in a way that transcends time periods. A conservative in 1964 is way different than a conservative from say, the 1930's or the 1970's. Then you would have to make the argument that, time differences aside, conservatives became more liberal....after you define Liberal with the same constraints.
Instead of asking us to find a reason why your proposition is untrue, how about you telling us why it is true? Deficit budgets? It wouldn't be that. Reagan ran them hard. Lower taxation? Maybe but you haven't made that case. Social Security? Privatization isn't becoming liberal.
So, knock yourself out!
Quote from: nathanm on August 29, 2012, 04:06:40 PM
During Reagan's term, the national debt almost tripled. I think he'd feel right at home with the deficit spending, especially since the deficits were caused mainly by military adventures and tax cuts, just as his were. There was no massive tax increase on the poor and middle class under Bush, though, so he might be a little miffed about that bit.
At least we partially agree on something. ;)
Quote from: AquaMan on August 29, 2012, 07:22:52 PM
You're being a good sport about all this. Its just a hard argument to sustain. To make your point you would have to strictly define what a real conservative is all about and do so in a way that transcends time periods. A conservative in 1964 is way different than a conservative from say, the 1930's or the 1970's. Then you would have to make the argument that, time differences aside, conservatives became more liberal....after you define Liberal with the same constraints.
Fair enough. So if you compare rhetoric, yes, some of the loons today seem far more right wing than Reagan (drink). But if you compare things Republicans have actually done, it paints a far different picture. And for that matter, go and listen to several of Reagan's (drink) speeches. They would be right up the alley of any red blooded Tea Partier.
That being said, since Reagan, we have had a couple of wars in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, plus several other skirmishes. The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%. How many social programs have been expanded under Republican supervision? Too many to county. Spending in general has been getting out of control for some time, and I really don't see any of the so-called "radicals" doing anything to change that. Personally I think our own Senator Coburn is probably the most ardent in this respect and I don't know anyone who would call him a radical.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 29, 2012, 07:22:52 PM
Instead of asking us to find a reason why your proposition is untrue, how about you telling us why it is true? Deficit budgets? It wouldn't be that. Reagan ran them hard. Lower taxation? Maybe but you haven't made that case. Social Security? Privatization isn't becoming liberal.
So, knock yourself out!
Again, what they say and what they do are two totally different things. You seem to think politicians of the past wouldn't be able to play the game like they do today. I think you would be mistaken.
Quote from: erfalf on August 29, 2012, 01:34:49 PM
How so? I understand you're not a mean guy and you don't want to just call me nieve or stupid or whatever, but your patronization isn't much better. I understand that Republicans have been called extreme for quit some time now, yet the party (from my perspective mind you) appears to be moving in a more liberal direction (at least by what they actually do, not what they say). I don't want a simple, you don't get it. answer.
Not being patronizing - am harping about what I harp about all the time...well, one of the many things I harp about...we have no sense or knowledge of history and how it has affected where we are and where we are heading. And no real information about the background surrounding that history. Some of my past posts do actually answer some of this. I will try to give you more. I don't pretend to know all of history, but I make it a point to learn something new every day if possible. It is a never ending process.
You are young, energetic, full of enthusiasm and drive, probably some professional career (business major?) - what I am getting at is to broaden the scope and apply some of that energy to finding out more background information.
A couple of quick examples of how the Republican's have so totally lost it - have been hijacked by extreme rightists - goes to the "gold standard." There has been a low level 'commotion' about the gold standard for pretty much my entire life. Fringe elements want to go back to it with a complete ignorance of what that might mean. There would be a large number of side effects if this were really attempted, ALL of them bad. But one little thing to think about is the FACT that there is an extremely limited amount of gold in the world. It is currently parsed between jewelry, industrial, antiquities, government stockpiles, and "preppers". There are likely other areas, but these should cover the big chunks.
The total amount ever mined in the history of the world and at least partially available for use is, at today's prices worth somewhere in the $6 trillion dollars, plus or minus. And we are at or near world record prices. So what the Republicans are saying is that they want to limit the entire world domestic product to 6 trillion. And that would grow the economy how?? And to the specious reply that gold would just go up in value - well, yes, it would. That's what happens when there are too many units of currency - dollars - 'chasing' too few goods - gold. And that would happen faster than the changeover to gold standard due to speculation.
So how would massive hyperinflation 'help' create jobs? Probably about the same way more tax cuts for the richest will create jobs and cut the debt.
Second thing we have touched on here is Ayn Rand - as I have mentioned, the "gateway drug". The extreme rightists embrace her one point about the individual being able to determine their own life direction better than anyone else (a point I happen to agree with VERY strongly) and then put the lie to their whole premise by their attempts to intrude into the private lives of people in MUCH more direct ways than pretty much anything I have seen/heard from the extreme leftists.
