55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:16 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

The video is from 2003.

Ok, so clearly this is not a "plan" that he campaigned on or proposed in any serious fashion. I can't understand why we should give a video of a speech given 6 years ago more credence than actual written proposals. Certainly the people who want single payer don't believe that the president supports it. So why do those who are opposed to it insist on believing that he does?
Debra Law
 
  4  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:16 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Fox, you don't have the right to claim your so-called MACs are representative of modern conservatism, or in fact representative of anyone but you and ican. To claim authoritarian conservatism is dead and outmoded flies in the face of the last eight years, and the people who were in fact the conservastives who matter, i.e. the ones in power. I commend to your attention the operating principle of W. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and Yoo, the so-called" unitary presidency", which held that a wartime president (and remember they held we are in a war without any determinable end) is responsible to no-one but himself--not the courts, not congress, not the people, the first long step on the road to totalitarianism, and conservatives were the people that took it.


Your post deserves both a thumb's up and an encore presentation.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:18 pm
@Debra Law,
Here's the double encore.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:
Fox, you don't have the right to claim your so-called MACs are representative of modern conservatism, or in fact representative of anyone but you and ican. To claim authoritarian conservatism is dead and outmoded flies in the face of the last eight years, and the people who were in fact the conservatives who matter, i.e. the ones in power. I commend to your attention the operating principle of W. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and Yoo, the so-called" unitary presidency", which held that a wartime president (and remember they held we are in a war without any determinable end) is responsible to no-one but himself--not the courts, not congress, not the people, the first long step on the road to totalitarianism, and conservatives were the people that took it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:18 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

This 'original plan':

That's not a plan, that's a speech. I dare say you'd not mistake it for a plan when talking about his lofty speechifyin' skills. When is that from, btw?


So stating his intent to get to a single payer system is not his plan? Is not his intent? What planet did you say you were from?

For him to specifically tell his union buddies that he intends to get to a single payer plan and then leave the door open in a thrown bone that it isn't his intention for the time being does not give me any assurance that his intent is not a single payer plan. What possibly persuades you differently?

That video appears to have been from 2003, and admittedly nothing Obama has said since has indicated an intent to instigate a single-payer plan, though he does continue to favor that and would have it if starting a healthcare system from scratch. He has said that to institute it now would be disruptive. He has NOT ruled it out as an option for the future.

Quote:
Quote:

Yes, which goes back to the idea that the more people you can make dependent, the more you solidify your total power and re-election chances. Just under 50% of the people voting pay little or no federal taxes at all and don't care how much in taxes everybody else has to pay. A sizable chunk of people voting depend on the government via the taxpayer to provide everything they get. He did not get elected on the radical program he is now pushing however, but rather on describing himself as "Reaganesque" and campaigning mostly right of center.

Your paragraph contradicts itself. In the beginning you seem to be saying that he was elected by people on the federal dole. Then you say that he got elected by campaigning right of center, which presumably would not appeal to said "dependent class". Which is it?


Where did I say that he was elected by people on the federal dole. I said that the more dependent you can make people, the more you can assure their vote. That is something quite different than saying that he was elected by people on the federal dole. Dependency takes many different forms.

But yes, he did appeal to the non-dependent class too by promising personal accountability, fiscal integrity, sensible economic policy, debt reduction--all issues that conservatives hold dear. It all sounded so good in the campaign rhetoric that many were willing to shrug off the corresponding images of Utopia on Earth if they would just elect him their messiah to lead them to a new promised land.

Quote:
Quote:
32% Favor Single-Payer Health Care, 57% Oppose
Monday, August 10, 2009

Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.


We can have dueling polls:
Quote:
"Do you favor or oppose, "Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all?"
Favor 58%, Oppose 38%, NA/DK 3%"
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7943.pdf

... but it's kind of irrelevant because, once again, a single payer system is not on the table, even though I personally would like it to be.


Sure. Lots of competing polls out there. But I would bet a very good steak dinner at our most expensive local steak house that Rasmussen is the one closest to what most people do believe and want on this issue after they have been better informed re what Obama and the Democrats in Congress want to 'do for them'.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:20 pm
@Foxfyre,
"Clunker" math does sound about right for that email. It's the math that is the clunker in that email Foxfyre.

