http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
As written by a guy from the Brookings Institute (center-left) and a guy from the American Enterprise Institute (right).
Quote" We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them [Republicans] this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.
And it's if they've already anticipated Guido's objection:
Quote
No doubt, Democrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward George W. Bush during his presidency. But recall that they worked hand in glove with the Republican president on the No Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps taken after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key votes for the Bush administration's financial bailout at the height of the economic crisis in 2008.
I'm a registered Republican. One who has cast straight ticket ballots (in Iowa). I voted for Gw, twice. And I agree.
Compromise is weakness.
Giving in to facts is giving up.
And anyone not for us, is against our country.
That isn't Orwell, it is the GOP platform.
We are broke.
We won't cut the military (largest discretionary spending by far).
We won't consider new taxes.
We won't give up some of the above in exchange for some of what we want.
We are still broke.
Religiously driven social issues before anything else.
Small government second (*does not apply to military, "security", or personal freedom conflicting with point 1).
Best interest of business third.
Everything else somewhere down the line.
And the retort. Just sayin:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/04/28/lets-just-say-it-the-democrats-are-the-problem/
Quote from: guido911 on April 28, 2012, 06:18:48 PM
And the retort. Just sayin:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/04/28/lets-just-say-it-the-democrats-are-the-problem/
web site aptly named...
Quote from: guido911 on April 28, 2012, 06:18:48 PM
And the retort. Just sayin:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/04/28/lets-just-say-it-the-democrats-are-the-problem/
That's not so much a retort as a bunch of jumbled together words that have nothing to do with that which they are supposedly rebutting. Upon a quick read, one might almost think that they were trying to provide support for the OpEd by doing exactly what it was calling out.
(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/292543_10150718898536939_528071938_9611501_70106666_n.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on April 28, 2012, 06:18:48 PM
And the retort. Just sayin:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/04/28/lets-just-say-it-the-democrats-are-the-problem/
Not a lot of coherence there, sadly. A lot of poo flung against the wall but not an actual argument.
Guido, how long have you been paying attention to politics? I started watching during the Clinton era and the change in the Republicans even in that 15 years has been enormous. Does that register to you or does it just seem like business as usual?
Run of the mill republicans/conservatives are not the problem; it's the ones that use terms like "RINO" that are moving the party further to the right. A few years ago Tom Colburn was "fringy"...now he is a moderate.
There are only two political philosophies: liberty and power. Either people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they respect the equal rights of others, or some people should be able to use force to make other people act in ways they wouldn't choose.
Democrats and Republicans participate in different flavors of power, but either way, they act contrary to liberty. Because of that, they will always strive to act contrary to one another, even when those actions are ridiculous, the policies damaging, and the outcomes devastating to the people.
Neither party is interested in the principals this country was founded on. Both are guilty of selling to the highest bidder and buying votes with pillage.
The two party struggle is no more than a team sport that we pay to watch. They should serve beer, hot-dogs, and foam fingers in the gallery of congress.
I'll just leave this here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
Quote from: nathanm on April 30, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
I'll just leave this here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
Nothing new here. Yawn.
QuoteNeither party is interested in the principals this country was founded on.
What? Slavery? Killing indians? Or having a government that is stronger than any individual economic unit?
Quote from: jacobi on April 30, 2012, 07:33:31 PM
What? Slavery? Killing indians? Or having a government that is stronger than any individual economic unit?
He probably means a government that isn't beholden to the traditional power structures as most European governments were at the time of our founding. What he fails to realize is that his libertarian philosophy implicitly enables our government to be taken over by powerful interests by refusing to use our collective power of regulation and oversight. I suspect the disconnect is that he speaks libertarian, but seems to actually be more Randian.
Quote from: nathanm on April 30, 2012, 07:57:16 PM
lol, you should do stand-up.
OK, tell me what was new. All I saw was the same old liberal dogma.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 08:07:18 PM
OK, tell me what was new. All I saw was the same old liberal dogma.
I doubt that me reading the article to you will make much of a difference.
Edited to add: Let's be more constructive. Do you think that there are public goods that need to be funded without regard to the preference of any given individual, like defense, transportation, courts, a post office, and the like?
Quote from: nathanm on April 30, 2012, 08:40:52 PM
I doubt that me reading the article to you will make much of a difference.