On last little thing goes to the debt/deficit. I don't remember you explicitly saying that Obama's budgets have increased the deficit, but there are those here who have made those assertions - mouthing the platitudes and plaintive bleats of Rupert Murdoch, Inc. In actual fact - one of the things Obama also promised was to cut the deficit in half during first term. Bush's last year the increase in debt year over year (the true deficit) was about $1.9 trillion. Projections I see, since we aren't there yet are saying about $1.1 trillion. By anybody's calculation (except for the extreme rightists) that is a substantial reduction. Maybe not quite half, but certainly close enough to show serious progress. And that has been pretty much all by "cuts" to increases (even with the huge tax cuts the middle class got in 2009! You do know about those, don't you?) - shows that the economy IS slowly growing into it's new "skin"...another lie the ER would have you believe. And now we are at the point where the only way to make further progress is to increase revenue - in this case, let the Bush cuts expire.
And you should also look at what the tax cut/increase cycle has been in this country so you can understand how EVERY single regime except for Baby Bush understood how to perform these manipulations to address downturns and maximize the 'rebound' at each previous recession for over 70 years. Another one of those "sense and knowledge" of history things....
Quote from: erfalf on August 29, 2012, 02:18:10 PM
And I understand we live in Oklahoma so the issue may be more pronounced here, so maybe that's it. I just find it hard to believe that the party that has been labeled too conservative for at least the last 25 or 30 years and still keeps getting its members elected, is really too conservative at all.
Again, I am not trying to be ignorant or rude. This is just my perspective. I've been wrong before, I could be wrong now. But nothing (again, in my opinion) has shown me otherwise. Maybe it's because I don't really care about the social issues so I just tune them out. Maybe?
People as a whole tend to move to being more conservative when they are afraid - whatever the source of fear. That is just a natural reaction - part of "fight or flight", I suspect.
And Rupert Murdoch, Inc and his minions have been fanning the flames of fear at a ferocious pace for the last 30 + years.
Quote from: erfalf on August 30, 2012, 08:23:50 AM
Fair enough. So if you compare rhetoric, yes, some of the loons today seem far more right wing than Reagan (drink). But if you compare things Republicans have actually done, it paints a far different picture. And for that matter, go and listen to several of Reagan's (drink) speeches. They would be right up the alley of any red blooded Tea Partier.
That being said, since Reagan, we have had a couple of wars in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, plus several other skirmishes. The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%. How many social programs have been expanded under Republican supervision? Too many to county. Spending in general has been getting out of control for some time, and I really don't see any of the so-called "radicals" doing anything to change that. Personally I think our own Senator Coburn is probably the most ardent in this respect and I don't know anyone who would call him a radical.
Again, what they say and what they do are two totally different things. You seem to think politicians of the past wouldn't be able to play the game like they do today. I think you would be mistaken.
Incorrect inferences aside, I can't understand why you aren't trying to prove your thesis. If the failure of Republicans to convince the electorate and their compadres (boo...Spanish reference!) that their ideas are worthy of passage, is your argument, then no. Its a fail.
What they believe and what they are able to put into practice are two different things. The conservatives have failed to make alliances that accomplished their ideology and that makes you think they have become more liberal. They failed to make those alliances because they have increasingly become belligerant and unable to effect compromise. Their answer to that is two-fold:
(1.) to seek total control of the three branches, then force our medicine down our throats and
(2) to take control of state legislatures and governorships and assert the age old "states rights" ideology.
Its a classic pincers movement from above and below. I don't believe its going to work. I pray it doesn't work.
Quote from: erfalf on August 30, 2012, 08:23:50 AM
The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%.
When you say it's "up 25%" when you're talking about a rate it makes it sound like it went from 28% to 52%.
Of course, in reality, the average tax rate at the upper end of the income tax distribution has declined quite dramatically since the 1986 act, owing to all the loopholes opened up since then, not the least of which is the preferential tax treatment for long term capital gains, which in the 1986 act were taxed as regular income.
Conversely, the total tax paid by those at the bottom of the income distribution has increased as a proportion of their income, despite the lowering of the headline rate.
I think we can both agree that the tax code needs to be replaced, although I doubt we'd agree on what it should be replaced with. ;)
Quote from: erfalf on August 30, 2012, 08:23:50 AM
That being said, since Reagan, we have had a couple of wars in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, plus several other skirmishes. The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%.
Just gotta ask - will probably regret it...where did you come up with that nonsense?? Drudge?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 30, 2012, 12:23:49 PM
Just gotta ask - will probably regret it...where did you come up with that nonsense?? Drudge?
I assume you are referring to the tax rate info.
