Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 02-05-2015, 08:57 PM   #61
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Look at Scott walker, Marco Rubio, or bobby jindal. All more serious then most on your list. No such thing as a perfect candidate...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So, Jim, if the Republicans maintain control of Congress and win the Presidency in 2015, but don't get rid of the ACA, don't actually control immigration (especially since the rest of the world seems to able to do so), don't seriously begin to downsize the federal government and devolve power back to the states, don't begin to harness in and dismantle the regulatory bureaucracy, don't restore a "pro-growth" government interface with business, don't make serious changes to the federal tax code toward a flat or "fair" tax . . . for starters . . . what then?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 10:08 PM   #62
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
So, Jim, if the Republicans maintain control of Congress and win the Presidency in 2015, but don't get rid of the ACA, don't actually control immigration (especially since the rest of the world seems to able to do so), don't seriously begin to downsize the federal government and devolve power back to the states, don't begin to harness in and dismantle the regulatory bureaucracy, don't restore a "pro-growth" government interface with business, don't make serious changes to the federal tax code toward a flat or "fair" tax . . . for starters . . . what then?
Detbuch, it's a pretty big leap, I think, to assume that a GOP president would be so wishy washy that they wouldn't even be pro business. I'll grant you that if we elect a republican like you describe, it's not much of a victory...though even a republican that pathetic would be a huge improvement over Hilary. But I don't think any republican running would be as bad as what you describe. But the fact is, the country isn't ready to elect a hard line tea party/libertarian like I assume you and I might both like, but it's not going to happen. I want to nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable. Let me ask you...if the choice is we nominate a moderate who will win, or nominate a hard liner who will lose to Hilary, is one of those two scenarios closer to your ideal than the other, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 12:23 AM   #63
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Detbuch, it's a pretty big leap, I think, to assume that a GOP president would be so wishy washy that they wouldn't even be pro business. I'll grant you that if we elect a republican like you describe, it's not much of a victory...though even a republican that pathetic would be a huge improvement over Hilary. But I don't think any republican running would be as bad as what you describe. But the fact is, the country isn't ready to elect a hard line tea party/libertarian like I assume you and I might both like, but it's not going to happen. I want to nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable. Let me ask you...if the choice is we nominate a moderate who will win, or nominate a hard liner who will lose to Hilary, is one of those two scenarios closer to your ideal than the other, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Up until a couple of years or so ago, I was of the same mind as you. First win, then govern well. But, in retrospect, it appears to me that the Bush's and their "ilk" (a term you like to use) in Congress messed that little formula up. They won, but, being "moderate," they governed that way instead of governing what I would think of as "well." They wasted the "trajectory" (to use a Spencist perspective for "balance") that Reagan started.

Looking back, Reagan didn't run as a moderate. Because of Goldwater's shellacking by Johnson before that, the Repubs were afraid to appear too "hard line conservative" when Reagan tried for the nomination the first time. So they went more moderate and he lost to Ford. Of course Ford lost to Carter. But, if I remember correctly, Carter actually seemed to be, in some ways, more "conservative" than Ford, especially so as he ran as a "born again" Christian.

Of course, Carter was so inept that Reagan beat him and then later easily won a second term. But he had won the Republican nomination AGAINST the desire of the establishment Republicans, again, because they feared he was too "conservative."

Reagan chose Bush Senior for VP for political rather than ideological reasons. And, after being elected POTUS on Reagan's coattails, Bush Sr. slid back into the more pleasant "moderate" mode. Duh! So when he ran again, the choice would be Democrat heavy vs. Democrat lite. Actually, most Americans would rather go for the gusto, so Bush Senior bit the dust and was a one-termer. His son was touted as a "conservative," when he ran for Pres., even by such as Rush Limbaugh. But he basically turned out to govern as a Progressive-lite and even more "moderate" than his father. But he was a likeable cuss, "heh heh," and won a second term. So, guess what . . . the Repubs kept sliding into moderacy and came up, after Bush, with everybody's, especially the media's, favorite moderate Republican, John McCain. Ohhh . . . he was so nice and moderate in his tone and message running against Obama, he almost seemed not to mind at all that he got whupped by his also very "moderate" sounding opponent.