And I doubt that me reading it to you would make a difference either.
Quote
Edited to add: Let's be more constructive. Do you think that there are public goods that need to be funded without regard to the preference of any given individual, like defense, transportation, courts, a post office, and the like?
Typical liberal question. Ask if someone supports things at a high enough level that it would be impossible to say no. The trick is in the details, the level of support and what's included in "and the like".
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 08:59:41 PM
And I doubt that me reading it to you would make a difference either.
Typical liberal question. Ask if someone supports things at a high enough level that it would be impossible to say no. The trick is in the details, the level of support and what's included in "and the like".
Then I could come back and say 'typical conservative answer: take the question and present it as if it was a trick question, thus victimizing the person being asked the question'.
You see how this works now?
Quote from: Hoss on April 30, 2012, 09:02:25 PM
Then I could come back and say 'typical conservative answer: take the question and present it as if it was a trick question, thus victimizing the person being asked the question'.
You see how this works now?
No, explain it to me. Try not to talk down to me too much. I only understand words with one or two syllables.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 08:59:41 PM
Typical liberal question. Ask if someone supports things at a high enough level that it would be impossible to say no. The trick is in the details, the level of support and what's included in "and the like".
It's not a trick question. There are those that believe that the government shouldn't do some or all of those things I enumerated. If you are of that persuasion, there's no point in continuing the discussion, hence the question. If the answer is indeed yes, do you think that the government should have the power to compel people to pay taxes to fund those activities, or should it rely on donations?
Quote from: Hoss on April 30, 2012, 09:02:25 PM
Then I could come back and say 'typical conservative answer: take the question and present it as if it was a trick question, thus victimizing the person being asked the question'.
I never said it was a trick question. If you ask almost anyone in this country if they want to deny medical attention to someone bleeding profusely at the emergency room, even conservatives will say no. If you ask them if we should abolish the Military, almost no one would say no. Ask them if we should have a Military big enough to invade poor defenseless countries in the Middle East and you will get a conversation going. Ask people if they want to starve children. Almost no one will say no. Ask if they want to feed those kids Kansas City Steaks (probably from Oklahoma cattle) and many will say no, USDA Choice is good enough. There is always a line of willing support and that is where the differences are among us.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 09:08:18 PM
No, explain it to me. Try not to talk down to me too much. I only understand words with one or two syllables.
Then I don't believe you're as moderate as you have said you are in the past.
There's been a lot of name calling on both sides this cycle. I for one am sick of it. Liberals treat being called liberals as a dirty word, so conservatives use it in that context. And don't throw what the tea party gets referred to as out there. They penned the name themselves. Something about making your own bed applies there. I for one abhor using the term.
That's not to say I don't snicker when someone else uses it though.
Both sides of the aisle are dysfunctional.
And this state has pretty much gone in the crapper with some of the Mensas in the state house down the pike.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 09:15:43 PM
I never said it was a trick question. If you ask almost anyone in this country if they want to deny medical attention to someone bleeding profusely at the emergency room, even conservatives will say no. If you ask them if we should abolish the Military, almost no one would say no. Ask them if we should have a Military big enough to invade poor defenseless countries in the Middle East and you will get a conversation going. Ask people if they want to starve children. Almost no one will say no. Ask if they want to feed those kids Kansas City Steaks (probably from Oklahoma cattle) and many will say no, USDA Choice is good enough. There is always a line of willing support and that is where the differences are among us.
See? How difficult was that? Sometimes you treat the person asking the simplest of questions like it's a crime to ask it.
Quote from: Hoss on April 30, 2012, 09:17:14 PM
Then I don't believe you're as moderate as you have said you are in the past.
There's been a lot of name calling on both sides this cycle. I for one am sick of it. Liberals treat being called liberals as a dirty word, so conservatives use it in that context. And don't throw what the tea party gets referred to as out there. They penned the name themselves. Something about making your own bed applies there. I for one abhor using the term.
That's not to say I don't snicker when someone else uses it though.
Both sides of the aisle are dysfunctional.
And this state has pretty much gone in the crapper with some of the Mensas in the state house down the pike.
I don't believe you fell for that response. We disagree a lot but I thought you are sharper than that. You were a bit too quick on the defensive. See my serious answer to your same post.