Well:
1988 highest bracket: 28%
2012 highest bracket: 35% up 28%
1988 lowest bracket: 15%
2012 lowest bracket: 10% down 50%
Quote from: nathanm on August 30, 2012, 12:05:23 PM
I think we can both agree that the tax code needs to be replaced, although I doubt we'd agree on what it should be replaced with. ;)
Probably not, but I think we would both be how shocked on how much we might have in common if we were to really hash something out.
That's the thing, I think most non-political people could really come to common sense solutions that are feasable. But maybe it's just me being neive?
Quote from: erfalf on August 31, 2012, 09:10:26 AM
I assume you are referring to the tax rate info.
Well:
1988 highest bracket: 28%
2012 highest bracket: 35% up 28%
1988 lowest bracket: 15%
2012 lowest bracket: 10% down 50%
I know I'm losing some of my math skills. But isn't a decrease from 15% to 10% really a 33 1/3% decrease? Unless you use the decrease as a percentage of the final rate. The highest tax bracket only went up 25% not 28.
Either way the % is fairly useless. No one at the higher tax brackets would dare pay that much unless they are unaware of tax accountants. And, the resulting increase/decrease of tax revenue would be the only meaninful measure.
IOW, if the 25% increase really amounted to a net decrease in real collected revenues while unemployment at the lower levels actually resulted in less collected revenues from that bracket, your'e just spinning.
You are spinning aren't you?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 31, 2012, 09:48:25 AM
I know I'm losing some of my math skills. But isn't a decrease from 15% to 10% really a 33 1/3% decrease? Unless you use the decrease as a percentage of the final rate. The highest tax bracket only went up 25% not 28.
I think your calculator skills are still OK. I agree with using the starting value for a percentage change. The fun thing is using percentages to one's advantage for talking points. An increase in a tax rate of 10% to 15% is a 50% increase but to drop the rates back to 10% would only be the 33.3% decrease you noted. So, if you only look at percentage change, it would appear (to the unknowing) that taxes would still be higher than originally by 50-33.3 = 16.7%.
Adding to the confusion is (what I have been told) the correct way to evaluate mark-up (or maybe it was "profit"). If you buy something for $100 then mark it up by $10, the mark-up is only (10/110)x100 = 9.09%. In this case, the final value is used.
Edit:
Erflaf actually got the numbers correct in his first shot:
Quote« Reply #33 on: August 30, 2012, 07:23:50 am »
The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 30, 2012, 12:23:49 PM
That being said, since Reagan, we have had a couple of wars in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, plus several other skirmishes. The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%.
Just gotta ask - will probably regret it...where did you come up with that nonsense?? Drudge?
You and Nathan both love to abuse percentages. It makes for some interesting discussions but is also why I distrust any of either of your numbers.
I honestly wasn't trying to be misleading by using percentages. And I had a moment this morning where I apprently lost all my math skills. I can't use dollar value, they don't mean anything. I could have used the number of percentage point changes, but I thought it more appropriate to show percentage change, since larger changes are often harder to get done in government.
Quote from: erfalf on August 31, 2012, 10:50:56 AM
I honestly wasn't trying to be misleading by using percentages. And I had a moment this morning where I apprently lost all my math skills. I can't use dollar value, they don't mean anything. I could have used the number of percentage point changes, but I thought it more appropriate to show percentage change, since larger changes are often harder to get done in government.
I believe you. That's why I don't even like to use percentages. Too easily manipulated. Afterall, as Guido might point out, its not the percentage of taxes one pays, but the total amount. A wealthy person paying 30% of his taxable income is paying a whole lot more in total than a poor person paying the same rate. However, the wealthy person makes sure his taxable income is small through deferments and sheltering strategies.
Fairness aside, it takes a certain amount of money to keep a government running. You look for money where the money is, not where you would like it to be.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 31, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
You and Nathan both love to abuse percentages.
I'd have a lot more respect for your complaint if you'd quibble at the time rather than throwing bombs like this at some later date.
Quote from: nathanm on August 31, 2012, 05:37:13 PM
I'd have a lot more respect for your complaint if you'd quibble at the time rather than throwing bombs like this at some later date.
I have made comments at the time but you blew them off as irrelevant or disingenuous. Fortunately for me, my life does not revolve around your respect for me.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 31, 2012, 06:37:38 PM
Fortunately for me, my life does not revolve around your respect for me.
I'm glad; it would be rather odd if your life did revolve around that. Just FYI, there is a difference between respect for a person and respect for a position they take or opinion they hold.
Quote from: nathanm on August 31, 2012, 07:03:09 PM
I'm glad; it would be rather odd if your life did revolve around that. Just FYI, there is a difference between respect for a person and respect for a position they take or opinion they hold.
Unfortunately, I don't respect your positions anymore either. I did at one time even though I disagreed with almost everything you posted. I don't want to get into a personality pissing contest so we had best let it drop.