Of course, Obama has lost the "moderate" flavor and is coming across as immoderate to the left of any Pres. since Wilson and FDR. And Hillary seems to be only a little right, if at all, to Obama's leftism. So, maybe an actually "moderate" Republican could beat her.

But, as in the past, moderate Republicans govern moderately, not conservatively. And the trajectory would continue, therefor, in that direction. Just at a bit slower pace.

But as we approach the finish line of this moderate trajectory, the pace becomes less relevant. Though it may have taken longer, when it is over, the length of time won't matter. And certainly, Obama has been in a freakish overdrive to get to the finish line in the fundamental transformation of America, and has sped up the process at a dizzying pace.

And I no longer buy notions such as "moderate" or "hard liner." Certainly don't agree that true "conservatism" is extremist. I still like Goldwater's "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" It took merely the progressive way--propagandistic "interpretation" and phony twisting of those words --to discredit Goldwater.

But there comes a point where you either take the path to Reagan's "rendezvous with destiny," or you just give it up. I am very pessimistic that yet another "moderate" will lead us to that rendezvous. Rather, it will just weaken any will to strive for it. It will just be a temporary hiatus or slow down in the inevitable opposite direction.

I don't buy that a "hard line" will lose. I don't believe the line is "hard." That is a characterization, a fiction, a "narrative" spouted by the elites, the progressive minded "moderates" who rule the party. Truth, justice, freedom, are not moderate. And if the real truth is that the people prefer warm fuzzy moderate lies and utopian propaganda, and dependence rather than responsibility, then the race is over. Voting will then have become irrelevant.

I think the reason Scott Walker is such a buzz, not with the establishment Repubs, but with the rank and file, is that he fiercely stood up against everything the Dems and their union cohorts threw at him in Wisconsin. He didn't try to moderate. He stood his ground, stood firm in what he believed was the right thing to do for his state. He is a fighter. He would not negotiate away the principles by which he governed. And he won. Again and again. I don't think that is being "hard." It is being principled. And I don't care about his views on abortion, or religion, or family values. I don't want him to share those with me, nor to try to bend the rest of us to his will on those matters, as President.

I think that his appearing to stand against progressivism, as a political mode, in governing as President, and being limited constitutionally rather than ruling as an autocratic Progressive, makes him not only attractive to people like me, but would be so to a majority of voters. I think Ted Cruz, maybe even more so, speaks as though he would govern that way and stand firm against the expansion of federal executive power. But he may have been successfully demonized.

Last edited by detbuch; 02-06-2015 at 12:35 AM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 06:40 AM   #64
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Detbuch, that's a heck of a response, difficult to argue with. All I can say is that while I agree Jen bush is not ideal, the country would be significantly better off with him than Hilary. I have a friend who is a libertarian in Virginia. In their senate race last November, the libertarian candidate handed the election to a big government, socialist liberal candidate. My friend made your argument as to why she didn't vote for the moderate republican. I fail to see how that helped her cause. I believe that when social security and Medicare start bouncing checks in 20 years, even msnbc will be forced to concede that Paul Ryan was 100. Percent correct. That could be the death of liberalism for 100 years, because the required fix will force everyone to take notice and think about we got there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 08:59 AM   #65
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,431
One of the biggest problems that i have seen for a long time and especially as of late is that the GOP is controlled by the 0.01% of this country- the billionaire class. take the Koch brothers for example and the XL pipeline mess.. GOP is hell bent on getting this thing passed because of all of the campaign contributions that they have taken. ( Koch brothers have huge leases on the tar sands production in Canada)

So you have the GOP being mostly funded by the ultra wealthy and then you have the fact that the GOP's main base of voters is the religious conservative right who want to limit women's rights limit personal freedoms, and basically impose a lot of laws on people that they feel that everyone should follow because it is what their religion tells them what is right. ( Im thinking abortions, marijuana laws, gay rights, etc)..

When you think about the definition of life and liberty, justice for all, pursuit of happiness, separation of church and state, i can't justify ever supporting a political party that panders to a religious group, namely conservative christians.