Quote from: nathanm on April 30, 2012, 09:12:58 PM
It's not a trick question. There are those that believe that the government shouldn't do some or all of those things I enumerated. If you are of that persuasion, there's no point in continuing the discussion, hence the question. If the answer is indeed yes, do you think that the government should have the power to compel people to pay taxes to fund those activities, or should it rely on donations?
There are basic activities that government should/must provide. Yes, the government needs the ability to tax its citizens. Simple so far. Now we get to the more nitty-gritty. Should some get these services free? Who are they? What level of support is "fair". Should the US Government tax George Kaiser to the level that he no longer feels like donating huge chunks of money to local projects? I have no idea what that level may be for him or anyone with his level of wealth. Bank accounts at his level are just foreign numbers to me. Even one the liberals' favorite whipping boy, Bill O'Reilly says he would willingly pay more taxes if some conditions of accountability were met.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 09:20:40 PM
I don't believe you fell for that response. We disagree a lot but I thought you are sharper than that. You were a bit too quick on the defensive. See my serious answer to your same post.
I didn't miss it and I wasn't quick on the defensive. Retorts like that aren't constructive to the process. It sounds just like what someone in Washington might say. Hence my response.
When it comes to serious subjects I try and say serious. I knew exactly what you were doing. Politicians do it all the time. The quick soundbite is what it's called.
But, whatever.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 09:32:47 PM
There are basic activities that government should/must provide. Yes, the government needs the ability to tax its citizens. Simple so far. Now we get to the more nitty-gritty. Should some get these services free? Who are they? What level of support is "fair". Should the US Government tax George Kaiser to the level that he no longer feels like donating huge chunks of money to local projects? I have no idea what that level may be for him or anyone with his level of wealth. Bank accounts at his level are just foreign numbers to me. Even one the liberals' favorite whipping boy, Bill O'Reilly says he would willingly pay more taxes if some conditions of accountability were met.
So what might happen once those accountability measures are met? You think he would piss and moan about having to pay higher taxes? I bet he would. Maybe not publicly. If he was smart, that is.
Quote from: Hoss on April 30, 2012, 09:17:14 PM
Liberals treat being called liberals as a dirty word, so conservatives use it in that context.
I don't understand why Liberals treat being called liberal as a dirty word unless they are secretly ashamed of being liberal. Certainly Conservatives use it in that context because it does bother Liberals. Liberals try to do the same thing to Conservatives but have not been as successful. There are a lot of possible explanations for that depending on whether you are Liberal or Conservative.
Quote from: Hoss on April 30, 2012, 10:34:23 PM
I didn't miss it and I wasn't quick on the defensive. Retorts like that aren't constructive to the process. It sounds just like what someone in Washington might say. Hence my response.
When it comes to serious subjects I try and say serious. I knew exactly what you were doing. Politicians do it all the time. The quick soundbite is what it's called.
But, whatever.
Nice try.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 10:42:34 PM
Nice try.
Guess what RA; I really do not need any of the members of this forum's affirmation of what I think. I try not to involve myself too much into the meat of the political postings for just reason.
Nice try back at ya...
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 10:41:57 PM
I don't understand why Liberals treat being called liberal as a dirty word unless they are secretly ashamed of being liberal. Certainly Conservatives use it in that context because it does bother Liberals. Liberals try to do the same thing to Conservatives but have not been as successful. There are a lot of possible explanations for that depending on whether you are Liberal or Conservative.
They're not ashamed of being liberal, but the conservative media as well as the neutral media give it the connotation of being a 'dirty word'. Focus groups tell liberals not to use it because it's negative. I don't care either way really because all in all, it's just a label. They could just as well be called progressive..I never understood why they didn't embrace that label instead. It fosters a more positive tone evidently. No one ever said members of the left have been too politically savvy recently.
Quote from: Hoss on April 30, 2012, 10:44:20 PM
Guess what RA; I really do not need any of the members of this forum's affirmation of what I think. I try not to involve myself too much into the meat of the political postings for just reason.
If you insist.
Quote from: Hoss on April 30, 2012, 10:46:28 PM
They're not ashamed of being liberal, but the conservative media as well as the neutral media give it the connotation of being a 'dirty word'.
I would hardly call it a neutral media if they are giving the connotation of liberal being dirty word. Where is this neutral media?