It assumes the cars will only be there for one year. What car only stays on the road for 1 year? The life of a car today is over 10 years.


If we assume just 10 years of service for the cars and oil stays at $75 a barrel for those 10 years we get $3.5 billion in savings.

If oil is at $75 for half those years goes back to $100 for the other half of those years we get $4.25 billion in savings.

Who thinks oil is going to stay at $75 a barrel for the next 10 years? Who thinks oil will stay at or below $100 a barrel for the next 10 years?

I am willing to bet that over the next 10 years the price of oil will exceed inflation and will be back over $150 in 2019. But then the "clunker" math that the author of this email uses works out about the same way on health care, doesn't it? If we only ignore the facts we can make the math scare stupid people.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:23 pm
@parados,
so as not to make poor foxie look completely bewildered, I am leaving her car mis-information be right now...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:27 pm
@parados,
parados, You're probably 100% right; the demand for oil in China and India will far exceed today's demand for oil. I doubt even with the development of alternative fuels, we'll be able to reduce the consumption of oil for several decades. And as you opined, inflation is also in our future with all the deficit being built up by our country. That's the reason why I'm on a program to sell off my YTD gains in my investment funds to transfer most of it into bonds before year end. These stock market gains cannot be sustained as thousands of people continue to lose their jobs daily.

Any future recovery will be slow and tedious.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:29 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

so as not to make poor foxie look completely bewildered, I am leaving her car mis-information be right now...


I don't have any car misinformation. I just enjoy sharing some of the more interesting or fun emails I recieve now and then. But, using the math of whoever wrote that, it looks to me that it will take about nine or ten years, at current oil prices, to equal our $3 billion investment and, if oil prices decrease, a whole lot longer. How many people keep their cars even nine or ten years?

More importantly, where are the jobs that $3 billion created? Most stats I've seen indicate that most of those folks buying those cars would have bought them anyway without the rebate. What long term economic stimulus do we have to show for it? What were the bureaucratic costs of the program and the environmental impact of having to replace all those cars that the program required to be destroyed?

The government is never the most economical or efficient or effective way to get anything done that is best left to the private sector to do.

Have you come up with the topic for the A2K poll you want me to run?
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
how many folks think you are disingenuous in your arguments.

let's do it first, can we?
FreeDuck
 
  5  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:32 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

So stating his intent to get to a single payer system is not his plan? Is not his intent? What planet did you say you were from?

A speech is not a plan, no. Isn't that a point that you made again and again throughout the campaign?

Quote:
For him to specifically tell his union buddies that he intends to get to a single payer plan and then leave the door open in a thrown bone that it isn't his intention for the time being does not give me any assurance that his intent is not a single payer plan. What possibly persuades you differently?

Oh, I don't know, how about the actual plans that have been proposed. Your video is great evidence of him backing away from a principled position because of lobbying or political influences -- I'm sure you'll want to keep it in your bag of tricks for another occasion. But it isn't evidence of a secret plan to force a single payer health care system on people.

Quote:
He has NOT ruled it out as an option for the future.

So what? He's president not emperor. By the time single payer is possible he'll be long gone and we can have this debate all over again.

Quote:

Where did I say that he was elected by people on the federal dole. I said that the more dependent you can make people, the more you can assure their vote. That is something quite different than saying that he was elected by people on the federal dole. Dependency takes many different forms.

Ok, let's go with that then. Your paragraph still contradicts itself. Unless you are saying that people who voted for a right of center "Reaganesque" candidate are part of this so called dependent class. Or maybe the whole dependency argument is a non sequitor.

Quote:

Sure. Lots of competing polls out there. But I would bet a very good steak dinner at our most expensive local steak house that Rasmussen is the one closest to what most people do believe and want on this issue after they have been better informed re what Obama and the Democrats in Congress want to 'do for them'.

I'd feel kind of bad about cutting into your social security check, but ok. Note, though, that Rasmussen's question is very general and asks about a generic "single payer system" while the kaiser survey is very specific. For people in most of these polls, I think the devil is always in the details.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:35 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

how many folks think you are disingenuous in your arguments?

let's do it first, can we?