When the GOP comes up with a platform that is solely focused on the greater good of this entire country both financially and socially, maybe i would be swayed away from supporting a democrat.. but as it stands now, my money is on Bernie Sanders.
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 09:43 AM   #66
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Detbuch, that's a heck of a response, difficult to argue with. All I can say is that while I agree Jen bush is not ideal, the country would be significantly better off with him than Hilary. I have a friend who is a libertarian in Virginia. In their senate race last November, the libertarian candidate handed the election to a big government, socialist liberal candidate. My friend made your argument as to why she didn't vote for the moderate republican. I fail to see how that helped her cause. I believe that when social security and Medicare start bouncing checks in 20 years, even msnbc will be forced to concede that Paul Ryan was 100. Percent correct. That could be the death of liberalism for 100 years, because the required fix will force everyone to take notice and think about we got there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm not saying don't vote for Bush if he wins the nomination. I'm saying that we shouldn't fall prey to fear in selecting a nominee. Doing so just leads to the continuous bleeding of founding principles till eventually the blood of the Constitution is totally drained. Constantly choosing "moderates" is always a partial victory for the opposition as well as a partial loss for constitutional governance. And since the Progressives don't bend, but stick to their principle of government control, they constantly go even further toward their goal rather than moderating or "coming toward the middle." They don't accept partial victory for their opponents, and certainly don't accept partial defeats for themselves. That's why and how they succeed. If they were to concede some flaw in their ideology, coupled with the prevailing failure to deliver their utopian dream, the emperor's clothes would be seen as the naked truth--an imperious system that strips freedom and prosperity from individuals and delivers those to an all-consuming State. So the Progressives cannot admit a chink in their armor. They cannot bend, or "moderate." Rather, they must always convince you that, though things may seem to be getting worse, it is only because they haven't been given the absolute power to make things better. That they constantly have to fight against the "conservative" boogieman whose mission is to enslave you for the benefit of the filthy rich.

And if you constantly bend, or "moderate" in their direction, you will eventually get there yourself. So, go for the gusto in the primaries. Don't be afraid of losing. If you are, you will surely lose. If not all at once, then little by little.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 10:43 AM   #67
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
One of the biggest problems that i have seen for a long time and especially as of late is that the GOP is controlled by the 0.01% of this country- the billionaire class. take the Koch brothers for example and the XL pipeline mess.. GOP is hell bent on getting this thing passed because of all of the campaign contributions that they have taken. ( Koch brothers have huge leases on the tar sands production in Canada)

So you have the GOP being mostly funded by the ultra wealthy and then you have the fact that the GOP's main base of voters is the religious conservative right who want to limit women's rights limit personal freedoms, and basically impose a lot of laws on people that they feel that everyone should follow because it is what their religion tells them what is right. ( Im thinking abortions, marijuana laws, gay rights, etc)..

When you think about the definition of life and liberty, justice for all, pursuit of happiness, separation of church and state, i can't justify ever supporting a political party that panders to a religious group, namely conservative christians.

When the GOP comes up with a platform that is solely focused on the greater good of this entire country both financially and socially, maybe i would be swayed away from supporting a democrat.. but as it stands now, my money is on Bernie Sanders.
You might want to check your facts, or consider from where you get your facts.

(1)Most in the GOP don't want a federal law outlawing abortion. Most conservatives, like me, say that since the word abortion isn't anywhere in the list of things the constitutoin gives the feds to regulate, it should be an issue decided by the states. And if enough people in a state want to outlaw abortion (regardless of the reason, whether they are motivated by religion or not) it can be outlawed. That's called "democracy".

(2) "you have the GOP being mostly funded by the ultra wealthy "

A liberal myth. Does George Soros not give big $$ to Democrats? To labor unions not give big $$ to Democrats? So I guess when liberals donate money to democrats, that's just being an engaged citizen. But when conservatives give money to Republicans, that's somehow undermining the integrity o fthe political process? Sorry, I fail to see how Republicans are more beholden to their special interest groups than Democrats are.