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 10:55:53 PM
I would hardly call it a neutral media if they are giving the connotation of liberal being dirty word. Where is this neutral media?
CNN is about as neutral as they get, although I'm sure the more hard-line right wingers won't think so. To many, liberal=hippie. Hippie=Occupy movement or any demonized group who happen to be progressives.
Also, NPR. Although there, once again, you draw the ire of the right because to them NPR=gubmint funded. They aren't.
Quote from: Hoss on April 30, 2012, 10:57:19 PM
CNN is about as neutral as they get, although I'm sure the more hard-line right wingers won't think so. To many, liberal=hippie. Hippie=Occupy movement or any demonized group who happen to be progressives.
Also, NPR. Although there, once again, you draw the ire of the right because to them NPR=gubmint funded. They aren't.
I would say NPR leans left but not excessively. I agree NPR is not directly government funded but there are some strings through the Corp for Public Broadcasting I believe.
Liberals/Hippies/Progressives. All progress is change but not all change is progress. Back to the same old personal evaluation of what's the right thing to do.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 11:10:59 PM
I would say NPR leans left but not excessively. I agree NPR is not directly government funded but there are some strings through the Corp for Public Broadcasting I believe.
Liberals/Hippies/Progressives. All progress is change but not all change is progress. Back to the same old personal evaluation of what's the right thing to do.
But still conservatives argue it's government funded. It isn't -- directly. The CPB provides them with some funding. CPB also provides PBS with some funding if I'm not mistaken. Grants/pledge drives, sponsorships, etc. 50 percent of its revenue or thereabouts comes from the member fees it charges it's affiliates.
NPR 20 to 30 years ago was nearly wholly funded by the government. So in a sense they're a success story of getting off the gubmint teat, as it were.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 09:32:47 PM
There are basic activities that government should/must provide. Yes, the government needs the ability to tax its citizens. Simple so far. Now we get to the more nitty-gritty. Should some get these services free? Who are they? What level of support is "fair". Should the US Government tax George Kaiser to the level that he no longer feels like donating huge chunks of money to local projects? I have no idea what that level may be for him or anyone with his level of wealth. Bank accounts at his level are just foreign numbers to me. Even one the liberals' favorite whipping boy, Bill O'Reilly says he would willingly pay more taxes if some conditions of accountability were met.
Ok, so we agree in principle. Personally, I think representative democracy is the best way to make the decisions about where the line is drawn on taxation and spending. Within limits, of course. Like no owning people, guaranteed religious freedom, freedom of speech, that sort of thing. Basically, within our existing constitution. (although I wouldn't mind having one that was more explicit..the present one is seems more like reading tea leaves sometimes)
IMO, none of the rest really matters without solving the political crisis in this country. Debating how much tax to pay or what spending programs need to be cut or expanded and all of that is pretty much meaningless as long as our elected leaders refuse to represent us. I think most of us agree that we're not really represented by our government. That's where our attention needs to be focused, not on all the mundane crap we bicker about. We're fiddling while Rome burns. So how do we fix it?
I think we need to change how we vote, how districts are drawn, and I think we need to at least double the size of the House, if not more. I think last would be the most controversial. After all, who wants more sleaze? However, I think it'll prove to be much harder to buy a thousand votes than it is to buy 200. I'd also like to see a number of "at large" seats elected nationally and allocated amongst participating political parties in proportion to the votes received. Say 10 or 20, so even diffuse movements that have sufficient support on a national basis can at least be included in the discussion, even if it turns out to be more symbolic than anything. Combined with changes to our voting system that makes frequently competitive third and fourth parties not essentially mathematically impossible, it should be a lot more difficult for special interests to control the levers of government.
The real problem isn't the Republicans, it's that the moderates essentially have no representation at present. Similarly, the far left has essentially no representation now. (Bernie Sanders, mainly, most of the rest vote against the leftists on almost everything except gun control) I think that excluding large segments of society from representation is one of the biggest causes of the idiocy we are presently drowning in. When we have a functional system, the sticky issues can be debated openly and the will of the people will prevail.
Healthy elections are a prerequisite to a healthy government.