Oh hell. We don't need a poll for that. Every single numbnut and extreme leftist on A2K will agree with you that I am disingenuous. Even a conservative here or there will probably agree. They think saying that makes them look really intelligent and astute even as they cannot articulate a single reasoned argument for how I am disingenuous. You see numbnuts and extreme Leftists don't know what they think that they haven't been told to think by somebody who uses their gullibility to the greatest possible advantage and a few conservatives lack the ability to understand their own point of view too. All they have to talk about are other people. That's the occupational hazard of being a numbnut or extreme leftist I guess.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
put it to a vote.

I'm thinking you are preaching to an empty room.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:39 pm
@Foxfyre,
I just double checked the facts in that silly email Fox and found a glaring error that changes it completely.

A barrrel of oil produces 19.5 gallons of gasoline.
http://www.gravmag.com/oilbarrel.shtml
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/gasoline_faqs.asp

That means that 224 million gallons of gasoline isn't 5 million barrels at all. It is 11.5 million barrels.

That means at $75 a barrel, the US saves $862.5 million per year not the $350 million this "clunker" of an email claims.

In 10 years if oil remains at $75 a barrel the US will save $8.625 billion on it's $3 billion investment.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:39 pm
@Rockhead,
Naw you go ahead and do that. You're a compassionate, clear thinking, reasonable, tolerant liberal, yes? The numbnuts will be tickled to death to gleefully pile on to support and affirm you and throw in a few insults of their own. That's what they do. I will admit that the numbnuts and extreme Lefists do outnumber the conservatives by about 5 to 1 on A2K though so you will have lots of company.

(And no, I do NOT throw all liberals and centrists into the same pot with the numbnuts and extreme leftists.)
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:41 pm
@Foxfyre,
you call me liberal.

again with the labels.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:41 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Rockhead wrote:

how many folks think you are disingenuous in your arguments?

let's do it first, can we?


Oh hell. We don't need a poll for that. Every single numbnut and extreme leftist on A2K will agree with you that I am disingenuous. Even a conservative here or there will probably agree. They think saying that makes them look really intelligent and astute even as they cannot articulate a single reasoned argument for how I am disingenuous. You see numbnuts and extreme Leftists don't know what they think that they haven't been told to think by somebody who uses their gullibility to the greatest possible advantage and a few conservatives lack the ability to understand their own point of view too. All they have to talk about are other people. That's the occupational hazard of being a numbnut or extreme leftist I guess.


I can forward, and have forwarded, many reasoned arguments regarding your disingenuous behavior and specific ways in which you engage in poor logic and debate tactics. But, perhaps you don't understand those arguments, because you're such a ******* idiot.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:42 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
You see numbnuts and extreme Leftists don't know what they think that they haven't been told to think by somebody who uses their gullibility to the greatest possible advantage

That's funny from you Fox as you posted the email that you were gullible enough to believe without checking any of the facts in it.

Are you sure you aren't a "numbnuts" yourself or an extreme leftist?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:42 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

you call me liberal.

again with the labels.




haha, I once accused you of being a 'Neocon conservative,' sorry about that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:42 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

you call me liberal.

again with the labels.


How would you describe your ideology? Prove me wrong by describing a different ideology for yourself than a liberal one. You most likely aren't a MAC since you seem to have a great disdain for everything most MACs appreciate.

One of my definitions for a numbnut and an extreme liberal is somebody who cannot articulate what they actually think, accept, or believe about any concept. They can only trash those with which they disagree without being able to defend why they disagree.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:43 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
You see numbnuts and extreme Leftists don't know what they think that they haven't been told to think by somebody who uses their gullibility to the greatest possible advantage

That's funny from you Fox as you posted the email that you were gullible enough to believe without checking any of the facts in it.

Are you sure you aren't a "numbnuts" yourself or an extreme leftist?


Parados, she didn't believe it, she just thought it was funny and worth sharing. This is one of the ways Fox acts disingenuously: she forwards arguments and ideas, and then tries to hold them at arm's length when they are shown to be dumb.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 02/12/2025 at 09:52:53