(3) "want to limit women's rights "

A huge number of women in thi scountry, tens of millions, are opposed to abortion. That tells me that it's not a fundamental woman's right. Again, you are phrasing the issue in a demonstrably false way, in order to demonize those who disagre with you.

(4) c"separation of church and state, i can't justify ever supporting a political party that panders to a religious group,"

Again...you are OK with the fact the Democrats are influenced by their own special interest groups (labor unions, Hollywood, trial lawyers, etc). Thos egroups donate to like-minded politicians to promote their individual interests. That's no different than what happens when religious-based conservative groups do th esame exact thing. We are all gfree to support politicians we like - it does not matter what the basis is for why we like those politicians. Beliefs that are derived from religion are no less legitimate than beliefs that are derived from one's parents, school, or civic organiztions. That's not in any way a violation of church and state, that's another liberal lie. "Separation of church and state" means that the feds cannot prohibit anyone from practicing whatever religion they see fit. It does not mean that one cannot make political decisions based on morals that derive from one's religious beliefs.


(5) "When the GOP comes up with a platform that is solely focused on the greater good of this entire country both financially and socially"

Despite what you hear on MSNBC, here is the GOP platform, as it exists today at the national level...

  • Sanctity of all life, including the unborn
  • Small federal government, in accordance with the constitution
  • Promotion of individual liberty
  • Promotion of the concept of individual's being responsible for their own actions
  • Letting our free market do its thing, subject to a reasonable level of regulation (the free market provides more econoic upward mobility than any system derived on this planet)
  • Very strong national defense, including secure borders
  • Fiscal responsibility (not spending ourselves into oblivion on useless pork projects)
  • En
couraging charity towards our neighbors

I would genuinely like to know...do you dent that's an accurate list of GOP ideals, or do you deny that list helps benefit all of us?

The Democratic agenda?

Spending ourselves into bankruptcy
Insane benefits to unionized employees
telling people "if it feels good do it", which has caused a spike in abortions, adultery, divorce, babies born out of wedlock
welfare as a solution to everything, which cripples the desire to excel for many Americans
Creating groups of victims, and telling those people that nothing they do is ever their fault
Worsening the racial tensions among us
imposing tax rates that cripple those in the middle class, and make it very difficult for small businesses to grow
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 10:45 AM   #68
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
I'm not saying don't vote for Bush if he wins the nomination. I'm saying that we shouldn't fall prey to fear in selecting a nominee.
Agreed. But the time to do that is in the primaries, and once a nominee emerges, we all need to support him, even if it means plugging you rnose a bit as you do so.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 11:14 AM   #69
Fly Rod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Fly Rod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucester Massachusetts
Posts: 2,678
So NEBE...U R saying the Gop is controlled by the billionaire class....U mention the Koch Brothers...your buddy Harry Reid brings up the brothers.

U must wear blinders Reid and the democratic party have more Billionaire donors then the Repubs....Dems cast the repubs as the party of big money, but yet the dems rely more on the rich....just to name a few....Tom Steyers...George Soros and Mike Bloomberg....so the dems R controlled by the left billionaires....take the blinders off....

"When its not about money,it's all about money."...
Fly Rod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 09:04 PM   #70
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Agreed. But the time to do that is in the primaries, and once a nominee emerges, we all need to support him, even if it means plugging you rnose a bit as you do so.
I explicitly referred to the primaries as the time to do that, to not act out of fear. I said: "So, go for the gusto in the primaries. Don't be afraid of losing. If you are, you will surely lose. If not all at once, then little by little."

There is this belief by some football wonks that teams who have a lead, especially a small one, in the fourth quarter, and play from then on not to lose, rather than playing to win, will usually lose in the end. Those who habitually try to win close contests with defensive offense can comfortably be exploited. Their predictable timidity and strategy of safe plays for fear of making some fatal mistake, renders them vulnerable not only to be countered by a bolder and more imaginative strategies which can exploit predictability, but also vulnerable to fear itself. Fear can constrict mental and physical ability as well as erode confidence.