Also, there is no such thing as neutral media. All media, indeed all people, have a set of innate assumptions as a lens through which they view the world. We almost all agree that republicanism is the best way to run a political system. We almost all agree that a market economy is the best economic system. We've even come to accept in the last 30 years the idea that the strictures of the market should govern outside the directly economic sphere. These unspoken assumptions are in and of themselves a bias. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm glad we don't have media seriously questioning the prohibition of murder. However, that doesn't make me or the media any less biased.
So this thread goes something like this.
The left is upset that the Democrat party seems to be moving to the right.
The right is upset that the Republican party seems to be moving to the left.
And moderates have no one to vote for cause both parties are leaving them?
Something isn't adding up.
I have heard conservatives/libertarians saying for years that the Republican party is "leaving them". Only recently have I heard the same sentiment from the left. And not that the left is going too far left, that they are going too far right.
Just my opinion, but I think they are both moving left. The gridlock is just for show, they just do it to get reelected.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 30, 2012, 04:26:53 PM
There are only two political philosophies: liberty and power. Either people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they respect the equal rights of others, or some people should be able to use force to make other people act in ways they wouldn't choose.
Democrats and Republicans participate in different flavors of power, but either way, they act contrary to liberty. Because of that, they will always strive to act contrary to one another, even when those actions are ridiculous, the policies damaging, and the outcomes devastating to the people.
Neither party is interested in the principals this country was founded on. Both are guilty of selling to the highest bidder and buying votes with pillage.
The two party struggle is no more than a team sport that we pay to watch. They should serve beer, hot-dogs, and foam fingers in the gallery of congress.
Well, said G.
Something else I'd like to see in the gallery.......electric chairs.
Quote from: MrsConan on May 01, 2012, 01:39:41 PM
Well, said G.
Something else I'd like to see in the gallery.......electric chairs.
Watch out. Agreeing with me could get you branded as "too simple" to function in this complex and scary world. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on May 01, 2012, 01:46:56 PM
Watch out. Agreeing with me could get you branded as "too simple" to function in this complex and scary world. ;)
Well said G
Quote from: Gaspar on May 01, 2012, 01:46:56 PM
Watch out. Agreeing with me could get you branded as "too simple" to function in this complex and scary world. ;)
You're the one that refuses to acknowledge that your system prevailed in this country for a fair number of years before failing and being replaced with the federalist system.
Quote from: MrsConan on May 01, 2012, 01:39:41 PM
Well, said G.
Something else I'd like to see in the gallery.......electric chairs.
Keep your head down. This forum is a man's world, unfortunately.
Be careful around the Gaspar and try to be sensitive to Conans' desire to play on the computer during the week.... ;)
How long before this gets messy? :D
Here's to our 2016 candidate and hopefully first woman President!
4 more years and the GOP will be drowning in their waste.
Pretty weird thread. Take religion out of the equation: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/01/study-atheists-more-compassionate-than-highly-religious-people/
QuoteStudy: Atheists more driven by compassion than highly religious people
Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than atheists, agnostics and less religious people, according to a new study.
Research from University of California, Berkeley published in the most recent edition of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science found a stronger link between compassion and generosity among non-religious or less religious people.
"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," UC Berkeley social psychologist and study co-author Robb Willer explained. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."
Lead author Laura Saslow recalled she became interested in the topic after an atheist friend said he had only donated money for earthquake relief in Haiti after watching a touching video of a woman being pulled from the rubble.
"I was interested to find that this experience – an atheist being strongly influenced by his emotions to show generosity to strangers – was replicated in three large, systematic studies," she noted.
In one experiment, researchers analyzed a 2004 survey of 1,300 American adults to find that non-believers and the less religious were more likely to participate in random acts of kindness like giving food or money to a homeless person.
"These findings indicate that although compassion is associated with pro-sociality among both less religious and more religious individuals, this relationship is particularly robust for less religious individuals," the study said.
Two other experiments also confirmed that more religious participants seemed to be less generous.
"Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people," Willer concluded.
There's a damn good reason the founding father's insisted on separating the idolatrous from the practicable thinkers.
I really like this thread. No matter what direction you come at the problem, it leads to the same conclusion.
We have corrupted the political system by diverting the law from it's true purpose. Bastiat warned of this over a century ago. He was, of course, talking about France. During his life, and to this day, he was consistently correct. We are too arrogant to learn from the great thinkers of the past. The progressive's natural inclination is to demonize them for their shortcomings or the purity and simplicity of their thought.