If you play the "game" of politics with timid, predictable "centrist" rhetoric, retreaded "safe" messages geared to impress a complacent, comfortable "middle," and your opponent historically has already and mythically owned that ground, and can demagogically cast you as the hypocrite trying to be what you are not . . . that you are not for the "middle," they are . . . and if your opponent has long ago, and continuously since, sowed the seeds of class warfare . . . then you are fighting on ground that they own. If that is all so, then you will likely lose. And if you win, having fought on their ground, then you must govern by the rules laid out for that ground. And you will govern, and be, like them.

So, if you are truly not them, you will have lost by "winning." You will have lost the soul of who you are . . . if you have a soul.

If you claim to be a "conservative," and if such a thing still exists, then you should be able to describe that thing--in a political, not a personal sense. Is it strictly economics? The "economy" is a great and important thing. Is political conservatism balanced budgets? Can "liberals" never balance a budget, and would they then become "conservative" if they did?

Please tell me Jim, what a political conservative is at the federal level. And then tell me how such a politician should campaign for election. Should he/she be true to that conservatism, or should she/he dissemble, play to the so-called "middle"? Should the conservative be afraid to ask for votes because of his true conviction on what is good and proper government?

Then, if such a conservative is running in the primaries against moderates, should we not passionately and openly encourage and bolster his campaign? Fearlessly approve and support it rather than discourage it, suppress it, silence it , for fear that it might be demonized by liberal press and politicians? That it might not appeal to the "center"?

I understand the fear of losing by being "hard core conservative." But history doesn't support that being "moderate" is the best strategy. Republicans have been losing the presidency of late as moderates. And winning at State levels as more open conservatives. And Democrats, contrary to accepted wisdom, have been winning, not as moderates, but by constantly shifting to the left. This might, especially, be the time when Republicans discard the "moderate" mantle.

Last edited by detbuch; 02-06-2015 at 09:14 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 03:40 PM   #71
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
One of the biggest problems that i have seen for a long time and especially as of late is that the GOP is controlled by the 0.01% of this country- the billionaire class. take the Koch brothers for example and the XL pipeline mess.. GOP is hell bent on getting this thing passed because of all of the campaign contributions that they have taken. ( Koch brothers have huge leases on the tar sands production in Canada)

If the aim of Koch brothers contributions was to control government in order to impose their will on the rest of us, they should have chosen the Democrat party as recipients of their money. The Dems have a better record of controlling the people and dictating what they can and cannot do.

Insofar as the Koch's donations go, they have donated to a large number of various organizations many, or most, of which are not political, including groups geared to bettering the welfare of minorities or the underprivileged, funding medical research, and supporting the arts. They've been listed among the top 50 philanthropists

They are generally social liberals.---for women's right to choose, gay rights, same sex marriage, stem cell research; oppose war on drugs, and against the Iraq war. They push for the repeal of victimless crimes including marijuana convictions and restrictions on gay relationships.

Politically they lean Libertarian. One even ran as VP for the Libertarian Party in 1980. They support minimizing the role of government and Maximizing the role of the private economy and personal freedoms. They are basically free market libertarians. And they oppose corporate welfare.

So, if they oppose crony capitalism, why should they want the government to approve the XL pipeline? I would suspect that in a free market, the federal government would not interfere in the first place unless the pipeline creates some clear danger to the US. And, apparently it doesn't: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...nmental-impact. As for the filthy amount of money the Koch's stand to gain from the pipeline, if that were true, then somebody, if not the Koch's, would gain the money. Why so adamantly opposed to the Koch's getting it? Why paint them as some economic vampire? Besides, it might not even be true: http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/wp-conte...Ltr_041014.pdf


So you have the GOP being mostly funded by the ultra wealthy and then you have the fact that the GOP's main base of voters is the religious conservative right who want to limit women's rights limit personal freedoms, and basically impose a lot of laws on people that they feel that everyone should follow because it is what their religion tells them what is right. ( Im thinking abortions, marijuana laws, gay rights, etc)..

What women's rights do conservative's want to limit? Abortion? If the Constitution were followed, only the people could do that, state by state. In the abortion question, it is a progressive Federal government, against the Constitution, that is limiting the peoples' right to choose, not conservatives. Women are the majority. They would be very well represented in state elections. And the great number of men, like yourself, could support whatever position they took.

What personal freedoms do conservatives want to limit? Under the Constitution, unalienable rights cannot be denied. It is the progressive federal government that contradicts the Constitution and limits our rights, not conservatives.

The Progressive/Democrat party is far, far, more guilty of imposing "a lot of laws on people that they feel that everyone should follow" as you put it. It is the Progressive/Democrat party that has emptied the Constitution of the vast residuum of rights which are not specifically enumerated as Federal government power, and therefor reserved to the people. It is the Progressive Democrat party which, after eviscerating the vast rights of the people, then created out of whole cloth special rights for special people, discriminating against the rest--like "gay rights." Your thinking is constricted to thinking and seeing only in terms of the progressive view that we are not inherently free, but only have freedom that government gives us. So you do not see how government imposition of law that sounds reasonable to you denies others what was once their right to think and act differently. And, because you understand that freedom can only be granted by government, you fear that the wrong people, "conservatives," in power will trample all over what you consider your rights. THAT CAN ONLY HAPPEN, IF IT CAN, BECAUSE PROGRESSIVES HAVE DESTROYED THAT WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND YOUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. You, unconsciously if not overtly, subscribe to the progressive notion of all-powerful government, and therefor you, consciously or unconsciously, do not insist on constitutional government.


When you think about the definition of life and liberty, justice for all, pursuit of happiness, separation of church and state, i can't justify ever supporting a political party that panders to a religious group, namely conservative christians.

Well, there it is. It is Christians who must be feared. There must be a wall of separation between church and state, but not such a wall between government and your freedom. No, you insist that government not only protect your special rights, but it must tell you what they are.

So, government must not pander to a religious group, but it can pander to everyone else? How about pandering to no one. Do Christians not have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's strange, considering they had such a great influence on propagating those rights. How about, since government can grant special rights to special groups, shouldn't government grant some special rights to Christians? Of course not. Nor special rights to other groups.


When the GOP comes up with a platform that is solely focused on the greater good of this entire country both financially and socially, maybe i would be swayed away from supporting a democrat.. but as it stands now, my money is on Bernie Sanders.
Isn't Bernie Sanders a socialist? I guess that would be compatible with the view of government that you seem to espouse. Government control of societal norms. And of everything else.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 09:52 AM   #72
Tagger
Hydro Orientated Lures
iTrader: (0)
 
Tagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brockton,Ma
Posts: 8,473
Does anybody here believe ugly, poor Honest Abe could make it today ? Most cases the big money will control everything and everyone .

Belcher Goonfoock (retired)
(dob 4-21-07)
Tagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 02:03 PM   #73
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagger View Post
Does anybody here believe ugly, poor Honest Abe could make it today ? Most cases the big money will control everything and everyone .
Tagger, you touch upon an age-old problem--the multitude being subservient to a ruling class. Money and power have always slept together and bred into the historical record offsprings evolving in different forms of ruling politics, but always with the essential chain of DNA--power=wealth/wealth=power/power=wealth/etc., etc.

Every now and then, there is a mutation in the code, a revolution; a religious movement; or a philosophical or political "enlightenment." For a time, usually relatively short, a society forms from a break in the chain and flourishes, or seems to, as an egalitarian one. There is prosperity among the people, or seems to be. But the ruling class remains, either wealthier at the start, or getting there in time.

So what is the difference that enables the new societies to provide the masses with a "fairer" portion of the wealth? In a word, virtue. Optimistic belief fosters faith and adherence. So long as the people and the rulers continue to "believe" and virtuously abide by their principles, all is well.

What destroys the more equitable balance? In a word, corruption.

Either the "people" are so eager to finally be able to assert power that they create a chaotic despotism which is so brutal that the ruling class must quell it quickly and revert back to an old tyranny, as in the French Revolution, or over time, as in the Russian Revolution.

Or, the ruling class becomes filled with cynics, or despotic ideologues, who once again seize the opportunity to transform power into wealth. Quickly, or, as in our American case, over time.