As long as the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting to gain access to the legislature as well as fighting within it. -Bastiat
QuoteThe progressive's natural inclination is to demonize them for their shortcomings or the purity and simplicity of their thought.
I think you might be misrepresenting progressives. I would explain why, but I have a final to take translating one of those old dead dude's that I'm supposed to demonize. Wish me luck.
Quote from: jacobi on May 02, 2012, 08:48:57 AM
I think you might be misrepresenting progressives. I would explain why, but I have a final to take translating one of those old dead dude's that I'm supposed to demonize. Wish me luck.
Good luck!
Quote from: jacobi on May 02, 2012, 08:48:57 AM
I think you might be misrepresenting progressives. I would explain why, but I have a final to take translating one of those old dead dude's that I'm supposed to demonize. Wish me luck.
The remark about progressives in the post was mystifying. It doesn't fit either in 19th century France or now. Otherwise descriptive of the natural process of politics. Another French quote I like, Plus ca change, plus ca changere. We keep thinking everything is different now and we don't have to refer to history for guidance. Stupid humans.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 02, 2012, 09:46:59 AM
The remark about progressives in the post was mystifying.
Why? That's how it plays out almost every time.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 02, 2012, 09:53:25 AM
Why? That's how it plays out almost every time.
You're using progressive in lower case as a pseudonym for Liberal. John Locke wasn't a progressive, he was a Liberal. By doing that you lead people to believe that the very founders of Liberal thought, which is progressive in nature, are dismissed by current day Liberals, aka Progressives.
You took a good post and soured it with your disdain for modern day Liberals. Frankly, I could see an argument for modern day T-Party conservatives dismissing the warnings of past intellectuals about the nature and evolution of political systems. They are the ones fighting to control the legislatures and fighting for division of spoils. But that's just my view. :)
At least that's what I got from it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 30, 2012, 09:32:47 PM
There are basic activities that government should/must provide. Yes, the government needs the ability to tax its citizens. Simple so far. Now we get to the more nitty-gritty. Should some get these services free? Who are they? What level of support is "fair". Should the US Government tax George Kaiser to the level that he no longer feels like donating huge chunks of money to local projects? I have no idea what that level may be for him or anyone with his level of wealth. Bank accounts at his level are just foreign numbers to me. Even one the liberals' favorite whipping boy, Bill O'Reilly says he would willingly pay more taxes if some conditions of accountability were met.
And you know what? You are being entirely reasonable. Sadly, your party doesn't subscribe to these tenets, which is what the original article is saying.
m
Speech by members of Congress drops a grade level due to conservatives and new members, according to study
(So it may be them but they're blaming their constituents)
QuoteAre members of Congress dumbing down their discourse?
The Sunlight Foundation determined that Congress is talking at nearly a full grade level below the level at which members spoke seven years ago, according to its study of the Congressional Record—the official record of members' proceedings and speech. The foundation applied the Flesch-Kincaid grade level test to congressional conversations and found that today's Congress speaks "at about a 10.6 grade level, down from 11.5 in 2005," senior fellow Lee Drutman wrote in his analysis. Sunlight also found that the newest as well as the most conservative members of Congress on average speak at the lowest grade level.
The following is a Sunlight Foundation graphic charting the grade levels of members' speeches:
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ykI8DodVR7kZaXmvxCk9Dg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/sunlight.png)
Republican Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina scored lowest with a 7.9 grade level average for his speech. But he told Yahoo News Monday that although he doesn't believe anyone equates "sentence length" and the "polysyllabic nature of words" with intelligence, his ranking is something to be proud of.
"I see it as an affirmation that we're doing something right," Mulvaney said of his fellow bottom-tier representatives. "You've got to speak clearly and concisely," Mulvaney said, if you want people to know what you believe.
He noted that he and some of his fellow bottom-rankers, including Republican Reps. Rob Woodall of Georgia and Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, speak extemporaneously and don't use prepared notes. "This is a group of people who are trying to sound like ordinary people and not like politicians," Mulvaney said.
Ranking one step above Mulvaney was Woodall, then Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Duffy and in fifth place, Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri—all Republicans.
Leading the list as the most advanced speaker is Republican Rep. Dan Lungren of California, who speaks like a college senior. He is followed by Democratic Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard of California, Democratic Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania and Republican Rep. Tom Petri of Wisconsin. (A complete ranking of members can be found here.)