Our American system has lasted longer than other nation states as an egalitarian, or relatively so, society. "Ugly, poor, honest Abe" was electable because "Four score and seven years" into the American experiment there was still a large remnant of the original ruling and societal virtue inherent in the political process. There was still a strong belief in founding principles mostly unsullied by noticeable degradation in a cherished constitution. The people were still, in the main, politically innocent and optimistic about being free to build their own lives. The societal virtue based on inherent personal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and a still prevailing ruling class virtue of not usurping the constitutional bounds which prevented stepping on those inherent rights, combined with an exceptional American spirit not only of freedom, but a spirit that was moved by high principles and lofty, beautiful rhetoric speaking those principles, a spirit that valued those principles and one who represented them over some good-looking slickster who promised them the moon if they would overlook some little sacrifice of freedom was the spirit that made Honest Abe electable then.

And if he were not electable today, you're right. The old, seemingly inevitable DNA chain of intertwined wealth and power has resurfaced from its latent rest. Our system, from politics to personal life has been corrupted. Virtue is definitely not rampant among the ruling class. The politicians have all but destroyed our constitutional foundation and abandoned the protection of the principals which created it. And the American spirit has been corrupted in half or more of the people. You're right, good looks and slick words, promises of transferring wealth to the people rather than letting them making their own--basically just pretty lies seem to be the ticket to victory. And wealth can pay for that, as well as winning can lead to the enrichment of the political class.

The politicians debunk the old notions of virtue in our founding principles by saying that the founders were hypocrites. They were wealthy slave owners. How could they believe in their high-minded notions of inherent equality and liberty?

Thus, they unwittingly debunk their own notion of democracy. The original creators of democracy, (Golden age of Greece?) were also slave owners, were a small ruling class of wealthy elites who truly lived off the backs of the masses under them, masses who had no right, inherent or otherwise, to make a life on their own. So if this notion of some slave owners, even in cooperation with those who did not own slaves, could not possibly philosophically consider that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights, how could it have been possible for even more oppressive tyrants to create the notion of democracy?

It was so for our founders because humans can rise above their own failing. There is this beauty in our nature that enables even the most depraved among us to recognize something better than themselves. And in the less depraved, that they can recognize that there are fundamental, inalienable rights which each must respect and protect for the rest or lose their own. The trick is to reach for it.

Of course, they can also conspire with others to deprive the rest in order to enrich their own. That is half of the problem in our country, or may be a result of the other half. That being the ideological belief in top-down all-powerful government rather than bottom up consent of the governed. Together it all becomes the corruption of our ruling class. And it leads to the destruction of the legal foundation which was created to prevent that, and which depended on the virtue of the people, including and especially the ruling class. It has opened the gate, created the breech, through which and by which our present corrupted, lie infested, ruling class control us.

And the beauty of it, for the ruling class, is that the basic moral corruption of society makes it easy to dupe it and manipulate it with incessant and attractive little (or big) lies such as the Gruber obfuscation about the ACA, or Obama pretending to be against gay marriage in order to get elected, or Bush manipulations for war and Patriot act, by Clinton lies, and Nixon lies, and LBJ great society lies, and the massive FDR lies not only to get into war but to shred the Constitution, and the hypocrite elitist Woodrow Wilson machinations, and on and on.

So, anyone aspiring to political office as one who wants to revert to founding principles has been demonized as an "extremist." Obviously, that demonization is necessary because founding principles combined with the virtue to adhere to and protect them, would send this ruling class packing.

Last edited by detbuch; 02-11-2015 at 02:32 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 12:22 PM   #74
Duke41
got gas?
iTrader: (0)
 
Duke41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,671
What a bunch of blowhards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Duke41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 07:19 PM   #75
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke41 View Post
What a bunch of blowhards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You're welcome.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 04:13 PM   #76
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Jim, I'm not going to post my thoughts on voting republican. I thought about it all night and am going to stay silent. I know it will piss off a lot of people and there's no point.

My prediction- Bernie Sanders will be our next president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com