So how to explain both the overall drop in grade level average and the conservative-heavy bottom tier?
Drutman emphasized in an interview with Yahoo News that the exact cause is difficult to determine, but the foundation's report concludes that an influx of new members is dragging down the grade level average for Congress overall. But Drutman said the results are neither good nor bad, in his opinion.
"On one hand, you might be concerned that members are speaking at a lower level," Drutman said. But he added on the other, "You might see it as just members speaking more directly to their constituents and being more accessible and plain-spoken."
Drutman noted that many public speakers, writers and others are educated on how to speak and write in simple terms to reach the widest audience.
Drutman said the shift "reflects some of the ways the institution has changed" and said the study was conducted in the "spirit of fun" and was not intended to "pass judgement."
It should be noted that the Congressional Record can be amended by members, meaning they can insert speeches they never actually issued and modify those they did issue. Drutman said he has no data to base a guess on how that may shape the grade level results overall.
The only thing which surprised me was they were "up" to a Sophomore level.
Quote from: Townsend on May 22, 2012, 09:35:00 AM
Speech by members of Congress drops a grade level due to conservatives and new members, according to study
(So it may be them but they're blaming their constituents)
So in other words, Congress is becoming more representative of the public.
Quote from: erfalf on May 22, 2012, 10:08:34 AM
So in other words, Congress is becoming more representative of the public.
The public I fear, yes.
Quote from: Townsend on May 22, 2012, 09:35:00 AM
Speech by members of Congress drops a grade level due to conservatives and new members, according to study
Oh, let me correct that for you...
(http://8.media.tumblr.com/Bin9w3ABVpmdh2ol3WkDmNWno1_500.jpg)
This guy from Georgia. These guys just need to refuse to talk about this sort of thing.
It never sounds right. No matter what.
I guess after reading Hemingway, I'm not all that impressed with how many big words someone can use. The way they are put together means a lot more...simple, direct, short sentences; less complicated words. Masterful meaning and expression.
Shame none of our representatives can get even close.
Colin Powell Calls Out The GOP's Racism Problem: There Is 'A Dark Vein Of Intolerance'http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/13/1440471/colin-powell-condemns-republican-party-racism-there-is-a-dark-vein-of-intolerance/
The answer man.
I can think of better places to spend $3 million.
DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defensehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/doma-republicans_n_2479666.html?1358266478 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/doma-republicans_n_2479666.html?1358266478)
QuoteWASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders have signed on to spend up to $3 million to keep defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court, according to a copy of their newly revised legal contract obtained by The Huffington Post.
House Republican leaders took over the legal defense of DOMA in the spring of 2011, when Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama administration would no longer defend it on the grounds that they found it unconstitutional. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders hired attorneys at the law firm Bancroft LLC to represent the House in court cases involving the federal ban on gay marriage -- all with taxpayer dollars.
On Jan. 4, Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Administration Committee, signed a revised contract with Bancroft LLC that increases the spending cap to $3 million to allow Bancroft attorneys to keep defending DOMA in various court cases. The revised contract also bears the signatures of Bancroft partner Paul Clement and Kerry Kircher, general counsel for the House of Representatives.
"It is further understood and agreed that, effective January 4, 2013, the aforementioned $2,750,000.00 cap may be raised from time to time up to, but not exceeding, $3,000,000.00, up on written notice of the General Counsel to the Contractor specifying that the General Counsel is legally liable," the contract reads.
A Boehner spokesman referred questions about increased spending on DOMA to the House Administration Committee. A spokeswoman for the committee did not immediately return a request for comment.
The revised contract comes on the heels of House Republican leaders inserting language into the rules package for the 113th Congress that authorizes the House legal team to keep paying outside counsel to defend DOMA. The rules package also states that the House legal team continues to "speak for" all House members in its defense of DOMA -- language that infuriated Democrats opposed to the matter. All but one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.), voted to pass the rules package, effectively endorsing the DOMA language. But a Jones spokesman told The Huffington Post that Jones' opposition wasn't DOMA-related.
I'm confused as to how they can appropriate money without the approval of the Senate?
I'm not a proponent of DOMA, but since when does the AG's office make final determination as to the Constitutionality of an act like this? Isn't that up to SCOTUS?